From wjdrake  Mon Nov  3 11:05:50 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:05:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Announcing the Appointment of New NCUC Representatives to
	the NCSG PC
In-Reply-To: <34A26823-EE0F-4DA2-8AC2-F2FCD6E284C1@gmail.com>
References: <34A26823-EE0F-4DA2-8AC2-F2FCD6E284C1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>

Hello

I am delighted to say that NCUC can now announce the appointment of two top-notch representatives to the NCSG Policy Committee, effective immediately.  Joy Liddicoat leads the human rights work of member org the Association for Progressive Communications http://www.apc.org/en/user/Joy.  Joy served two years as our NCSG rep to the GNSO Council.  As I said when I nominated her for that http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2011-September/007439.html
>Joy is the Project Co-ordinator for Internet 
>Rights are Human Rights for the Association for 
>Progressive Communication, a NCUC organizational 
>member.  Joy is lawyer who's been a long-time 
>activist on human rights on the Internet and 
>beyond, and she's also involved in DNS issues 
>and well attuned to the ICANNsphere.  At present 
>she also serves Director of the Domain Name 
>Commission, InternetNZ, the non-profit 
>multistakeholder body responsible for managing 
>.nz and related Internet issues in New Zealand, 
>so she brings to the table an understanding of 
>public interest aspects of the ccTLD space as 
>well.  A strong human rights orientation has 
>generally been lacking in ICANN and the GNSO, so 
>she'd be filling an important gap.  At the same 
>time, it would be good to further engage in NCSG 
>the APC, which as probably everyone knows is the 
>probably the largest NGO, a multinational 
>network, doing civil society activism around 
>Internet and ICT issues.  More about Joy 
>here <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745>>http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745?and <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745%C2%A0and> 
>APC here <http://www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org/>>http://www.apc.org. <http://www.apc.org./>

Mattew Shears currently participates here as an alternate rep of NCUC member org IP Justice.  In his day job, Matt leads the Global Internet Policy and Human Rights work of the Center for Democracy and Technology https://cdt.org/staff/matthew-shears/. (CDT is applying to join NCUC/NCSG as an organizational member) Previously he served as the Internet Society?s Public Policy Director, in which context he shaped ISOC?s positions and represented it in a variety of global Internet governance institutions.  Matt long has been extremely active as a civil society participant in the ITU, WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF and related settings, and more recently has gotten deeply involved in ICANN?s IANA and accountability processes.  He is also very active in civil society and related coalitions, e.g. ISOC, Best Bits, the Internet Governance Caucus, etc.

Both Joy and Matt are highly visible, leading civil society advocates working at the intersection of Internet governance and human rights policy, which as you know is the focus on a new initiative in ICANN that we are pushing in collaboration with other stakeholders.  And both are maestro text drafters in multiple CS coalitions, which of course will come in handy on the NCSG PC.  So I couldn?t be happier that they?ve decided to volunteer their energies in support of NCUC and NCSG at this important time.

Welcome to you both!

Best

Bill



> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:58 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> Early in the year, after consultation with members, the NCUC PC appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to serve as our representatives on the NCSG PC.  As you will know, both of these successful reps have recently been elected to the GNSO Council, so we will need to replace them.  This message is to solicit expressions of interest in filling these roles.  It is hoped that we can make a final selection and have new people in place by the Annual Meeting in Los Angeles; the NCSG PC meets on Sunday 12 October.
> 
> These are two of the very most important positions we have in NCUC.  According to the NCSG charter, 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2.5 The Policy Committee
> 
> The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible for:
> 
> 	? Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require coordination with the membership and the Constituencies;
> 
> 	? Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership, including PDP initiatives from the membership;
> 
> 	? Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on the GNSO Council;
> 
> 	? Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;
> 
> 	? Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation in GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.
> 
> 	? Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO Council- related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures or Council decisions.
> 
> 	? Document methods and procedures used for decision-making. Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC.
> 
> 2.5.1. NCSG-PC Composition.
> 
> The NCSG?PC shall be comprised of two representatives from each Recognized Constituency and one observer from each Candidate Constituency. The NCSG Representatives on the GNSO Council shall also serve as full members of the NCSG- PC. The NCSG Chair will participate as an ex-officio member of the NCSG-PC and will be included in determining consensus process and votes. Past GNSO Council Representatives may be included as observers in the NCSG-PC. The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to participate as observers.
> 
> 2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making
> 
> ? By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position.
> <page15image17520.png>  <page15image17680.png>  <page15image17840.png>
> 2.5.3. NCSG-PC Leadership
> 
> 	? A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis.
> 
> ?? The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.
> 
> 	? One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a yearly basis. 2.5.4. NCSG-PC Work Process
> 
> 	? As much as possible, all work will be done using Internet tools, including, inter alia,
> 
> 		? ??  email;
> 
> 		? ??  wiki usage (Note: such a wiki will be publicly viewable though editing may be restricted to members of the NCSG-PC);
> 
> 		? ??  online document collaboration tools as well as available network cloud based tools.
> 
> ? When necessary, teleconferences will be scheduled. A scheduling tool will be used to attempt to find a time when all members can attend. Unless all members can attend the teleconference, any decisions made at a teleconference will be provisional until full consensus is determined.
> 
> ? When possible, as enabled for example by an ICANN meeting, a face-to-face meeting of the NCSG-PC will be held. As with teleconferences, if all members cannot attend, any decisions made will need to be verified before being considered final.
> 
> 2.5.5. NCSG-PC Mailing List
> 
> 	? All NCSG-PC full members and observers will be subscribed to the NCSG-PC mailing list.
> 
> 	? The NCSG-PC list will maintain an open archive.
> 
> 	? For non-subscribers the list will be moderated. Comments from NCSG members relevant to ongoing discussions will be forwarded to the NCSG-PC list by the list moderator.
> 
> 2.5.6. NCSG-PC Observers
> 
> ? Any observer to the NCSG-PC will have full participation rights except will not be counted in any consensus process or vote.
> <page16image17216.png>  <page16image17376.png>  <page16image17536.png>  <page16image17696.png>
> 	? One elected or appointed representative from each Candidate Constituency will be given observer status.
> 
> 	? Past NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council may be permitted observer status at discretion of NCSG-PC full members.
> 
> 	? The NCSG-PC may invite other policy experts to participate as observers.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Basic info on the current PC?s composition is at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current>
> 
> The public archive for the PC?s discussions is at http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>.  Perusing this would give one a clearer idea of the actual workload and responsibilities.
> 
> It is really really important that we put people into these slots who are fully in tune with the views and traditions of NCUC and NCSG; well appraised (or able to become so) of the substantive issues being discussed in GNSO and related processes; fully committed to doing the work (including attending monthly NCSG policy calls, collaborative document drafting, timely voting on proposed outputs, and the like); and able to work well with their colleagues on the PC and to coordinate with the NCUC EC and wider membership as necessary.  In short, we need top notch, fully committed candidates.
> 
> We welcome nominations and self-nominations to fill these two slots.  Nominees who wish to be considered should send a few paragraphs to the members? list outlining their interests and engagement in constituency/stakeholder group work, their qualifications for and ability to perform these particular functions, and any other relevant information.  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141103/3bd26f20/attachment-0001.html>


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Mon Nov  3 11:25:05 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:25:05 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Announcing the Appointment of New
	NCUC	Representatives to the NCSG PC
References: <34A26823-EE0F-4DA2-8AC2-F2FCD6E284C1@gmail.com>
	<0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427F0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Congratulations. Two great choices! NCUC is well positioned for the 2015 challenges: Transition, Accountability, continuation of the new gTLD program, WHOIS Reform, WSIS 10, IGF, NMI etc.

Wolfgang
 




-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 10:05
An: NCUC-discuss; NCSG Members; NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy; Exec. Comm
Betreff: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Announcing the Appointment of New NCUC	Representatives to the NCSG PC
 
Hello

I am delighted to say that NCUC can now announce the appointment of two top-notch representatives to the NCSG Policy Committee, effective immediately.  Joy Liddicoat leads the human rights work of member org the Association for Progressive Communications http://www.apc.org/en/user/Joy.  Joy served two years as our NCSG rep to the GNSO Council.  As I said when I nominated her for that http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2011-September/007439.html
>Joy is the Project Co-ordinator for Internet 
>Rights are Human Rights for the Association for 
>Progressive Communication, a NCUC organizational 
>member.  Joy is lawyer who's been a long-time 
>activist on human rights on the Internet and 
>beyond, and she's also involved in DNS issues 
>and well attuned to the ICANNsphere.  At present 
>she also serves Director of the Domain Name 
>Commission, InternetNZ, the non-profit 
>multistakeholder body responsible for managing 
>.nz and related Internet issues in New Zealand, 
>so she brings to the table an understanding of 
>public interest aspects of the ccTLD space as 
>well.  A strong human rights orientation has 
>generally been lacking in ICANN and the GNSO, so 
>she'd be filling an important gap.  At the same 
>time, it would be good to further engage in NCSG 
>the APC, which as probably everyone knows is the 
>probably the largest NGO, a multinational 
>network, doing civil society activism around 
>Internet and ICT issues.  More about Joy 
>here <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745>>http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745?and <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745%C2%A0and> 
>APC here <http://www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org/>>http://www.apc.org. <http://www.apc.org./>

Mattew Shears currently participates here as an alternate rep of NCUC member org IP Justice.  In his day job, Matt leads the Global Internet Policy and Human Rights work of the Center for Democracy and Technology https://cdt.org/staff/matthew-shears/. (CDT is applying to join NCUC/NCSG as an organizational member) Previously he served as the Internet Society's Public Policy Director, in which context he shaped ISOC's positions and represented it in a variety of global Internet governance institutions.  Matt long has been extremely active as a civil society participant in the ITU, WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF and related settings, and more recently has gotten deeply involved in ICANN's IANA and accountability processes.  He is also very active in civil society and related coalitions, e.g. ISOC, Best Bits, the Internet Governance Caucus, etc.

Both Joy and Matt are highly visible, leading civil society advocates working at the intersection of Internet governance and human rights policy, which as you know is the focus on a new initiative in ICANN that we are pushing in collaboration with other stakeholders.  And both are maestro text drafters in multiple CS coalitions, which of course will come in handy on the NCSG PC.  So I couldn't be happier that they've decided to volunteer their energies in support of NCUC and NCSG at this important time.

Welcome to you both!

Best

Bill



> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:58 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> Early in the year, after consultation with members, the NCUC PC appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to serve as our representatives on the NCSG PC.  As you will know, both of these successful reps have recently been elected to the GNSO Council, so we will need to replace them.  This message is to solicit expressions of interest in filling these roles.  It is hoped that we can make a final selection and have new people in place by the Annual Meeting in Los Angeles; the NCSG PC meets on Sunday 12 October.
> 
> These are two of the very most important positions we have in NCUC.  According to the NCSG charter, 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2.5 The Policy Committee
> 
> The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible for:
> 
> 	. Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require coordination with the membership and the Constituencies;
> 
> 	. Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership, including PDP initiatives from the membership;
> 
> 	. Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on the GNSO Council;
> 
> 	. Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;
> 
> 	. Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation in GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.
> 
> 	. Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO Council- related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures or Council decisions.
> 
> 	. Document methods and procedures used for decision-making. Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC.
> 
> 2.5.1. NCSG-PC Composition.
> 
> The NCSG-PC shall be comprised of two representatives from each Recognized Constituency and one observer from each Candidate Constituency. The NCSG Representatives on the GNSO Council shall also serve as full members of the NCSG- PC. The NCSG Chair will participate as an ex-officio member of the NCSG-PC and will be included in determining consensus process and votes. Past GNSO Council Representatives may be included as observers in the NCSG-PC. The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to participate as observers.
> 
> 2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making
> 
> . By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position.
> <page15image17520.png>  <page15image17680.png>  <page15image17840.png>
> 2.5.3. NCSG-PC Leadership
> 
> 	. A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis.
> 
> ?? The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.
> 
> 	. One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a yearly basis. 2.5.4. NCSG-PC Work Process
> 
> 	. As much as possible, all work will be done using Internet tools, including, inter alia,
> 
> 		. ??  email;
> 
> 		. ??  wiki usage (Note: such a wiki will be publicly viewable though editing may be restricted to members of the NCSG-PC);
> 
> 		. ??  online document collaboration tools as well as available network cloud based tools.
> 
> . When necessary, teleconferences will be scheduled. A scheduling tool will be used to attempt to find a time when all members can attend. Unless all members can attend the teleconference, any decisions made at a teleconference will be provisional until full consensus is determined.
> 
> . When possible, as enabled for example by an ICANN meeting, a face-to-face meeting of the NCSG-PC will be held. As with teleconferences, if all members cannot attend, any decisions made will need to be verified before being considered final.
> 
> 2.5.5. NCSG-PC Mailing List
> 
> 	. All NCSG-PC full members and observers will be subscribed to the NCSG-PC mailing list.
> 
> 	. The NCSG-PC list will maintain an open archive.
> 
> 	. For non-subscribers the list will be moderated. Comments from NCSG members relevant to ongoing discussions will be forwarded to the NCSG-PC list by the list moderator.
> 
> 2.5.6. NCSG-PC Observers
> 
> . Any observer to the NCSG-PC will have full participation rights except will not be counted in any consensus process or vote.
> <page16image17216.png>  <page16image17376.png>  <page16image17536.png>  <page16image17696.png>
> 	. One elected or appointed representative from each Candidate Constituency will be given observer status.
> 
> 	. Past NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council may be permitted observer status at discretion of NCSG-PC full members.
> 
> 	. The NCSG-PC may invite other policy experts to participate as observers.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Basic info on the current PC's composition is at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current>
> 
> The public archive for the PC's discussions is at http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>.  Perusing this would give one a clearer idea of the actual workload and responsibilities.
> 
> It is really really important that we put people into these slots who are fully in tune with the views and traditions of NCUC and NCSG; well appraised (or able to become so) of the substantive issues being discussed in GNSO and related processes; fully committed to doing the work (including attending monthly NCSG policy calls, collaborative document drafting, timely voting on proposed outputs, and the like); and able to work well with their colleagues on the PC and to coordinate with the NCUC EC and wider membership as necessary.  In short, we need top notch, fully committed candidates.
> 
> We welcome nominations and self-nominations to fill these two slots.  Nominees who wish to be considered should send a few paragraphs to the members' list outlining their interests and engagement in constituency/stakeholder group work, their qualifications for and ability to perform these particular functions, and any other relevant information.  





From wjdrake  Mon Nov  3 11:36:58 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:36:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Announcing the Appointment of New NCUC
	Representatives to the NCSG PC
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427F0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <34A26823-EE0F-4DA2-8AC2-F2FCD6E284C1@gmail.com>
	<0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016427F0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <6D8404D0-5182-47E2-87B0-423F9F4524A0@gmail.com>

Thanks Wolfgang, happy to have board support :-)

A small procedural note: I simultaneously sent notice to four lists rather than writing to each separately. Anyone who wants to hit reply might want to edit out the addresses to which they are not subscribed or they?ll get bounces.

Bill


> On Nov 3, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 
> Congratulations. Two great choices! NCUC is well positioned for the 2015 challenges: Transition, Accountability, continuation of the new gTLD program, WHOIS Reform, WSIS 10, IGF, NMI etc.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org im Auftrag von William Drake
> Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 10:05
> An: NCUC-discuss; NCSG Members; NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy; Exec. Comm
> Betreff: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Announcing the Appointment of New NCUC	Representatives to the NCSG PC
> 
> Hello
> 
> I am delighted to say that NCUC can now announce the appointment of two top-notch representatives to the NCSG Policy Committee, effective immediately.  Joy Liddicoat leads the human rights work of member org the Association for Progressive Communications http://www.apc.org/en/user/Joy.  Joy served two years as our NCSG rep to the GNSO Council.  As I said when I nominated her for that http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2011-September/007439.html
>> Joy is the Project Co-ordinator for Internet 
>> Rights are Human Rights for the Association for 
>> Progressive Communication, a NCUC organizational 
>> member.  Joy is lawyer who's been a long-time 
>> activist on human rights on the Internet and 
>> beyond, and she's also involved in DNS issues 
>> and well attuned to the ICANNsphere.  At present 
>> she also serves Director of the Domain Name 
>> Commission, InternetNZ, the non-profit 
>> multistakeholder body responsible for managing 
>> .nz and related Internet issues in New Zealand, 
>> so she brings to the table an understanding of 
>> public interest aspects of the ccTLD space as 
>> well.  A strong human rights orientation has 
>> generally been lacking in ICANN and the GNSO, so 
>> she'd be filling an important gap.  At the same 
>> time, it would be good to further engage in NCSG 
>> the APC, which as probably everyone knows is the 
>> probably the largest NGO, a multinational 
>> network, doing civil society activism around 
>> Internet and ICT issues.  More about Joy 
>> here <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745>>http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 and <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745%C2%A0and> 
>> APC here <http://www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org/>>http://www.apc.org. <http://www.apc.org./>
> 
> Mattew Shears currently participates here as an alternate rep of NCUC member org IP Justice.  In his day job, Matt leads the Global Internet Policy and Human Rights work of the Center for Democracy and Technology https://cdt.org/staff/matthew-shears/. (CDT is applying to join NCUC/NCSG as an organizational member) Previously he served as the Internet Society's Public Policy Director, in which context he shaped ISOC's positions and represented it in a variety of global Internet governance institutions.  Matt long has been extremely active as a civil society participant in the ITU, WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF and related settings, and more recently has gotten deeply involved in ICANN's IANA and accountability processes.  He is also very active in civil society and related coalitions, e.g. ISOC, Best Bits, the Internet Governance Caucus, etc.
> 
> Both Joy and Matt are highly visible, leading civil society advocates working at the intersection of Internet governance and human rights policy, which as you know is the focus on a new initiative in ICANN that we are pushing in collaboration with other stakeholders.  And both are maestro text drafters in multiple CS coalitions, which of course will come in handy on the NCSG PC.  So I couldn't be happier that they've decided to volunteer their energies in support of NCUC and NCSG at this important time.
> 
> Welcome to you both!
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:58 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello
>> 
>> Early in the year, after consultation with members, the NCUC PC appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to serve as our representatives on the NCSG PC.  As you will know, both of these successful reps have recently been elected to the GNSO Council, so we will need to replace them.  This message is to solicit expressions of interest in filling these roles.  It is hoped that we can make a final selection and have new people in place by the Annual Meeting in Los Angeles; the NCSG PC meets on Sunday 12 October.
>> 
>> These are two of the very most important positions we have in NCUC.  According to the NCSG charter, 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 2.5 The Policy Committee
>> 
>> The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible for:
>> 
>> 	. Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require coordination with the membership and the Constituencies;
>> 
>> 	. Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership, including PDP initiatives from the membership;
>> 
>> 	. Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on the GNSO Council;
>> 
>> 	. Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;
>> 
>> 	. Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation in GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.
>> 
>> 	. Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO Council- related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures or Council decisions.
>> 
>> 	. Document methods and procedures used for decision-making. Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC.
>> 
>> 2.5.1. NCSG-PC Composition.
>> 
>> The NCSG-PC shall be comprised of two representatives from each Recognized Constituency and one observer from each Candidate Constituency. The NCSG Representatives on the GNSO Council shall also serve as full members of the NCSG- PC. The NCSG Chair will participate as an ex-officio member of the NCSG-PC and will be included in determining consensus process and votes. Past GNSO Council Representatives may be included as observers in the NCSG-PC. The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to participate as observers.
>> 
>> 2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making
>> 
>> . By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position.
>> <page15image17520.png>  <page15image17680.png>  <page15image17840.png>
>> 2.5.3. NCSG-PC Leadership
>> 
>> 	. A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis.
>> 
>> ?? The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.
>> 
>> 	. One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a yearly basis. 2.5.4. NCSG-PC Work Process
>> 
>> 	. As much as possible, all work will be done using Internet tools, including, inter alia,
>> 
>> 		. ??  email;
>> 
>> 		. ??  wiki usage (Note: such a wiki will be publicly viewable though editing may be restricted to members of the NCSG-PC);
>> 
>> 		. ??  online document collaboration tools as well as available network cloud based tools.
>> 
>> . When necessary, teleconferences will be scheduled. A scheduling tool will be used to attempt to find a time when all members can attend. Unless all members can attend the teleconference, any decisions made at a teleconference will be provisional until full consensus is determined.
>> 
>> . When possible, as enabled for example by an ICANN meeting, a face-to-face meeting of the NCSG-PC will be held. As with teleconferences, if all members cannot attend, any decisions made will need to be verified before being considered final.
>> 
>> 2.5.5. NCSG-PC Mailing List
>> 
>> 	. All NCSG-PC full members and observers will be subscribed to the NCSG-PC mailing list.
>> 
>> 	. The NCSG-PC list will maintain an open archive.
>> 
>> 	. For non-subscribers the list will be moderated. Comments from NCSG members relevant to ongoing discussions will be forwarded to the NCSG-PC list by the list moderator.
>> 
>> 2.5.6. NCSG-PC Observers
>> 
>> . Any observer to the NCSG-PC will have full participation rights except will not be counted in any consensus process or vote.
>> <page16image17216.png>  <page16image17376.png>  <page16image17536.png>  <page16image17696.png>
>> 	. One elected or appointed representative from each Candidate Constituency will be given observer status.
>> 
>> 	. Past NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council may be permitted observer status at discretion of NCSG-PC full members.
>> 
>> 	. The NCSG-PC may invite other policy experts to participate as observers.
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> Basic info on the current PC's composition is at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current>
>> 
>> The public archive for the PC's discussions is at http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>.  Perusing this would give one a clearer idea of the actual workload and responsibilities.
>> 
>> It is really really important that we put people into these slots who are fully in tune with the views and traditions of NCUC and NCSG; well appraised (or able to become so) of the substantive issues being discussed in GNSO and related processes; fully committed to doing the work (including attending monthly NCSG policy calls, collaborative document drafting, timely voting on proposed outputs, and the like); and able to work well with their colleagues on the PC and to coordinate with the NCUC EC and wider membership as necessary.  In short, we need top notch, fully committed candidates.
>> 
>> We welcome nominations and self-nominations to fill these two slots.  Nominees who wish to be considered should send a few paragraphs to the members' list outlining their interests and engagement in constituency/stakeholder group work, their qualifications for and ability to perform these particular functions, and any other relevant information.  
> 
> 

***********************************************
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  Mon Nov  3 12:51:19 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 19:51:19 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-EC] Announcing the Appointment of New NCUC
 Representatives to the NCSG PC
In-Reply-To: <0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>
References: <34A26823-EE0F-4DA2-8AC2-F2FCD6E284C1@gmail.com>
	<0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm4tq0COSr5=x0-UXSCUF6+FW_bm_t9=zrskKjczQyzaw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Welcome to Joy and Matt in NCSG PC, looking forward your involvement and
active  participation here!

Rafik

2014-11-03 18:05 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

> Hello
>
> I am delighted to say that NCUC can now announce the appointment of two
> top-notch representatives to the NCSG Policy Committee, effective
> immediately.  *Joy Liddicoat* leads the human rights work of member org
> the Association for Progressive Communications
> http://www.apc.org/en/user/Joy.  Joy served two years as our NCSG rep to
> the GNSO Council.  As I said when I nominated her for that
> http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2011-September/007439.html
>
> >*Joy is the Project Co-ordinator for Internet
> *>*Rights are Human Rights for the Association for
> *>*Progressive Communication, a NCUC organizational
> *>*member.  Joy is lawyer who's been a long-time
> *>*activist on human rights on the Internet and
> *>*beyond, and she's also involved in DNS issues
> *>*and well attuned to the ICANNsphere.  At present
> *>*she also serves Director of the Domain Name
> *>*Commission, InternetNZ, the non-profit
> *>*multistakeholder body responsible for managing
> *>*.nz and related Internet issues in New Zealand,
> *>*so she brings to the table an understanding of
> *>*public interest aspects of the ccTLD space as
> *>*well.  A strong human rights orientation has
> *>*generally been lacking in ICANN and the GNSO, so
> *>*she'd be filling an important gap.  At the same
> *>*time, it would be good to further engage in NCSG
> *>*the APC, which as probably everyone knows is the
> *>*probably the largest NGO, a multinational
> *>*network, doing civil society activism around
> *>*Internet and ICT issues.  More about Joy
> *>*here <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745>>http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 and <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745%C2%A0and>
> *>*APC here <http://www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org/>>http://www.apc.org. <http://www.apc.org./>*
>
>
> *Mattew Shears *currently participates here as an alternate rep of NCUC
> member org IP Justice.  In his day job, Matt leads the Global Internet
> Policy and Human Rights work of the Center for Democracy and Technology
> https://cdt.org/staff/matthew-shears/. (CDT is applying to join NCUC/NCSG
> as an organizational member) Previously he served as the Internet Society?s
> Public Policy Director, in which context he shaped ISOC?s positions and
> represented it in a variety of global Internet governance institutions.
> Matt long has been extremely active as a civil society participant in the
> ITU, WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF and related settings, and more recently has gotten
> deeply involved in ICANN?s IANA and accountability processes.  He is also
> very active in civil society and related coalitions, e.g. ISOC, Best Bits,
> the Internet Governance Caucus, etc.
>
> Both Joy and Matt are highly visible, leading civil society advocates
> working at the intersection of Internet governance and human rights policy,
> which as you know is the focus on a new initiative in ICANN that we are
> pushing in collaboration with other stakeholders.  And both are maestro
> text drafters in multiple CS coalitions, which of course will come in handy
> on the NCSG PC.  So I couldn?t be happier that they?ve decided to volunteer
> their energies in support of NCUC and NCSG at this important time.
>
> Welcome to you both!
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:58 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> Early in the year, after consultation with members, the NCUC PC appointed
> Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to serve as our representatives on the
> NCSG PC.  As you will know, both of these successful reps have recently
> been elected to the GNSO Council, so we will need to replace them.  This
> message is to solicit expressions of interest in filling these roles.  It
> is hoped that we can make a final selection and have new people in place by
> the Annual Meeting in Los Angeles; the NCSG PC meets on Sunday 12 October.
>
> These are two of the very most important positions we have in NCUC.
> According to the NCSG charter,
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *2.5 The Policy Committee*
>
>
>
> *The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible for:*
>
>
> * ? Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements
> issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require coordination
> with the membership and the Constituencies;*
>
>
> * ? Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership, including
> PDP initiatives from the membership;*
>
>
> * ? Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on the
> GNSO Council;*
>
>
> * ? Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;*
>
>
> * ? Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation in
> GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.*
>
>
> * ? Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO
> Council- related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures or
> Council decisions.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * ? Document methods and procedures used for decision-making.
> Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC.2.5.1. NCSG-PC
> Composition.The NCSG?PC shall be comprised of two representatives from each
> Recognized Constituency and one observer from each Candidate Constituency.
> The NCSG Representatives on the GNSO Council shall also serve as full
> members of the NCSG- PC. The NCSG Chair will participate as an ex-officio
> member of the NCSG-PC and will be included in determining consensus process
> and votes. Past GNSO Council Representatives may be included as observers
> in the NCSG-PC. The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to
> participate as observers.2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making*
>
>
>
>
> *? By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full
> NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need
> to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be
> heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the
> rough consensus
> position.<page15image17520.png>  <page15image17680.png>  <page15image17840.png>2.5.3.
> NCSG-PC Leadership*
>
>
>
>
> * ? A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis.?? The
> NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.*
>
>
> * ? One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a yearly
> basis. 2.5.4. NCSG-PC Work Process*
>
>
> * ? As much as possible, all work will be done using Internet tools,
> including, inter alia,*
>
>
> * ? ??  email;*
>
>
> * ? ??  wiki usage (Note: such a wiki will be publicly viewable though
> editing may be restricted to members of the NCSG-PC);*
>
>
> * ? ??  online document collaboration tools as well as available network
> cloud based tools.*
>
> *? When necessary, teleconferences will be scheduled. A scheduling tool
> will be used to attempt to find a time when all members can attend. Unless
> all members can attend the teleconference, any decisions made at a
> teleconference will be provisional until full consensus is determined.*
>
>
> *? When possible, as enabled for example by an ICANN meeting, a
> face-to-face meeting of the NCSG-PC will be held. As with teleconferences,
> if all members cannot attend, any decisions made will need to be verified
> before being considered final.*
>
>
>
>
> *2.5.5. NCSG-PC Mailing List*
>
>
> * ? All NCSG-PC full members and observers will be subscribed to the
> NCSG-PC mailing list.*
>
>
> * ? The NCSG-PC list will maintain an open archive.*
>
>
>
>
> * ? For non-subscribers the list will be moderated. Comments from NCSG
> members relevant to ongoing discussions will be forwarded to the NCSG-PC
> list by the list moderator.2.5.6. NCSG-PC Observers*
>
>
> *? Any observer to the NCSG-PC will have full participation rights except
> will not be counted in any consensus process or
> vote.<page16image17216.png>  <page16image17376.png>  <page16image17536.png>  <page16image17696.png>*
>
>
> * ? One elected or appointed representative from each Candidate
> Constituency will be given observer status.*
>
>
> * ? Past NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council may be permitted
> observer status at discretion of NCSG-PC full members.*
> * ? The NCSG-PC may invite other policy experts to participate as
> observers.*
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Basic info on the current PC?s composition is at
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current
>
> The public archive for the PC?s discussions is at
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg.  Perusing this would give
> one a clearer idea of the actual workload and responsibilities.
>
> It is really really important that we put people into these slots who are
> fully in tune with the views and traditions of NCUC and NCSG; well
> appraised (or able to become so) of the substantive issues being discussed
> in GNSO and related processes; fully committed to doing the work (including
> attending monthly NCSG policy calls, collaborative document drafting,
> timely voting on proposed outputs, and the like); and able to work well
> with their colleagues on the PC and to coordinate with the NCUC EC and
> wider membership as necessary.  In short, we need top notch, fully
> committed candidates.
>
> We welcome nominations and self-nominations to fill these two slots.
> Nominees who wish to be considered should send a few paragraphs to the
> members? list outlining their interests and engagement in
> constituency/stakeholder group work, their qualifications for and ability
> to perform these particular functions, and any other relevant information.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141103/c1865ad9/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Nov  3 13:31:29 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:31:29 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Announcing the Appointment of New NCUC
	Representatives to the NCSG PC
In-Reply-To: <0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>
References: <34A26823-EE0F-4DA2-8AC2-F2FCD6E284C1@gmail.com>
	<0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <82FFD385-3882-4886-8620-F0507BE1144F@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for the update, Bill, and thanks to the NCUC EC for the fantastic appointments.

@Joy, @Matt: Really looking forward to working with you both. Good luck.

Amr

On Nov 3, 2014, at 10:05 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello
> 
> I am delighted to say that NCUC can now announce the appointment of two top-notch representatives to the NCSG Policy Committee, effective immediately.  Joy Liddicoat leads the human rights work of member org the Association for Progressive Communications http://www.apc.org/en/user/Joy.  Joy served two years as our NCSG rep to the GNSO Council.  As I said when I nominated her for that http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2011-September/007439.html
> >Joy is the Project Co-ordinator for Internet 
> >Rights are Human Rights for the Association for 
> >Progressive Communication, a NCUC organizational 
> >member.  Joy is lawyer who's been a long-time 
> >activist on human rights on the Internet and 
> >beyond, and she's also involved in DNS issues 
> >and well attuned to the ICANNsphere.  At present 
> >she also serves Director of the Domain Name 
> >Commission, InternetNZ, the non-profit 
> >multistakeholder body responsible for managing 
> >.nz and related Internet issues in New Zealand, 
> >so she brings to the table an understanding of 
> >public interest aspects of the ccTLD space as 
> >well.  A strong human rights orientation has 
> >generally been lacking in ICANN and the GNSO, so 
> >she'd be filling an important gap.  At the same 
> >time, it would be good to further engage in NCSG 
> >the APC, which as probably everyone knows is the 
> >probably the largest NGO, a multinational 
> >network, doing civil society activism around 
> >Internet and ICT issues.  More about Joy 
> >here <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745>http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 and 
> >APC here <http://www.apc.org>http://www.apc.org.
> 
> Mattew Shears currently participates here as an alternate rep of NCUC member org IP Justice.  In his day job, Matt leads the Global Internet Policy and Human Rights work of the Center for Democracy and Technology https://cdt.org/staff/matthew-shears/. (CDT is applying to join NCUC/NCSG as an organizational member) Previously he served as the Internet Society?s Public Policy Director, in which context he shaped ISOC?s positions and represented it in a variety of global Internet governance institutions.  Matt long has been extremely active as a civil society participant in the ITU, WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF and related settings, and more recently has gotten deeply involved in ICANN?s IANA and accountability processes.  He is also very active in civil society and related coalitions, e.g. ISOC, Best Bits, the Internet Governance Caucus, etc.
> 
> Both Joy and Matt are highly visible, leading civil society advocates working at the intersection of Internet governance and human rights policy, which as you know is the focus on a new initiative in ICANN that we are pushing in collaboration with other stakeholders.  And both are maestro text drafters in multiple CS coalitions, which of course will come in handy on the NCSG PC.  So I couldn?t be happier that they?ve decided to volunteer their energies in support of NCUC and NCSG at this important time.
> 
> Welcome to you both!
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:58 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello
>> 
>> Early in the year, after consultation with members, the NCUC PC appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to serve as our representatives on the NCSG PC.  As you will know, both of these successful reps have recently been elected to the GNSO Council, so we will need to replace them.  This message is to solicit expressions of interest in filling these roles.  It is hoped that we can make a final selection and have new people in place by the Annual Meeting in Los Angeles; the NCSG PC meets on Sunday 12 October.
>> 
>> These are two of the very most important positions we have in NCUC.  According to the NCSG charter, 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 2.5 The Policy Committee
>> 
>> The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible for:
>> 
>> 	? Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require coordination with the membership and the Constituencies;
>> 
>> 	? Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership, including PDP initiatives from the membership;
>> 
>> 	? Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on the GNSO Council;
>> 
>> 	? Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;
>> 
>> 	? Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation in GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.
>> 
>> 	? Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO Council- related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures or Council decisions.
>> 
>> 	? Document methods and procedures used for decision-making. Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC.
>> 
>> 2.5.1. NCSG-PC Composition.
>> 
>> The NCSG?PC shall be comprised of two representatives from each Recognized Constituency and one observer from each Candidate Constituency. The NCSG Representatives on the GNSO Council shall also serve as full members of the NCSG- PC. The NCSG Chair will participate as an ex-officio member of the NCSG-PC and will be included in determining consensus process and votes. Past GNSO Council Representatives may be included as observers in the NCSG-PC. The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to participate as observers.
>> 
>> 2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making
>> 
>> ? By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position.
>> <page15image17520.png>  <page15image17680.png>  <page15image17840.png>
>> 2.5.3. NCSG-PC Leadership
>> 
>> 	? A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis.
>> 
>> ?? The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.
>> 
>> 	? One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a yearly basis. 2.5.4. NCSG-PC Work Process
>> 
>> 	? As much as possible, all work will be done using Internet tools, including, inter alia,
>> 
>> 		? ??  email;
>> 
>> 		? ??  wiki usage (Note: such a wiki will be publicly viewable though editing may be restricted to members of the NCSG-PC);
>> 
>> 		? ??  online document collaboration tools as well as available network cloud based tools.
>> 
>> ? When necessary, teleconferences will be scheduled. A scheduling tool will be used to attempt to find a time when all members can attend. Unless all members can attend the teleconference, any decisions made at a teleconference will be provisional until full consensus is determined.
>> 
>> ? When possible, as enabled for example by an ICANN meeting, a face-to-face meeting of the NCSG-PC will be held. As with teleconferences, if all members cannot attend, any decisions made will need to be verified before being considered final.
>> 
>> 2.5.5. NCSG-PC Mailing List
>> 
>> 	? All NCSG-PC full members and observers will be subscribed to the NCSG-PC mailing list.
>> 
>> 	? The NCSG-PC list will maintain an open archive.
>> 
>> 	? For non-subscribers the list will be moderated. Comments from NCSG members relevant to ongoing discussions will be forwarded to the NCSG-PC list by the list moderator.
>> 
>> 2.5.6. NCSG-PC Observers
>> 
>> ? Any observer to the NCSG-PC will have full participation rights except will not be counted in any consensus process or vote.
>> <page16image17216.png>  <page16image17376.png>  <page16image17536.png>  <page16image17696.png>
>> 	? One elected or appointed representative from each Candidate Constituency will be given observer status.
>> 
>> 	? Past NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council may be permitted observer status at discretion of NCSG-PC full members.
>> 
>> 	? The NCSG-PC may invite other policy experts to participate as observers.
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> Basic info on the current PC?s composition is at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current
>> 
>> The public archive for the PC?s discussions is at http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg.  Perusing this would give one a clearer idea of the actual workload and responsibilities.
>> 
>> It is really really important that we put people into these slots who are fully in tune with the views and traditions of NCUC and NCSG; well appraised (or able to become so) of the substantive issues being discussed in GNSO and related processes; fully committed to doing the work (including attending monthly NCSG policy calls, collaborative document drafting, timely voting on proposed outputs, and the like); and able to work well with their colleagues on the PC and to coordinate with the NCUC EC and wider membership as necessary.  In short, we need top notch, fully committed candidates.
>> 
>> We welcome nominations and self-nominations to fill these two slots.  Nominees who wish to be considered should send a few paragraphs to the members? list outlining their interests and engagement in constituency/stakeholder group work, their qualifications for and ability to perform these particular functions, and any other relevant information.  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141103/9289925f/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Mon Nov  3 16:08:32 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:08:32 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-EC] Announcing the Appointment of New NCUC
 Representatives to the NCSG PC
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm4tq0COSr5=x0-UXSCUF6+FW_bm_t9=zrskKjczQyzaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <34A26823-EE0F-4DA2-8AC2-F2FCD6E284C1@gmail.com>
	<0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThm4tq0COSr5=x0-UXSCUF6+FW_bm_t9=zrskKjczQyzaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54578C60.3070605@cdt.org>

Thanks Rafik, Bill, all

Its a great pleasure to appointed to this role.  Looking forward to 
working with you.

Matthew

On 11/3/2014 5:51 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Welcome to Joy and Matt in NCSG PC, looking forward your involvement 
> and active  participation here!
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-11-03 18:05 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com 
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hello
>
>     I am delighted to say that NCUC can now announce the appointment
>     of two top-notch representatives to the NCSG Policy Committee,
>     effective immediately. *Joy Liddicoat* leads the human rights work
>     of member org the Association for Progressive Communications
>     http://www.apc.org/en/user/Joy. Joy served two years as our NCSG
>     rep to the GNSO Council.  As I said when I nominated her for that
>     http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2011-September/007439.html
>
>     >/Joy is the Project Co-ordinator for Internet
>     />/Rights are Human Rights for the Association for
>     />/Progressive Communication, a NCUC organizational
>     />/member.  Joy is lawyer who's been a long-time
>     />/activist on human rights on the Internet and
>     />/beyond, and she's also involved in DNS issues
>     />/and well attuned to the ICANNsphere.  At present
>     />/she also serves Director of the Domain Name
>     />/Commission, InternetNZ, the non-profit
>     />/multistakeholder body responsible for managing
>     />/.nz and related Internet issues in New Zealand,
>     />/so she brings to the table an understanding of
>     />/public interest aspects of the ccTLD space as
>     />/well.  A strong human rights orientation has
>     />/generally been lacking in ICANN and the GNSO, so
>     />/she'd be filling an important gap.  At the same
>     />/time, it would be good to further engage in NCSG
>     />/the APC, which as probably everyone knows is the
>     />/probably the largest NGO, a multinational
>     />/network, doing civil society activism around
>     />/Internet and ICT issues.  More about Joy
>     />/here <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745>http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 and  <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745%C2%A0and>  
>     />/APC here <http://www.apc.org  <http://www.apc.org/>>http://www.apc.org.  <http://www.apc.org./>/
>
>
>     *Mattew Shears *currently participates here as an alternate rep of
>     NCUC member org IP Justice. In his day job, Matt leads the Global
>     Internet Policy and Human Rights work of the Center for Democracy
>     and Technology https://cdt.org/staff/matthew-shears/. (CDT is
>     applying to join NCUC/NCSG as an organizational member) Previously
>     he served as the Internet Society?s Public Policy Director, in
>     which context he shaped ISOC?s positions and represented it in a
>     variety of global Internet governance institutions.  Matt long has
>     been extremely active as a civil society participant in the ITU,
>     WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF and related settings, and more recently has
>     gotten deeply involved in ICANN?s IANA and accountability
>     processes.  He is also very active in civil society and related
>     coalitions, e.g. ISOC, Best Bits, the Internet Governance Caucus, etc.
>
>     Both Joy and Matt are highly visible, leading civil society
>     advocates working at the intersection of Internet governance and
>     human rights policy, which as you know is the focus on a new
>     initiative in ICANN that we are pushing in collaboration with
>     other stakeholders.  And both are maestro text drafters in
>     multiple CS coalitions, which of course will come in handy on the
>     NCSG PC.  So I couldn?t be happier that they?ve decided to
>     volunteer their energies in support of NCUC and NCSG at this
>     important time.
>
>     Welcome to you both!
>
>     Best
>
>     Bill
>
>
>
>>     On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:58 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello
>>
>>     Early in the year, after consultation with members, the NCUC PC
>>     appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to serve as our
>>     representatives on the NCSG PC.  As you will know, both of these
>>     successful reps have recently been elected to the GNSO Council,
>>     so we will need to replace them. This message is to solicit
>>     expressions of interest in filling these roles.  It is hoped that
>>     we can make a final selection and have new people in place by the
>>     Annual Meeting in Los Angeles; the NCSG PC meets on Sunday 12
>>     October.
>>
>>     These are two of the very most important positions we have in
>>     NCUC.  According to the NCSG charter,
>>
>>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /2.5 The Policy Committee
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible for:
>>
>>     /
>>     /? Discussion and development of substantive policies and
>>     statements issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will
>>     require coordination with the membership and the Constituencies;
>>
>>     /
>>     /? Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership,
>>     including PDP initiatives from the membership;
>>
>>     /
>>     /? Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives
>>     on the GNSO Council;
>>
>>     /
>>     /? Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;
>>
>>     /
>>     /? Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG
>>     participation in GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.
>>
>>     /
>>     /? Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO
>>     Council- related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council
>>     Procedures or Council decisions.
>>
>>     /
>>     /? Document methods and procedures used for decision-making.
>>     Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC.
>>
>>     2.5.1. NCSG-PC Composition.
>>
>>     The NCSG?PC shall be comprised of two representatives from each
>>     Recognized Constituency and one observer from each Candidate
>>     Constituency. The NCSG Representatives on the GNSO Council shall
>>     also serve as full members of the NCSG- PC. The NCSG Chair will
>>     participate as an ex-officio member of the NCSG-PC and will be
>>     included in determining consensus process and votes. Past GNSO
>>     Council Representatives may be included as observers in the
>>     NCSG-PC. The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to
>>     participate as observers.
>>
>>     2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making
>>
>>     /
>>     /? By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of
>>     full NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all
>>     members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto
>>     a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority
>>     views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position.
>>     <page15image17520.png> <page15image17680.png> <page15image17840.png>
>>     2.5.3. NCSG-PC Leadership
>>
>>     /
>>     /? A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of
>>     the NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly
>>     basis.
>>
>>     ?? The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.
>>
>>     /
>>     /? One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
>>     yearly basis. 2.5.4. NCSG-PC Work Process
>>
>>     /
>>     /? As much as possible, all work will be done using Internet
>>     tools, including, inter alia,
>>
>>     /
>>     /? ??  email;
>>
>>     /
>>     /? ??  wiki usage (Note: such a wiki will be publicly viewable
>>     though editing may be restricted to members of the NCSG-PC);
>>
>>     /
>>     /? ??  online document collaboration tools as well as available
>>     network cloud based tools.
>>
>>     /
>>
>>                 /? When necessary, teleconferences will be scheduled.
>>                 A scheduling tool will be used to attempt to find a
>>                 time when all members can attend. Unless all
>>                 members can attend the teleconference, any decisions
>>                 made at a teleconference will be provisional until
>>                 full consensus is determined./
>>
>>                 /
>>                 /
>>
>>                 /? When possible, as enabled for example by an ICANN
>>                 meeting, a face-to-face meeting of the NCSG-PC will
>>                 be held. As with teleconferences, if all
>>                 members cannot attend, any decisions made will need
>>                 to be verified before being considered final./
>>
>>     /
>>     2.5.5. NCSG-PC Mailing List
>>
>>     /
>>     /? All NCSG-PC full members and observers will be subscribed to
>>     the NCSG-PC mailing list.
>>
>>     /
>>     /? The NCSG-PC list will maintain an open archive.
>>
>>     /
>>     /? For non-subscribers the list will be moderated. Comments from
>>     NCSG members relevant to ongoing discussions will be forwarded to
>>     the NCSG-PC list by the list moderator.
>>
>>     2.5.6. NCSG-PC Observers
>>
>>     /
>>     /? Any observer to the NCSG-PC will have full participation
>>     rights except will not be counted in any consensus process or vote.
>>     <page16image17216.png> <page16image17376.png>
>>     <page16image17536.png> <page16image17696.png>
>>     /
>>     /? One elected or appointed representative from each Candidate
>>     Constituency will be given observer status.
>>
>>     /
>>     /? Past NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council may be permitted
>>     observer status at discretion of NCSG-PC full members.
>>
>>     /
>>     /? The NCSG-PC may invite other policy experts to participate as
>>     observers./
>>
>>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>     Basic info on the current PC?s composition is at
>>     https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current
>>
>>     The public archive for the PC?s discussions is at
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg. Perusing this
>>     would give one a clearer idea of the actual workload and
>>     responsibilities.
>>
>>     It is really really important that we put people into these slots
>>     who are fully in tune with the views and traditions of NCUC and
>>     NCSG; well appraised (or able to become so) of the substantive
>>     issues being discussed in GNSO and related processes; fully
>>     committed to doing the work (including attending monthly NCSG
>>     policy calls, collaborative document drafting, timely voting on
>>     proposed outputs, and the like); and able to work well with their
>>     colleagues on the PC and to coordinate with the NCUC EC and wider
>>     membership as necessary.  In short, we need top notch, fully
>>     committed candidates.
>>
>>     We welcome nominations and self-nominations to fill these two
>>     slots. Nominees who wish to be considered should send a few
>>     paragraphs to the members? list outlining their interests and
>>     engagement in constituency/stakeholder group work, their
>>     qualifications for and ability to perform these particular
>>     functions, and any other relevant information.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCUC-EC mailing list
>     NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org>
>     http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141103/38076c20/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Tue Nov  4 00:43:48 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:43:48 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-EC] Announcing the Appointment of New NCUC
 Representatives to the NCSG PC
In-Reply-To: <54578C60.3070605@cdt.org>
References: <34A26823-EE0F-4DA2-8AC2-F2FCD6E284C1@gmail.com>
	<0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThm4tq0COSr5=x0-UXSCUF6+FW_bm_t9=zrskKjczQyzaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54578C60.3070605@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <54580524.2030202@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141104/1778a024/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Nov  6 13:30:19 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 20:30:19 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] travel slots for intercessional meeting in DC 12-13
	January 2014
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnHOpDiw_WD3kD+NozyvJB8U0EYQnSgtWT=sX5Q8-mH-w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

as you know we have the Non-contracted party intercessional meeting planned
for the 12th and 13th January in DC, USA.
we have 21 travel slots split between NCSG, NCUC and NPOC:
- NCSG 9
- NCUC 6
- NPOC 6
last time, for NCSG travel slots it was partitioned as 3 for NCSG EC  and 6
for councillors. I will have 1 from EC quota as NCSG chair.
I would like to know who can attend from NCSG EC and councillors, so we can
send list soon and/or find alternates.
please confirm asap.

Best,

Rafik

ps list of attendees for intercessional 2013
https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/2013+GNSO-NCPH+Intersessional+Meeting+Agenda
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141106/167dd6cf/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Nov  6 20:44:13 2014
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:44:13 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-EC] Announcing the Appointment of New NCUC
 Representatives to the NCSG PC
In-Reply-To: <54580524.2030202@apc.org>
References: <34A26823-EE0F-4DA2-8AC2-F2FCD6E284C1@gmail.com>
	<0C0DEE4E-1055-4832-B894-E5F69D02F590@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThm4tq0COSr5=x0-UXSCUF6+FW_bm_t9=zrskKjczQyzaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54578C60.3070605@cdt.org> <54580524.2030202@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0b=4Qm7ULHmWPPevLhqn0FZJa=nmcekbbrNL=KgF6UQw@mail.gmail.com>

Excellent additions to the PC. Congratulations to both!
Best
Marilia

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:43 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

>  Thanks Bill and Rafik, looking forward to it.
> Just also note that I have applied to join NCUC in my personal capacity.
> Cheers
> Joy
>
> On 4/11/2014 3:08 a.m., Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> Thanks Rafik, Bill, all
>
> Its a great pleasure to appointed to this role.  Looking forward to
> working with you.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 11/3/2014 5:51 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>  Welcome to Joy and Matt in NCSG PC, looking forward your involvement and
> active  participation here!
>
>   Rafik
>
> 2014-11-03 18:05 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hello
>>
>>  I am delighted to say that NCUC can now announce the appointment of two
>> top-notch representatives to the NCSG Policy Committee, effective
>> immediately.  *Joy Liddicoat* leads the human rights work of member org
>> the Association for Progressive Communications
>> http://www.apc.org/en/user/Joy.  Joy served two years as our NCSG rep to
>> the GNSO Council.  As I said when I nominated her for that
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2011-September/007439.html
>>
>> >*Joy is the Project Co-ordinator for Internet
>> *>*Rights are Human Rights for the Association for
>> *>*Progressive Communication, a NCUC organizational
>> *>*member.  Joy is lawyer who's been a long-time
>> *>*activist on human rights on the Internet and
>> *>*beyond, and she's also involved in DNS issues
>> *>*and well attuned to the ICANNsphere.  At present
>> *>*she also serves Director of the Domain Name
>> *>*Commission, InternetNZ, the non-profit
>> *>*multistakeholder body responsible for managing
>> *>*.nz and related Internet issues in New Zealand,
>> *>*so she brings to the table an understanding of
>> *>*public interest aspects of the ccTLD space as
>> *>*well.  A strong human rights orientation has
>> *>*generally been lacking in ICANN and the GNSO, so
>> *>*she'd be filling an important gap.  At the same
>> *>*time, it would be good to further engage in NCSG
>> *>*the APC, which as probably everyone knows is the
>> *>*probably the largest NGO, a multinational
>> *>*network, doing civil society activism around
>> *>*Internet and ICT issues.  More about Joy
>> *>*here <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745>>http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745 and <http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/joy-liddicoat/11/233/745%C2%A0and>
>> *>*APC here <http://www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org/>>http://www.apc.org. <http://www.apc.org./>*
>>
>>
>>  *Mattew Shears *currently participates here as an alternate rep of NCUC
>> member org IP Justice.  In his day job, Matt leads the Global Internet
>> Policy and Human Rights work of the Center for Democracy and Technology
>> https://cdt.org/staff/matthew-shears/. (CDT is applying to join
>> NCUC/NCSG as an organizational member) Previously he served as the Internet
>> Society?s Public Policy Director, in which context he shaped ISOC?s
>> positions and represented it in a variety of global Internet governance
>> institutions.  Matt long has been extremely active as a civil society
>> participant in the ITU, WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF and related settings, and more
>> recently has gotten deeply involved in ICANN?s IANA and accountability
>> processes.  He is also very active in civil society and related coalitions,
>> e.g. ISOC, Best Bits, the Internet Governance Caucus, etc.
>>
>>  Both Joy and Matt are highly visible, leading civil society advocates
>> working at the intersection of Internet governance and human rights policy,
>> which as you know is the focus on a new initiative in ICANN that we are
>> pushing in collaboration with other stakeholders.  And both are maestro
>> text drafters in multiple CS coalitions, which of course will come in handy
>> on the NCSG PC.  So I couldn?t be happier that they?ve decided to volunteer
>> their energies in support of NCUC and NCSG at this important time.
>>
>>  Welcome to you both!
>>
>>  Best
>>
>>  Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:58 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Hello
>>
>>  Early in the year, after consultation with members, the NCUC PC
>> appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to serve as our
>> representatives on the NCSG PC.  As you will know, both of these successful
>> reps have recently been elected to the GNSO Council, so we will need to
>> replace them.  This message is to solicit expressions of interest in
>> filling these roles.  It is hoped that we can make a final selection and
>> have new people in place by the Annual Meeting in Los Angeles; the NCSG PC
>> meets on Sunday 12 October.
>>
>>  These are two of the very most important positions we have in NCUC.
>> According to the NCSG charter,
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> *2.5 The Policy Committee *
>>
>>
>>
>> *The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible for: *
>>
>>
>> * ? Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements
>> issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require coordination
>> with the membership and the Constituencies; *
>>
>>
>> * ? Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership, including
>> PDP initiatives from the membership; *
>>
>>
>> * ? Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on the
>> GNSO Council; *
>>
>>
>> * ? Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities; *
>>
>>
>> * ? Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation in
>> GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups. *
>>
>>
>> * ? Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO
>> Council- related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures or
>> Council decisions. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * ? Document methods and procedures used for decision-making.
>> Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC. 2.5.1. NCSG-PC
>> Composition. The NCSG?PC shall be comprised of two representatives from
>> each Recognized Constituency and one observer from each Candidate
>> Constituency. The NCSG Representatives on the GNSO Council shall also serve
>> as full members of the NCSG- PC. The NCSG Chair will participate as an
>> ex-officio member of the NCSG-PC and will be included in determining
>> consensus process and votes. Past GNSO Council Representatives may be
>> included as observers in the NCSG-PC. The membership of the NCSG-PC may
>> invite others to participate as observers. 2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *? By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full
>> NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need
>> to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be
>> heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the
>> rough consensus position.
>> <page15image17520.png>  <page15image17680.png>  <page15image17840.png>
>> 2.5.3. NCSG-PC Leadership *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * ? A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
>> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis. ?? The
>> NCSG Chair may not serve in this role. *
>>
>>
>> * ? One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a yearly
>> basis. 2.5.4. NCSG-PC Work Process *
>>
>>
>> * ? As much as possible, all work will be done using Internet tools,
>> including, inter alia, *
>>
>>
>> * ? ??  email; *
>>
>>
>> * ? ??  wiki usage (Note: such a wiki will be publicly viewable though
>> editing may be restricted to members of the NCSG-PC); *
>>
>>
>> * ? ??  online document collaboration tools as well as available network
>> cloud based tools. *
>>
>>   *? When necessary, teleconferences will be scheduled. A scheduling
>> tool will be used to attempt to find a time when all members can attend.
>> Unless all members can attend the teleconference, any decisions made at a
>> teleconference will be provisional until full consensus is determined.*
>>
>>
>>     *? When possible, as enabled for example by an ICANN meeting, a
>> face-to-face meeting of the NCSG-PC will be held. As with teleconferences,
>> if all members cannot attend, any decisions made will need to be verified
>> before being considered final.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * 2.5.5. NCSG-PC Mailing List *
>>
>>
>> * ? All NCSG-PC full members and observers will be subscribed to the
>> NCSG-PC mailing list. *
>>
>>
>> * ? The NCSG-PC list will maintain an open archive. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * ? For non-subscribers the list will be moderated. Comments from NCSG
>> members relevant to ongoing discussions will be forwarded to the NCSG-PC
>> list by the list moderator. 2.5.6. NCSG-PC Observers *
>>
>>
>> *? Any observer to the NCSG-PC will have full participation rights except
>> will not be counted in any consensus process or vote.
>> <page16image17216.png>  <page16image17376.png>  <page16image17536.png>  <page16image17696.png>
>> *
>>
>>
>> * ? One elected or appointed representative from each Candidate
>> Constituency will be given observer status. *
>>
>>
>> * ? Past NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council may be permitted
>> observer status at discretion of NCSG-PC full members. *
>> * ? The NCSG-PC may invite other policy experts to participate as
>> observers.*
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>  Basic info on the current PC?s composition is at
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-Current
>>
>>  The public archive for the PC?s discussions is at
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg.  Perusing this would give
>> one a clearer idea of the actual workload and responsibilities.
>>
>>  It is really really important that we put people into these slots who
>> are fully in tune with the views and traditions of NCUC and NCSG; well
>> appraised (or able to become so) of the substantive issues being discussed
>> in GNSO and related processes; fully committed to doing the work (including
>> attending monthly NCSG policy calls, collaborative document drafting,
>> timely voting on proposed outputs, and the like); and able to work well
>> with their colleagues on the PC and to coordinate with the NCUC EC and
>> wider membership as necessary.  In short, we need top notch, fully
>> committed candidates.
>>
>>  We welcome nominations and self-nominations to fill these two slots.
>> Nominees who wish to be considered should send a few paragraphs to the
>> members? list outlining their interests and engagement in
>> constituency/stakeholder group work, their qualifications for and ability
>> to perform these particular functions, and any other relevant information.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>
>>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141106/1368fcbf/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Nov  7 02:07:36 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 09:07:36 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] travel slots for intercessional meeting in
 DC 12-13 January 2014
In-Reply-To: <f44088eca6f3416ba5d9022253ea2209@BLUPR06MB146.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAH5sThnHOpDiw_WD3kD+NozyvJB8U0EYQnSgtWT=sX5Q8-mH-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<f44088eca6f3416ba5d9022253ea2209@BLUPR06MB146.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmJO0wUnvB7Sy+AW5=RDMr-R2vcpwW+tzwN4MUQeZc9hA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Lori,

as far I recall from the calls, Rob said that support would be to "limit
hotel room nights to the out-of-town participants.". while not familiar
with DC area geography, maybe we can consider Reston, virginia as "out-of
town" in that regard?

Best,

Rafik

2014-11-07 1:35 GMT+09:00 Lori Schulman <lori.schulman at ascd.org>:

>  As I live in DC metro area, I don?t need a full travel slot.  However, I
> live in Reston near Dulles airport, it would be helpful if I could qualify
> for room nights as the commute can take 60-90 mins.  in the morning and I
> am assuming that we will have early morning start times.   Could that be
> worked out?
>
>
>
> Lori
>
>
>
>
>
> *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel
> 1703 North Beauregard Street
>
> Alexandria, VA  22311-1714
>
> P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org
> [image: cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* EC-NCSG [mailto:ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik
> Dammak
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 06, 2014 6:30 AM
> *To:* NCSG-Policy; ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> *Subject:* [EC-NCSG] travel slots for intercessional meeting in DC 12-13
> January 2014
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> as you know we have the Non-contracted party intercessional meeting
> planned for the 12th and 13th January in DC, USA.
>
> we have 21 travel slots split between NCSG, NCUC and NPOC:
>
> - NCSG 9
>
> - NCUC 6
>
> - NPOC 6
>
> last time, for NCSG travel slots it was partitioned as 3 for NCSG EC  and
> 6 for councillors. I will have 1 from EC quota as NCSG chair.
>
> I would like to know who can attend from NCSG EC and councillors, so we
> can send list soon and/or find alternates.
>
> please confirm asap.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> ps list of attendees for intercessional 2013
> https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/2013+GNSO-NCPH+Intersessional+Meeting+Agenda
>
>
>
>
>
> *Learn the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD Conference on
> Educational Leadership, October 31?November 2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida.
> Featured presenters include Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson,
> and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at **www.ascd.org/cel.
> <http://www.ascd.org/cel>*
>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
>
> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
>
> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
>
> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
>
> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141107/bef425a1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141107/bef425a1/attachment.jpg>


From emorris  Fri Nov  7 04:22:08 2014
From: emorris (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 21:22:08 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] travel slots for intercessional meeting in DC
	12-13	January 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnHOpDiw_WD3kD+NozyvJB8U0EYQnSgtWT=sX5Q8-mH-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnHOpDiw_WD3kD+NozyvJB8U0EYQnSgtWT=sX5Q8-mH-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <WC20141107022208.9507A4@milk.toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

I'm able and quite interested in attending. An exciting tim to be in 
Washington, with the implications of Tuesday's election results on the 
transition still to be determined.

Best,

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>, "ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org" 
<ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 20:30:19 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] travel slots for intercessional meeting in DC 12-13 
January 2014

Hi everyone,

as you know we have the Non-contracted party intercessional meeting planned 
for the 12th and 13th January in DC, USA.
we have 21 travel slots split between NCSG, NCUC and NPOC:
- NCSG 9
- NCUC 6
- NPOC 6
last time, for NCSG travel slots it was partitioned as 3 for NCSG EC  and 6 
for councillors. I will have 1 from EC quota as NCSG chair.
I would like to know who can attend from NCSG EC and councillors, so we can 
send list soon and/or find alternates.
please confirm asap.

Best,

Rafik

ps list of attendees for intercessional 2013 
https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/2013+GNSO-NCPH+Intersessional+Meeting+Agenda
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141106/91d4b143/attachment.html>


From dave  Fri Nov  7 06:21:48 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:21:48 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] travel slots for intercessional meeting in DC 12-13
	January 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnHOpDiw_WD3kD+NozyvJB8U0EYQnSgtWT=sX5Q8-mH-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnHOpDiw_WD3kD+NozyvJB8U0EYQnSgtWT=sX5Q8-mH-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <153F688C-2EAC-4DD2-A45B-BF0AC811DE8F@difference.com.au>

I should be able to attend. 
Given that would be close to 48 hours worth of travel for 48 hours on the ground, and the jet lag will likely be horrendous, and I've never been to Washington, I might try to add a couple of days to the trip (presumably at my expense). 

David


On 6 Nov 2014, at 7:30 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> as you know we have the Non-contracted party intercessional meeting planned for the 12th and 13th January in DC, USA.
> we have 21 travel slots split between NCSG, NCUC and NPOC:
> - NCSG 9
> - NCUC 6
> - NPOC 6
> last time, for NCSG travel slots it was partitioned as 3 for NCSG EC  and 6 for councillors. I will have 1 from EC quota as NCSG chair.
> I would like to know who can attend from NCSG EC and councillors, so we can send list soon and/or find alternates.
> please confirm asap.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ps list of attendees for intercessional 2013 https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/2013+GNSO-NCPH+Intersessional+Meeting+Agenda
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141107/543b5818/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141107/543b5818/attachment-0001.sig>


From robin  Sun Nov  9 00:01:03 2014
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 14:01:03 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed Charter for Accountability CCWG
References: <545C7A36.9060007@acm.org>
Message-ID: <8E8E5C31-DE4E-466E-B452-78A1483474D4@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Avri.  I would like to volunteer to participate on workstream 2 for NCSG, as improving ICANN's accountability mechanisms has become a focus for me in recent years and will continue to be going forward.

Thank you,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] Proposed Charter for Accountability CCWG
> Date: November 6, 2014 11:52:22 PM PST
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> 
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Another note: the issue of greater representation for the Constituencies
> of the CwG has come up again in the council.  I pointed out that in this
> case there were neither discussions nor history of an ad-hoc group
> having had greater CSG representation and thus no notion of it being
> grandmothered in.
> 
> This charter is up for a vote next week.  NCSG should start selecting
> its member for the group.*  The group will be as open to particIpation
> as in cwg-stewardship, except that this charter calls them
> participants.  Each CWG learns from the experiences of the previous. 
> (In the ordering and learning, CWG-Internet came before CWG-Stewarship,
> it is just that is languished on the GNSO Council schedule a very long
> time, so it was voted on later.)
> 
> avri
> 
> * the PC is currently trying to get its organizational act together,
> with our past-Chair no longer being a member of the PC, and not having
> elected a new one yet.  According to our charter, as I read it, it will
> need to choose a member from among those who put their names forward or
> have their names put forward.  So those who want to put the intensive
> amount of work for the next year or more that may be required to be the
> member of this CWG, should consider the task.
> 
> 
> 
> On 06-Nov-14 15:07, Robin Gross wrote:
> > fyi
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> >> Subject: [Cross-Community] Proposed Charter for Accountability CCWG
> >> Date: November 6, 2014 12:57:01 PM PST
> >> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >>
> >> To view the original announcement, see here:
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-05-en
> >>
> >>
> >> Proposed Charter for Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community
> Working Group (CCWG) Submitted for Consideration
> >>
> >> On 3 November 2014, the Drafting Team that was formed by the ICANN
> community to develop a charter for the Enhancing ICANN Accountability
> Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) distributed a charter for adoption
> by chartering organizations. The charter includes, among other things, a
> problem statement, goals & objectives, scope, and proposed areas for
> work. The CCWG is expected to organize its activities in two Work
> Streams, consistent with the Revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process:
> >>
> >>> Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability
> that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA
> Stewardship Transition; and
> >>> Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which
> a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend
> beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition.
> >>>
> >> Next Steps
> >> Each ICANN Supporting Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC)
> is expected to consider the proposed charter during its upcoming
> November meeting(s). Following the adoption of the charter, chartering
> organizations are expected to identify their representative members to
> serve on the CCWG (each chartering organization will appoint a minimum
> of 2 and a maximum of 5 members to the CCWG). In addition, a call for
> volunteers to join the CCWG will be launched, so that anyone interested
> in this effort may join and participate. The CCWG is expected to
> commence its deliberations in late November or early December.
> >>
> >> All members of the group formerly known as the "Cross Community
> Group" will be added to the CCWG as participants, unless some are
> appointed by chartering organizations to serve as members or decide not
> to join this effort.
> >>
> >> Drafting Team Background
> >> Considering the short timeframe ahead and the relation of part of the
> Accountability work to the IANAStewardship Transition process, the
> Drafting Team worked on an expedited basis to develop the charter. The
> publication date was identified to align with the November meetings of
> ICANN's SOs and ACs, to allow for the question of CCWG charter adoption
> to be discussed. For details of each of the Drafting Team's meetings,
> including interim draft versions of the charter, please see here.
> >>
> >> The Drafting Team was formed following the ICANN51 meeting and
> includes members appointed by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC),
> Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country Code Supporting
> Organization (ccNSO), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and Generic
> Names Supporting Organization (GNSO).1 In addition, one representative
> from outside the ICANN SO/ACstructure joined the Drafting Team to ensure
> that the charter defined an inclusive process for the broader community.
> For a full list of Drafting Team members, please see here.
> >>
> >> Additional Information
> >> The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
> has requested that ICANN"convene a multistakeholder process to develop a
> plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to
> the IANA Functions and related root zone management. In making its
> announcement, the NTIA specified that the transition proposal must have
> broad community support and meet the following principles:
> >>
> >> Support and enhance the multistakeholder model
> >> Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS
> >> Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners
> of the IANA services
> >> Maintain the openness of the Internet.
> >> NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces
> the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization
> solution.
> >>
> >> During discussions around the transition process, the community
> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
> accountability. The Enhancing ICANN Accountability process was finalized
> and posted on 10 October 2014, and can be found here. The scope of the
> Enhancing ICANNAccountability process is defined as ensuring that ICANN
> remains accountable in the absence of its historical contractual
> relationship with the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with
> regard toICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role,
> such as the renewal process of theIANA functions contract. It calls for
> an examination, from an organizational perspective, of how ICANN's
> broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the
> absence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S.
> Government, including looking at strengthening existing accountability
> mechanisms (e.g., the ICANN Bylaws and the Affirmation of Commitments).
> >>
> >> Links to additional information:
> >> Proposed Charter [DOC, 67 KB]
> >>
> >> Drafting Team Wiki
> >>
> >> Revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process
> >>
> >> For further information, please contact accountability-staff at icann.org.
> >>
> >> 1 RSSAC and SSAC were invited to participate in the Drafting Team,
> but were unable to join the effort.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141108/ed777bb4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141108/ed777bb4/attachment.sig>


From avri  Sun Nov  9 23:18:14 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 16:18:14 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] Proposed Charter for
 Accountability CCWG
In-Reply-To: <545FCE96.9090005@apc.org>
References: <545FCE96.9090005@apc.org>
Message-ID: <545FDA16.1050307@acm.org>


Hi,

At this point we have 2 who are interested , I think in the NCSG member
slot.

Any others?  How long should we give?

I assume the charter will be approved this week, and expect that
creation of the teams needs to happen immediately after.

avri

ps. yes i am assuming a temporary shadow chairish type role that our
alt-chair can take away from me any time he wishes by taking over the
tasks.  but as a past alt--chair who just can't stand the void any
longer, just trying to keep things moving along.  maybe we should have
an election soon.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] Proposed Charter for Accountability
CCWG
Date: 	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:29:10 +1300
From: 	joy <joy at APC.ORG>
Reply-To: 	joy at apc.org
Organization: 	APC
To: 	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU



Thanks Avri and all
I am also willing to be considered for this group if needed.
Cheers
Joy Liddicoat

On 7/11/2014 8:52 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Note: the text of the charter should be same as the one I sent the
> group last week.
>
> Another note: the issue of greater representation for the
> Constituencies of the CwG has come up again in the council.  I pointed
> out that in this case there were neither discussions nor history of an
> ad-hoc group having had greater CSG representation and thus no notion
> of it being grandmothered in.
>
> This charter is up for a vote next week.  NCSG should start selecting
> its member for the group.*  The group will be as open to particIpation
> as in cwg-stewardship, except that this charter calls them
> participants.  Each CWG learns from the experiences of the previous. 
> (In the ordering and learning, CWG-Internet came before
> CWG-Stewarship, it is just that is languished on the GNSO Council
> schedule a very long time, so it was voted on later.)
>
> avri
>
> * the PC is currently trying to get its organizational act together,
> with our past-Chair no longer being a member of the PC, and not having
> elected a new one yet.  According to our charter, as I read it, it
> will need to choose a member from among those who put their names
> forward or have their names put forward.  So those who want to put the
> intensive amount of work for the next year or more that may be
> required to be the member of this CWG, should consider the task.
>
>
>
> On 06-Nov-14 15:07, Robin Gross wrote:
> > fyi
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
>
> >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> >> Subject: [Cross-Community] Proposed Charter for Accountability CCWG
> >> Date: November 6, 2014 12:57:01 PM PST
> >> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >>
> >> To view the original announcement, see here:
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-05-en
> >>
> >>
> >> Proposed Charter for Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community
> Working Group (CCWG) Submitted for Consideration
> >>
> >> On 3 November 2014, the Drafting Team that was formed by the ICANN
> community to develop a charter for the Enhancing ICANN Accountability
> Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) distributed a charter for
> adoption by chartering organizations. The charter includes, among
> other things, a problem statement, goals & objectives, scope, and
> proposed areas for work. The CCWG is expected to organize its
> activities in two Work Streams, consistent with the Revised Enhancing
> ICANN Accountability Process:
> >>
> >>> Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN
> accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time
> frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; and
> >>> Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for
> which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may
> extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition.
> >>>
> >> Next Steps
> >> Each ICANN Supporting Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC)
> is expected to consider the proposed charter during its upcoming
> November meeting(s). Following the adoption of the charter, chartering
> organizations are expected to identify their representative members to
> serve on the CCWG (each chartering organization will appoint a minimum
> of 2 and a maximum of 5 members to the CCWG). In addition, a call for
> volunteers to join the CCWG will be launched, so that anyone
> interested in this effort may join and participate. The CCWG is
> expected to commence its deliberations in late November or early December.
> >>
> >> All members of the group formerly known as the "Cross Community
> Group" will be added to the CCWG as participants, unless some are
> appointed by chartering organizations to serve as members or decide
> not to join this effort.
> >>
> >> Drafting Team Background
> >> Considering the short timeframe ahead and the relation of part of
> the Accountability work to the IANAStewardship Transition process, the
> Drafting Team worked on an expedited basis to develop the charter. The
> publication date was identified to align with the November meetings of
> ICANN's SOs and ACs, to allow for the question of CCWG charter
> adoption to be discussed. For details of each of the Drafting Team's
> meetings, including interim draft versions of the charter, please see
> here.
> >>
> >> The Drafting Team was formed following the ICANN51 meeting and
> includes members appointed by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC),
> Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country Code Supporting
> Organization (ccNSO), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and
> Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO).1 In addition, one
> representative from outside the ICANN SO/ACstructure joined the
> Drafting Team to ensure that the charter defined an inclusive process
> for the broader community. For a full list of Drafting Team members,
> please see here.
> >>
> >> Additional Information
> >> The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
> (NTIA) has requested that ICANN"convene a multistakeholder process to
> develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role"
> with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. In
> making its announcement, the NTIA specified that the transition
> proposal must have broad community support and meet the following
> principles:
> >>
> >> Support and enhance the multistakeholder model
> >> Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS
> >> Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners
> of the IANA services
> >> Maintain the openness of the Internet.
> >> NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that
> replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental
> organization solution.
> >>
> >> During discussions around the transition process, the community
> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
> accountability. The Enhancing ICANN Accountability process was
> finalized and posted on 10 October 2014, and can be found here. The
> scope of the Enhancing ICANNAccountability process is defined as
> ensuring that ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its
> historical contractual relationship with the U.S. Government and the
> perceived backstop with regard toICANN's organization-wide
> accountability provided by that role, such as the renewal process of
> theIANA functions contract. It calls for an examination, from an
> organizational perspective, of how ICANN's broader accountability
> mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its
> historical contractual relationship with the U.S. Government,
> including looking at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms
> (e.g., the ICANN Bylaws and the Affirmation of Commitments).
> >>
> >> Links to additional information:
> >> Proposed Charter [DOC, 67 KB]
> >>
> >> Drafting Team Wiki
> >>
> >> Revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process
> >>
> >> For further information, please contact accountability-staff at icann.org.
> >>
> >> 1 RSSAC and SSAC were invited to participate in the Drafting Team,
> but were unable to join the effort.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141109/f404bf1c/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 11 13:36:36 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:36:36 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmisBPARzV3gfM57NPkR4rLOnXHj0b+UYy7uzsmudYNOg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

we have 2 process to act on:
1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support in
NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make the
final call and move forward
2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
appointments.

we need to act quickly ,

Rafik

2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Yes?, it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that call.
>
> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>
> avri
>
> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>
>  Hi,
>
> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>
> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I?d get the
> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
> as a member of this group. Bill?s already been active on this group, and
> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>
> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>
> *20141015-2*
>
> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
> Whereas,
>
>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>
> Resolved:
>
>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>       subject matter;
>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>    rules.
>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141111/84f84895/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Tue Nov 11 13:50:03 2014
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:50:03 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmisBPARzV3gfM57NPkR4rLOnXHj0b+UYy7uzsmudYNOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmisBPARzV3gfM57NPkR4rLOnXHj0b+UYy7uzsmudYNOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2HKD5PQV3O0kYnykgt804y+Zm3hxQrP1BWa=04r4wy8A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rafik,

Thanks for that.

1. Could you please refresh our minds on how the 6 seats for GNSO were
allocated within stakeholder groups and constituencies? Who are the
representatives already appointed among the six?

Even not being in the PC, I would like to express a +1 for Bill.

The relevant articles of the charter are the following, I think:

There shall be a minimum of two Members (excluding
the appointed Co-Chair) from
each participating SO and AC and a maximum of six (
6) Members (excluding the
appointed Co-Chair) from each participating SO and
AC, with the maximum number
of Members subject to review by the WG Co-Chairs sh
ould they determine that the
workload and progress of the WG would be facilitate
d by having additional
Members.

In addition, all SOs and ACs may appoint Observers
if permitted by and in
accordance with their own rules and procedures. Suc
h Observers are entitled to
participate in WG deliberations on an equal footing
with the Members except for
formal voting, when called for by the Co-Chairs of
the WG. Voting is limited only to
Members. The number of Observers appointed by each
SO and AC shall not exceed
the number of Members appointed by that SO or AC.

2. Could you remind us of who already expressed interest for the CCWG
accountability?

Thanks
Mar?lia



On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> we have 2 process to act on:
> 1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support in
> NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make the
> final call and move forward
> 2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
> which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
> I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
> is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
> appointments.
>
> we need to act quickly ,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes?, it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that call.
>>
>> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
>> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
>> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
>> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
>> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>>
>> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
>> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I?d get the
>> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
>> as a member of this group. Bill?s already been active on this group, and
>> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>>
>> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>>
>> *20141015-2*
>>
>> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
>> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
>> Whereas,
>>
>>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>>
>> Resolved:
>>
>>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>       subject matter;
>>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>>    rules.
>>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141111/ce9caf37/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 11 14:34:44 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:34:44 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2HKD5PQV3O0kYnykgt804y+Zm3hxQrP1BWa=04r4wy8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmisBPARzV3gfM57NPkR4rLOnXHj0b+UYy7uzsmudYNOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2HKD5PQV3O0kYnykgt804y+Zm3hxQrP1BWa=04r4wy8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=SqnYWDf76GqFL+g=_cbabGXGvuf=ZUR4EQoHYFhCyew@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marilia,


> 1. Could you please refresh our minds on how the 6 seats for GNSO were
> allocated within stakeholder groups and constituencies? Who are the
> representatives already appointed among the six?
>
>
the CCWG IG didn't receive any name yet from Registry, Registrars, IPC,
ISPC, BC and of course NCSG. councillors may know before me such info
expecting that groups will send names to GNSO council.



> Even not being in the PC, I would like to express a +1 for Bill.
>

as councillor you are member of PC :)

>
> The relevant articles of the charter are the following, I think:
>
> There shall be a minimum of two Members (excluding
> the appointed Co-Chair) from
> each participating SO and AC and a maximum of six (
> 6) Members (excluding the
> appointed Co-Chair) from each participating SO and
> AC, with the maximum number
> of Members subject to review by the WG Co-Chairs sh
> ould they determine that the
> workload and progress of the WG would be facilitate
> d by having additional
> Members.
>
> In addition, all SOs and ACs may appoint Observers
> if permitted by and in
> accordance with their own rules and procedures. Suc
> h Observers are entitled to
> participate in WG deliberations on an equal footing
> with the Members except for
> formal voting, when called for by the Co-Chairs of
> the WG. Voting is limited only to
> Members. The number of Observers appointed by each
> SO and AC shall not exceed
> the number of Members appointed by that SO or AC.
>
>
better to check the GNSO resolutions
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410> voted in LA

"Resolved:

   1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
   http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
   2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
   member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
   charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
      - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject
      matter;
      - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
      an ongoing and long-term basis; and
      - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
      of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
   3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
   for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own rules.
   4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
   appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
   serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
   CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group."



> 2. Could you remind us of who already expressed interest for the CCWG
> accountability?
>

that was done in the NCSG list.
if I am not mistaking, it was Robin, Joy. I hope I am not missing anyone

 Rafik


> Thanks
> Mar?lia
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we have 2 process to act on:
>> 1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support
>> in NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make
>> the final call and move forward
>> 2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
>> which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
>> I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
>> is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
>> appointments.
>>
>> we need to act quickly ,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Yes?, it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that call.
>>>
>>> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
>>> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
>>> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
>>> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
>>> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>>>
>>> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
>>> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I?d get the
>>> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
>>> as a member of this group. Bill?s already been active on this group, and
>>> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>>>
>>> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>>>
>>> *20141015-2*
>>>
>>> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
>>> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
>>> Whereas,
>>>
>>>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>>>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>>>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>>>
>>> Resolved:
>>>
>>>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>>>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>>>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>>       subject matter;
>>>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>>>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>>>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>>>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>>>    rules.
>>>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>>>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>>>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>>>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141111/f5b49f43/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Nov 11 15:53:43 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:53:43 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmisBPARzV3gfM57NPkR4rLOnXHj0b+UYy7uzsmudYNOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmisBPARzV3gfM57NPkR4rLOnXHj0b+UYy7uzsmudYNOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546214E7.7040902@acm.org>

Hi,

We also need to appoint out SCI reps.

I am primary
Stefania is alternate, though she has not been participating.

I had started my desire to move into the alternate ole this year in
advance of leaving the group next year.

That is still my desire.

avri

On 11-Nov-14 06:36, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have 2 process to act on:
> 1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support in
> NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make the
> final call and move forward
> 2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
> which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
> I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
> is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
> appointments.
>
> we need to act quickly ,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes..., it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that call.
>>
>> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
>> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
>> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
>> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
>> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>>
>> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
>> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I'd get the
>> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
>> as a member of this group. Bill's already been active on this group, and
>> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>>
>> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>>
>> *20141015-2*
>>
>> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
>> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
>> Whereas,
>>
>>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>>
>> Resolved:
>>
>>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>       subject matter;
>>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>>    rules.
>>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141111/5b196db8/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Nov 11 18:14:44 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:14:44 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=SqnYWDf76GqFL+g=_cbabGXGvuf=ZUR4EQoHYFhCyew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmisBPARzV3gfM57NPkR4rLOnXHj0b+UYy7uzsmudYNOg@mail.gmail.com>	<CACpVkK2HKD5PQV3O0kYnykgt804y+Zm3hxQrP1BWa=04r4wy8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=SqnYWDf76GqFL+g=_cbabGXGvuf=ZUR4EQoHYFhCyew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546235F4.1070700@mail.utoronto.ca>

1.  I am ok with these nominations, and suggest we ask everyone to vote, 
and if there are no objections, send the results by the end of the week.
2.  Can the Vice-Chair please take charge of this now so we meet the 
deadlines?  Thanks.
3.  Rafik I believe I asked this question previously, what is your 
deadline for receiving a vote of the PC on these issues?  in other 
words, deadline minus how many hours, allowing for the fact that you are 
UTC +9, Rudi is UTC +1, and those in US/Canada seem to be either UTC-5 
or UTC-8.  I am thinking you need to know one full day ahead, ie 
thursday if the deadline is friday....

cheers SP
On 14-11-11 7:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Marilia,
>
>
>     1. Could you please refresh our minds on how the 6 seats for GNSO
>     were allocated within stakeholder groups and constituencies? Who
>     are the representatives already appointed among the six?
>
>
> the CCWG IG didn't receive any name yet from Registry, Registrars, 
> IPC, ISPC, BC and of course NCSG. councillors may know before me such 
> info expecting that groups will send names to GNSO council.
>
>     Even not being in the PC, I would like to express a +1 for Bill.
>
>
> as councillor you are member of PC :)
>
>
>     The relevant articles of the charter are the following, I think:
>
>     There shall be a minimum of two Members (excluding
>     the appointed Co-Chair) from
>     each participating SO and AC and a maximum of six (
>     6) Members (excluding the
>     appointed Co-Chair) from each participating SO and
>     AC, with the maximum number
>     of Members subject to review by the WG Co-Chairs sh
>     ould they determine that the
>     workload and progress of the WG would be facilitate
>     d by having additional
>     Members.
>
>     In addition, all SOs and ACs may appoint Observers
>     if permitted by and in
>     accordance with their own rules and procedures. Suc
>     h Observers are entitled to
>     participatein WG deliberations on an equal footing
>     with the Members except for
>     formal voting, when called for by the Co-Chairs of
>     the WG. Voting is limited only to
>     Members. The number of Observers appointed by each
>     SO and AC shall not exceed
>     the number of Members appointed by that SO or AC.
>
>
> better to check the GNSO resolutions 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410> voted in LA
>
> "Resolved:
>
>  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>     http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>  2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>     member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into
>     account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made
>     to ensure that members:
>       * Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>         subject matter;
>       * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG
>         on an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>       * Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
>         concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>  3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>     call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its
>     own rules.
>  4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>     appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik
>     Dammak to serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO
>     co-chair of the CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the
>     group."
>
>     2. Could you remind us of who already expressed interest for the
>     CCWG accountability?
>
>
> that was done in the NCSG list.
> if I am not mistaking, it was Robin, Joy. I hope I am not missing anyone
>
>  Rafik
>
>
>     Thanks
>     Mar?lia
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         we have 2 process to act on:
>         1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there
>         is support in NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support
>         within PC. can we make the final call and move forward
>         2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on
>         accountability which charter should be approved during the
>         GNSO council this thursday. if I understand correctly, we got
>         expression of interests already and the call is still open (I
>         assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
>         appointments.
>
>         we need to act quickly ,
>
>         Rafik
>
>         2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>         <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>
>             Hi,
>
>             Yes..., it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a
>             consensus call.
>
>             Thanks.
>
>             Amr
>
>             On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>             <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>>             Hi,
>>
>>             Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to
>>             make that call.
>>
>>             I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the
>>             discuss list.
>>             I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>>
>>             avri
>>
>>             On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>             Hello,
>>>
>>>             can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>>>
>>>             Rafik
>>>
>>>             2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr<aelsadr at egyptig.org>  <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>
>>>>             Hi,
>>>>
>>>>             During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
>>>>             the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
>>>>             (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
>>>>             members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:
>>>>             http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>>>>
>>>>             It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
>>>>             by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I'd get the
>>>>             nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
>>>>             as a member of this group. Bill's already been active on this group, and
>>>>             certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>>>>
>>>>             For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>>>>
>>>>             *20141015-2*
>>>>
>>>>             *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>>>             Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
>>>>             recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
>>>>             Whereas,
>>>>
>>>>                 1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>>>>                 from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>>>>                 2. The group has developed the charter found at
>>>>                 http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>>                 3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>>>>
>>>>             Resolved:
>>>>
>>>>                 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>>>                 http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>>                 2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>>>>                 member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>>>>                 charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>>>                    - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>>>                    subject matter;
>>>>                    - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>>>>                    an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>>>                    - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>>>>                    of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>>>                 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>>>>                 call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>>>>                 rules.
>>>>                 4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>>>>                 appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>>>>                 serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>>>>                 CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>             Amr
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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
>     <http://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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141111/1babb57e/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 12 17:58:37 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:58:37 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] Proposed Charter for
	Accountability CCWG
In-Reply-To: <545FDA16.1050307@acm.org>
References: <545FCE96.9090005@apc.org> <545FDA16.1050307@acm.org>
Message-ID: <F755D447-5AAB-4599-99FA-14263DFD6665@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Would giving a week following the council meeting tomorrow be too much time? I think there are still other SOs/ACs that need to adopt the charter anyway, right?

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> At this point we have 2 who are interested , I think in the NCSG member slot.
> 
> Any others?  How long should we give?
> 
> I assume the charter will be approved this week, and expect that creation of the teams needs to happen immediately after.
> 
> avri
> 
> ps. yes i am assuming a temporary shadow chairish type role that our alt-chair can take away from me any time he wishes by taking over the tasks.  but as a past alt--chair who just can't stand the void any longer, just trying to keep things moving along.  maybe we should have an election soon.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:	Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] Proposed Charter for Accountability CCWG
> Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:29:10 +1300
> From:	joy <joy at APC.ORG>
> Reply-To:	joy at apc.org
> Organization:	APC
> To:	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> 
> Thanks Avri and all
> I am also willing to be considered for this group if needed.
> Cheers
> Joy Liddicoat
> 
> On 7/11/2014 8:52 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
> >
>> Note: the text of the charter should be same as the one I sent the group last week.
>> 
>> Another note: the issue of greater representation for the Constituencies of the CwG has come up again in the council.  I pointed out that in this case there were neither discussions nor history of an ad-hoc group having had greater CSG representation and thus no notion of it being grandmothered in.
>> 
>> This charter is up for a vote next week.  NCSG should start selecting its member for the group.*  The group will be as open to particIpation as in cwg-stewardship, except that this charter calls them participants.  Each CWG learns from the experiences of the previous.  (In the ordering and learning, CWG-Internet came before CWG-Stewarship, it is just that is languished on the GNSO Council schedule a very long time, so it was voted on later.)
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> * the PC is currently trying to get its organizational act together, with our past-Chair no longer being a member of the PC, and not having elected a new one yet.  According to our charter, as I read it, it will need to choose a member from among those who put their names forward or have their names put forward.  So those who want to put the intensive amount of work for the next year or more that may be required to be the member of this CWG, should consider the task.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 06-Nov-14 15:07, Robin Gross wrote:
>> > fyi
>> 
>> > Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> >> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
>> >> Subject: [Cross-Community] Proposed Charter for Accountability CCWG
>> >> Date: November 6, 2014 12:57:01 PM PST
>> >> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> >>
>> >> To view the original announcement, see here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-05-en
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Proposed Charter for Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Submitted for Consideration
>> >>
>> >> On 3 November 2014, the Drafting Team that was formed by the ICANN community to develop a charter for the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) distributed a charter for adoption by chartering organizations. The charter includes, among other things, a problem statement, goals & objectives, scope, and proposed areas for work. The CCWG is expected to organize its activities in two Work Streams, consistent with the Revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process:
>> >>
>> >>> Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; and
>> >>> Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>> >>>
>> >> Next Steps
>> >> Each ICANN Supporting Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC) is expected to consider the proposed charter during its upcoming November meeting(s). Following the adoption of the charter, chartering organizations are expected to identify their representative members to serve on the CCWG (each chartering organization will appoint a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 members to the CCWG). In addition, a call for volunteers to join the CCWG will be launched, so that anyone interested in this effort may join and participate. The CCWG is expected to commence its deliberations in late November or early December.
>> >>
>> >> All members of the group formerly known as the "Cross Community Group" will be added to the CCWG as participants, unless some are appointed by chartering organizations to serve as members or decide not to join this effort.
>> >>
>> >> Drafting Team Background
>> >> Considering the short timeframe ahead and the relation of part of the Accountability work to the IANAStewardship Transition process, the Drafting Team worked on an expedited basis to develop the charter. The publication date was identified to align with the November meetings of ICANN's SOs and ACs, to allow for the question of CCWG charter adoption to be discussed. For details of each of the Drafting Team's meetings, including interim draft versions of the charter, please see here.
>> >>
>> >> The Drafting Team was formed following the ICANN51 meeting and includes members appointed by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country Code Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO).1 In addition, one representative from outside the ICANN SO/ACstructure joined the Drafting Team to ensure that the charter defined an inclusive process for the broader community. For a full list of Drafting Team members, please see here.
>> >>
>> >> Additional Information
>> >> The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN"convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. In making its announcement, the NTIA specified that the transition proposal must have broad community support and meet the following principles:
>> >>
>> >> Support and enhance the multistakeholder model
>> >> Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS
>> >> Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services
>> >> Maintain the openness of the Internet.
>> >> NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution.
>> >>
>> >> During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability. The Enhancing ICANN Accountability process was finalized and posted on 10 October 2014, and can be found here. The scope of the Enhancing ICANNAccountability process is defined as ensuring that ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard toICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role, such as the renewal process of theIANA functions contract. It calls for an examination, from an organizational perspective, of how ICANN's broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S. Government, including looking at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms (e.g., the ICANN Bylaws and the Affirmation of Commitments).
>> >>
>> >> Links to additional information:
>> >> Proposed Charter [DOC, 67 KB]
>> >>
>> >> Drafting Team Wiki
>> >>
>> >> Revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process
>> >>
>> >> For further information, please contact accountability-staff at icann.org.
>> >>
>> >> 1 RSSAC and SSAC were invited to participate in the Drafting Team, but were unable to join the effort.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>> 
>> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141112/9e79c96c/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Nov 12 18:11:21 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:11:21 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] Proposed Charter for
 Accountability CCWG
In-Reply-To: <F755D447-5AAB-4599-99FA-14263DFD6665@egyptig.org>
References: <545FCE96.9090005@apc.org> <545FDA16.1050307@acm.org>
	<F755D447-5AAB-4599-99FA-14263DFD6665@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <546386A9.6050307@acm.org>

Hi,

And with what is going on int 5 versus 7 members issue, it is possible
it will no pass tomorrow, or it will pass in an ammended form.

A week should be good.

We should remember that we (NCSG) will probably only get on participant,
unless we move to the 7/8 model in which we can try to get 3 NCSG, NCUC,
NPOC,  but i do not favor that path and do not think that will happen -
even if the CSG gets it extra 2 voices.    So we cannot have one member
on track one and one member on track two, not that I think the tracks
are quite that separate ad I still argue they should be largely
sequential. 

But we can have an appointed member who serves as a team coordination
point and have lots of participants doing all kinds of stuff.

avri



On 12-Nov-14 10:58, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would giving a week following the council meeting tomorrow be too much time? I think there are still other SOs/ACs that need to adopt the charter anyway, right?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At this point we have 2 who are interested , I think in the NCSG member slot.
>>
>> Any others?  How long should we give?
>>
>> I assume the charter will be approved this week, and expect that creation of the teams needs to happen immediately after.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> ps. yes i am assuming a temporary shadow chairish type role that our alt-chair can take away from me any time he wishes by taking over the tasks.  but as a past alt--chair who just can't stand the void any longer, just trying to keep things moving along.  maybe we should have an election soon.
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:	Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] Proposed Charter for Accountability CCWG
>> Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:29:10 +1300
>> From:	joy <joy at APC.ORG>
>> Reply-To:	joy at apc.org
>> Organization:	APC
>> To:	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Thanks Avri and all
>> I am also willing to be considered for this group if needed.
>> Cheers
>> Joy Liddicoat
>>
>> On 7/11/2014 8:52 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Note: the text of the charter should be same as the one I sent the group last week.
>>>
>>> Another note: the issue of greater representation for the Constituencies of the CwG has come up again in the council.  I pointed out that in this case there were neither discussions nor history of an ad-hoc group having had greater CSG representation and thus no notion of it being grandmothered in.
>>>
>>> This charter is up for a vote next week.  NCSG should start selecting its member for the group.*  The group will be as open to particIpation as in cwg-stewardship, except that this charter calls them participants.  Each CWG learns from the experiences of the previous.  (In the ordering and learning, CWG-Internet came before CWG-Stewarship, it is just that is languished on the GNSO Council schedule a very long time, so it was voted on later.)
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> * the PC is currently trying to get its organizational act together, with our past-Chair no longer being a member of the PC, and not having elected a new one yet.  According to our charter, as I read it, it will need to choose a member from among those who put their names forward or have their names put forward.  So those who want to put the intensive amount of work for the next year or more that may be required to be the member of this CWG, should consider the task.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06-Nov-14 15:07, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>> fyi
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
>>>>> Subject: [Cross-Community] Proposed Charter for Accountability CCWG
>>>>> Date: November 6, 2014 12:57:01 PM PST
>>>>> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> To view the original announcement, see here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-05-en
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposed Charter for Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Submitted for Consideration
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 November 2014, the Drafting Team that was formed by the ICANN community to develop a charter for the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) distributed a charter for adoption by chartering organizations. The charter includes, among other things, a problem statement, goals & objectives, scope, and proposed areas for work. The CCWG is expected to organize its activities in two Work Streams, consistent with the Revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; and
>>>>>> Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Next Steps
>>>>> Each ICANN Supporting Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC) is expected to consider the proposed charter during its upcoming November meeting(s). Following the adoption of the charter, chartering organizations are expected to identify their representative members to serve on the CCWG (each chartering organization will appoint a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 members to the CCWG). In addition, a call for volunteers to join the CCWG will be launched, so that anyone interested in this effort may join and participate. The CCWG is expected to commence its deliberations in late November or early December.
>>>>>
>>>>> All members of the group formerly known as the "Cross Community Group" will be added to the CCWG as participants, unless some are appointed by chartering organizations to serve as members or decide not to join this effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> Drafting Team Background
>>>>> Considering the short timeframe ahead and the relation of part of the Accountability work to the IANAStewardship Transition process, the Drafting Team worked on an expedited basis to develop the charter. The publication date was identified to align with the November meetings of ICANN's SOs and ACs, to allow for the question of CCWG charter adoption to be discussed. For details of each of the Drafting Team's meetings, including interim draft versions of the charter, please see here.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Drafting Team was formed following the ICANN51 meeting and includes members appointed by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country Code Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO).1 In addition, one representative from outside the ICANN SO/ACstructure joined the Drafting Team to ensure that the charter defined an inclusive process for the broader community. For a full list of Drafting Team members, please see here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional Information
>>>>> The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN"convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. In making its announcement, the NTIA specified that the transition proposal must have broad community support and meet the following principles:
>>>>>
>>>>> Support and enhance the multistakeholder model
>>>>> Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS
>>>>> Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services
>>>>> Maintain the openness of the Internet.
>>>>> NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability. The Enhancing ICANN Accountability process was finalized and posted on 10 October 2014, and can be found here. The scope of the Enhancing ICANNAccountability process is defined as ensuring that ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard toICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role, such as the renewal process of theIANA functions contract. It calls for an examination, from an organizational perspective, of how ICANN's broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S. Government, including looking at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms (e.g., the ICANN Bylaws and the Affirmation of Commitments).
>>>>>
>>>>> Links to additional information:
>>>>> Proposed Charter [DOC, 67 KB]
>>>>>
>>>>> Drafting Team Wiki
>>>>>
>>>>> Revised Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process
>>>>>
>>>>> For further information, please contact accountability-staff at icann.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 RSSAC and SSAC were invited to participate in the Drafting Team, but were unable to join the effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141112/05139ae6/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Nov 14 15:52:07 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:52:07 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Info] "ALAC statement on PICs for Category 1 TLDs"
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk3BgnaLXoOnwLt6tD1JDGgMDX8vX1nKSh74Asn_yywxA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

sharing here statement from ALAC following-up the advice made at ICANN
meeting in LA and concerning PICs or Public Interests Commitments. attached
also the Registry SG statement on the same topic
http://gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/RySG%20Statement%20on%20ALACs%20Los%20Angeles%20Input%20to%20GAC%20_%207%20Nov%202014.pdf


Best Regards,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141114/97b0edec/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ALAC PIC-PAB analysis.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 23693 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141114/97b0edec/attachment-0001.pdf>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Nov 14 15:55:14 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:55:14 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
In-Reply-To: <546235F4.1070700@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAH5sThmisBPARzV3gfM57NPkR4rLOnXHj0b+UYy7uzsmudYNOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2HKD5PQV3O0kYnykgt804y+Zm3hxQrP1BWa=04r4wy8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=SqnYWDf76GqFL+g=_cbabGXGvuf=ZUR4EQoHYFhCyew@mail.gmail.com>
	<546235F4.1070700@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkOB17y-XAB4QEcYJrdiXS5DvxxHXharoB9mvFQLZ7+6A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

below, excerpt from the motion voted yesterday:"2. Each GNSO Stakeholder
Group will identify one member for the CWG by 20
November taking into account the charter requirement that
best efforts should be

made to ensure that members:

?
Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter
       (see for example
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
 for areas identified for expertise);

?
Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an
ongoing and long-term basis; and

?
Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of
individuals in the organization that appoints them.
"

we have to sent the name for NCSG rep by 20 November,
@Stephanie if there is any deadline I would use UTC as timezone,

Rafik

2014-11-12 1:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

>  1.  I am ok with these nominations, and suggest we ask everyone to vote,
> and if there are no objections, send the results by the end of the week.
> 2.  Can the Vice-Chair please take charge of this now so we meet the
> deadlines?  Thanks.
> 3.  Rafik I believe I asked this question previously, what is your
> deadline for receiving a vote of the PC on these issues?  in other words,
> deadline minus how many hours, allowing for the fact that you are UTC +9,
> Rudi is UTC +1, and those in US/Canada seem to be either UTC-5 or UTC-8.  I
> am thinking you need to know one full day ahead, ie thursday if the
> deadline is friday....
>
> cheers SP
> On 14-11-11 7:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi Marilia,
>
>
>>  1. Could you please refresh our minds on how the 6 seats for GNSO were
>> allocated within stakeholder groups and constituencies? Who are the
>> representatives already appointed among the six?
>>
>>
>  the CCWG IG didn't receive any name yet from Registry, Registrars, IPC,
> ISPC, BC and of course NCSG. councillors may know before me such info
> expecting that groups will send names to GNSO council.
>
>
>
>>  Even not being in the PC, I would like to express a +1 for Bill.
>>
>
>  as councillor you are member of PC :)
>
>>
>>  The relevant articles of the charter are the following, I think:
>>
>> There shall be a minimum of two Members (excluding
>> the appointed Co-Chair) from
>> each participating SO and AC and a maximum of six (
>> 6) Members (excluding the
>> appointed Co-Chair) from each participating SO and
>>  AC, with the maximum number
>> of Members subject to review by the WG Co-Chairs sh
>> ould they determine that the
>> workload and progress of the WG would be facilitate
>> d by having additional
>> Members.
>>
>> In addition, all SOs and ACs may appoint Observers
>> if permitted by and in
>> accordance with their own rules and procedures. Suc
>> h Observers are entitled to
>> participate in WG deliberations on an equal footing
>>  with the Members except for
>> formal voting, when called for by the Co-Chairs of
>> the WG. Voting is limited only to
>> Members. The number of Observers appointed by each
>> SO and AC shall not exceed
>> the number of Members appointed by that SO or AC.
>>
>>
>  better to check the GNSO resolutions
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410> voted in LA
>
> "Resolved:
>
>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that
>    members:
>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>       subject matter;
>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>     3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>    rules.
>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group."
>
>
>
>>  2. Could you remind us of who already expressed interest for the CCWG
>> accountability?
>>
>
>  that was done in the NCSG list.
> if I am not mistaking, it was Robin, Joy. I hope I am not missing anyone
>
>   Rafik
>
>
>>  Thanks
>>  Mar?lia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>>  we have 2 process to act on:
>>> 1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support
>>> in NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make
>>> the final call and move forward
>>> 2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
>>> which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
>>> I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
>>> is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
>>> appointments.
>>>
>>>  we need to act quickly ,
>>>
>>>  Rafik
>>>
>>> 2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>
>>>>  Hi,
>>>>
>>>>  Yes?, it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>  Amr
>>>>
>>>>  On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that
>>>> call.
>>>>
>>>> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
>>>> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Hi,
>>>>
>>>> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
>>>> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
>>>> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
>>>> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>>>>
>>>> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
>>>> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I?d get the
>>>> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
>>>> as a member of this group. Bill?s already been active on this group, and
>>>> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>>>>
>>>> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>>>>
>>>> *20141015-2*
>>>>
>>>> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
>>>> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
>>>> Whereas,
>>>>
>>>>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>>>>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>>>>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>>>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>>>>
>>>> Resolved:
>>>>
>>>>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>>>>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>>>>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>>>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>>>       subject matter;
>>>>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>>>>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>>>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>>>>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>>>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>>>>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>>>>    rules.
>>>>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>>>>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>>>>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>>>>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141114/ab4a14db/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Nov 18 08:41:01 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:41:01 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>

Hi,

The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
ACSO.

We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
(remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
an obvious consensus) 
As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.

I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
takes.
(note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)

I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.

I think that it is time for us to make a selection.

Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
them is the member?
I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
any other reason, complete the task.

Any support for this course of action? And objections? 
I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
objection from anyone on the PC.

(As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)

avri


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
From:     Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
To:     Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear Councillors,

Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.

Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
ICANN Accountability

Whereas,

1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
a plan to transition
 the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
and related root zone management.

2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
accountability given its historical
contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
statement[1], as the
existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
for review and redress.

3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
accountability mechanisms does
not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
transition, this gap
between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
the transition to proceed.

4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
Group on
Enhancing ICANN Accountability.

5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
(see:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
co-chair to the CWG.

2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
efforts should be
made to ensure that members:

?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
subject matter
       (see for example
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
for areas identified for expertise);

?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
an ongoing and long-term basis; and

?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.

3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.

[1]
http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards.
Glen

Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141118/4fdeba73/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 18 15:30:47 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:30:47 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

please find attached the strawman agenda for the NCPH meeting next january,
it will be good to get your input about it and what topics we would like to
discuss there.

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
Date: 2014-11-15 14:29 GMT+09:00
Subject: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
To: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Elisa Cooper <
Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Marilyn Cade <
marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>,
Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>,
Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <
jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Cc: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <
brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>


Hi Everyone,

Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure (Version "v1") for
the January NCPH meeting.  Per our discussion this week,  please share and
discuss it with your individual communities as you see fit.  If our
previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of
several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.

Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc. as possible
via email over the course of the next week.

Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date for the next
planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line progress prior to that
next meeting.

Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda Brewer on the
cc list so that they can be ready to assist you in prepping your individual
meeting agendas during the course of the events that week.

Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning timetable is
still pretty consistent with the timing of the 2013 meeting planning
effort. The one area where we REALLY need your help is to provide as many
traveler/delegate names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that
all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any
visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting. Please provide
that info to me as soon as possible so that we can maximize the use of our
support resources for the meeting.

Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!

Best,

Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141118/89d3e3d0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 103360 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141118/89d3e3d0/attachment-0001.docx>


From emorris  Tue Nov 18 18:47:31 2014
From: emorris (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:47:31 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
Message-ID: <WC20141118164731.3405EA@milk.toast.net>

Hi Avri,

Thanks very much for doing all of this.


I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it 
takes.


Agreed.


 Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of 
them is the member?

Any support for this course of action? And objections?  


Full support.

It will be good to finally get to work on these issues.

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141118/e37ae3f1/attachment.html>


From emorris  Tue Nov 18 19:29:39 2014
From: emorris (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:29:39 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <WC20141118172939.7705FD@milk.toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

I'd like to suggest that we push on accountability and transparency issues 
at the SG and Constituency levels during the NCPH meeting.

During the last intersession meeting Bill, supported by Alain,  did an 
exceptional job of differentiating the NCSG / NCUC / NPOC approach to 
openness to that of other groups within ICANN. Fadi committed to the idea of 
having Transparency International conduct an audit of all SO's/AC's. That 
has yet to happen.

I spoke to Fadi about this in L.A. and he once again committed to the idea 
but warned it could be a year or two away for fear of volunteer fatigue. He 
told me to contact Theresa Swineheart, which I've done, to make sure the 
idea was still on the agenda. I'm still waiting to hear back from Theresa.

In an era where ICANN's transparency is very much at the fore, 
accountability and  transparency of it's constituent members needs to be 
equally evaluated and improved. Let's take the IPC as an example. The IPC 
has three categories of members, only one of which is public.  IPC Council 
members vote as directed by their membership. The identity of much of this 
membership is secret. Thus, GNSO policy at the Council level is made, in 
part, by forces unknown. ICANN policy is, in part, determined by unknown 
parties. This is not acceptable.

I understand the NCPH meeting is designed to give commercial interests more 
lobbying time...well, that's their goal. In reality, ICANN would like us all 
to play nicely with each other. I'd like to think that airing differences in 
approach honestly and forcefully is one way to move towards that outcome.

If there is support for once again raising this issue, I can commit to 
researching and writing up a White Paper of sort on the transparency and 
openness policies of the constituent components of the GNSO. I'd endeavour 
to get it done and out for comment by the end of the first week of December. 
Once done we could have some hard copies ready for distribution in DC.  When 
meeting with Fadi we could once again press this issue, remind him of his 
2013 transparency audit idea and do so with a completed study , in writing, 
to present to him. 

This is also an approach we may want to take with other issues of concern. 
Fadi likes bullet points, written product and executive summaries. As best 
we're able, I'd suggest we accommodate his preferences.

Thoughts welcome.

Ed


-----Original Message-----
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
To: "ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, NCSG-Policy 
<PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:30:47 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda

Hi everyone,

please find attached the strawman agenda for the NCPH meeting next january, 
it will be good to get your input about it and what topics we would like to 
discuss there.

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
Date: 2014-11-15 14:29 GMT+09:00
Subject: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
To: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Elisa Cooper 
<Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" 
<rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Marilyn Cade 
<marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" 
<lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "Metalitz, 
Steven" <met at msk.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye 
<jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Cc: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer 
<brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>


Hi Everyone,

Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure (Version "v1") for 
the January NCPH meeting.  Per our discussion this week,  please share and 
discuss it with your individual communities as you see fit.  If our previous 
2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of several 
agenda drafts before we reach a final version.

Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc. as possible 
via email over the course of the next week. 

Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date for the next 
planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line progress prior to that 
next meeting.

Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda Brewer on the 
cc list so that they can be ready to assist you in prepping your individual 
meeting agendas during the course of the events that week.

Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning timetable is still 
pretty consistent with the timing of the 2013 meeting planning effort. The 
one area where we REALLY need your help is to provide as many 
traveler/delegate names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that 
all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any 
visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting. Please provide 
that info to me as soon as possible so that we can maximize the use of our 
support resources for the meeting.

Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!

Best,

Rob 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141118/cf57ff02/attachment.html>


From dave  Tue Nov 18 19:51:29 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 01:51:29 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6C2FD997-F91E-4E95-9B7D-64B008C87014@difference.com.au>

We also need to have on that agenda somewhere a discussion about elections for Vice-chair and board seat. 

David

On 18 Nov 2014, at 9:30 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> please find attached the strawman agenda for the NCPH meeting next january, it will be good to get your input about it and what topics we would like to discuss there.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> Date: 2014-11-15 14:29 GMT+09:00
> Subject: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
> To: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Cc: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting.  Per our discussion this week,  please share and discuss it with your individual communities as you see fit.  If our previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.
> 
> Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc. as possible via email over the course of the next week. 
> 
> Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date for the next planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line progress prior to that next meeting.
> 
> Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to assist you in prepping your individual meeting agendas during the course of the events that week.
> 
> Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the 2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY need your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting. Please provide that info to me as soon as possible so that we can maximize the use of our support resources for the meeting.
> 
> Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rob 
> 
> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141119/ff1e76d8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141119/ff1e76d8/attachment-0001.sig>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Nov 19 01:05:07 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:05:07 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <6C2FD997-F91E-4E95-9B7D-64B008C87014@difference.com.au>
References: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<6C2FD997-F91E-4E95-9B7D-64B008C87014@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn7ip2zYF2aUp3iUhF7wsP42Tb2eehm4PdRrXUK5Ms0ZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David,

I asked that since the beginning so it is in the list. It is better to have
some proposal ready prior to the meeting.
Rafik
On Nov 19, 2014 2:51 AM, "David Cake" <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> We also need to have on that agenda somewhere a discussion about elections
> for Vice-chair and board seat.
>
> David
>
> On 18 Nov 2014, at 9:30 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> please find attached the strawman agenda for the NCPH meeting next
> january, it will be good to get your input about it and what topics we
> would like to discuss there.
>
> Rafik
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> Date: 2014-11-15 14:29 GMT+09:00
> Subject: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
> To: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Elisa Cooper <
> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <
> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Marilyn
> Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <
> lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "Metalitz,
> Steven" <met at msk.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Jimson
> Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Cc: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <
> brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure (Version "v1")
> for the January NCPH meeting.  Per our discussion this week,  please share
> and discuss it with your individual communities as you see fit.  If our
> previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of
> several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.
>
> Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc. as
> possible via email over the course of the next week.
>
> Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date for the
> next planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line progress prior to
> that next meeting.
>
> Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda Brewer on
> the cc list so that they can be ready to assist you in prepping your
> individual meeting agendas during the course of the events that week.
>
> Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning timetable is
> still pretty consistent with the timing of the 2013 meeting planning
> effort. The one area where we REALLY need your help is to provide as many
> traveler/delegate names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that
> all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any
> visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting. Please provide
> that info to me as soon as possible so that we can maximize the use of our
> support resources for the meeting.
>
> Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!
>
> Best,
>
> Rob
>
> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141119/7be03c0d/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 19 08:34:50 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:34:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530E431B-B89F-41BF-9652-D54F9278761D@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Although this is not specific to the NCPH (but rather to the entire GNSO), I think it might be worthwhile to have a discussion with the CSG on the implications of the Board Working Group report on the NomCom?s possible effect of GNSO representation on the ICANN BoDs. The proposed composition of the NomCom in this report would mean less representation by the GNSO on the NomCom (especially by the NCPH).

I am particularly interested in an idea I believe Avri brought up (if I recall correctly) during a council discussion on this topic; increasing GNSO representation on the ICANN BoDs via election of more members directly from the GNSO as opposed to relying on NomCom appointees.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 18, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> please find attached the strawman agenda for the NCPH meeting next january, it will be good to get your input about it and what topics we would like to discuss there.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> Date: 2014-11-15 14:29 GMT+09:00
> Subject: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
> To: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Cc: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting.  Per our discussion this week,  please share and discuss it with your individual communities as you see fit.  If our previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.
> 
> Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc. as possible via email over the course of the next week. 
> 
> Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date for the next planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line progress prior to that next meeting.
> 
> Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to assist you in prepping your individual meeting agendas during the course of the events that week.
> 
> Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the 2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY need your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting. Please provide that info to me as soon as possible so that we can maximize the use of our support resources for the meeting.
> 
> Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rob 
> 
> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141119/22262913/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Wed Nov 19 10:13:36 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:13:36 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
References: <C41CE1BB-ED1B-4D01-A1CB-5DC58BA36215@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <F498E423-AE93-43F4-B1DA-BB8BB3060C01@gmail.com>

Hi

Further to Rafik?s message sharing the draft, here FWIW is the response I sent to the planning group.

Best

Bill

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Subject: Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Date: November 15, 2014 at 3:35:27 PM GMT+1
> Cc: Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> To: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> 
> Hello
> 
> Thanks Rob for moving us along.  Some initial reactions:
> 
> The overall schedule maps well with what we discussed.
> 
> Re: the Day 1 morning NCPH sessions, perhaps one option would be to lead with one on broader changes/conditions in the ICANN environment on which non-contracted would have broadly similar concerns, e.g. expansion/diversification of contracted parties and possible GNSO implications; and then do the second one on our intra-house dynamics and cooperation, e.g. conduct of elections etc.  In other words, lead off with shared stuff to get everyone acclimated and then ease into items on which we?ve struggled a bit?
> 
> Re: the Day 2 afternoon NCPH sessions, it sounded on the call like we all agreed on Accountability as a substantive discussion topic.  If I understood Steve correctly CSG would be less interested in talking about IANA stewardship in this context.  If so, perhaps EWG?  Or would we want to discuss the GNSO Review and structural issues in more detail?
> 
> I suppose the four NCPH sessions could be ordered a number of ways. We also could for ex hold the intra-house discussion for one of the Day 2 slots, after folks have been spending time together and are warmed up etc?
> 
> Re: lunches,  on the first day, maybe we?d want more casual conversation opportunities? A speaker on the second day might be good, a beltway luminary of some sort?  
> 
> Steve suggested expanding the head count a little so a few local community members could join.  As discussed, alternative considerations would be keeping the group size reasonably conversational and not being asymmetric.  Could we compromise on adding two heads per house?
> 
> I had a drink with Markus the other night and he didn?t know about the meeting, but he checked his schedule and is available.  I agree it?d be good to have him there so folks who aren?t could get acquainted. 
> 
> Also, going forward, two process requests:
> 
> *Please include my NCUC EC colleague Stefania Milan on the Cc, Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>.  She is copied here.
> 
> *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>, I don?t need copies of every message in both my accounts.
> 
> thanks much
> 
> Bill
> 
>> On Nov 15, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting.  Per our discussion this week,  please share and discuss it with your individual communities as you see fit.  If our previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.
>> 
>> Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc. as possible via email over the course of the next week. 
>> 
>> Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date for the next planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line progress prior to that next meeting.
>> 
>> Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to assist you in prepping your individual meeting agendas during the course of the events that week.
>> 
>> Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the 2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY need your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting. Please provide that info to me as soon as possible so that we can maximize the use of our support resources for the meeting.
>> 
>> Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rob 
>> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141119/e3047588/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Nov 19 10:28:49 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:28:49 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <530E431B-B89F-41BF-9652-D54F9278761D@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<530E431B-B89F-41BF-9652-D54F9278761D@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <546C54C1.9030406@acm.org>

Hi,

On 19-Nov-14 07:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> I am particularly interested in an idea I believe Avri brought up (if I recall correctly) during a council discussion on this topic; increasing GNSO representation on the ICANN BoDs via election of more members directly from the GNSO as opposed to relying on NomCom appointees.

Yes, it was a conditional statement that:

If we feel that the GNSO needs better representation on the Board
then stacking Nomcom is not the best way to do it, getting extra elected
seats is a more appropriate path.

I am happy to see the business community seats on nomcom reduced and do
not think we should be fighting for them to retain their extra seats
especially since NPOC has been denied its seat for several years now
because it would make the nomcom bigger.  I still think it ironic that
the board forced NCSG, in a top down manner, to create a new
constituency and then refused to give them seats on the nomcom.

I am not, however, arguing that the GNSO should have more seats, at
least not at this point as I am not sure what I would gain.

I do agree that the nomcom issues is a good one, but will the right
people be there? I.e it is a Board issue, will the relavant Board
people, e.g. George, be there?  Otherwise, what is our purpose in the
dicussion?

avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141119/c793ce6f/attachment.html>


From mshears  Wed Nov 19 12:33:25 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:33:25 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
Message-ID: <546C71F5.70305@cdt.org>

HI Avri, all

Happy to play a supporting role as needed to the representative.

Matthew

On 11/18/2014 6:41 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the 
> other ACSO.
>
> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a 
> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining 
> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there 
> isn't an obvious consensus)
> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler 
> for a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
>
> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time 
> it takes.
> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by 
> surprise)
>
> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
>
> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
>
> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which 
> of them is the member?
> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member 
> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, 
> for any other reason, complete the task.
>
> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting 
> for objection from anyone on the PC.
>
> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any 
> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to 
> fill a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> To:     Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was 
> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
>
> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing 
> ICANN Accountability
>
> Whereas,
>
> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
> (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to 
> develop a plan to transition
>  the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA 
> Functions and related root zone management.
>
> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community 
> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's 
> accountability given its historical
> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. 
> Accountability in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial 
> multistakeholder statement[1], as the
> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as 
> for review and redress.
>
> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition 
> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN 
> accountability mechanisms does
> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the 
> NTIA has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding 
> the transition, this gap
> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent 
> the transition to proceed.
>
> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO, 
> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working 
> Group on
> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
>
> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the 
> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
> (see: 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>
> Resolved,
>
> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf) 
> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
> co-chair to the CWG.
>
> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 
> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best 
> efforts should be
> made to ensure that members:
>
> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable 
> subject matter
>        (see for example 
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12 
> for areas identified for expertise);
>
> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG 
> on an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>
> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and 
> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>
> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a 
> call for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own 
> rules.
>
> [1] 
> http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards.
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141119/64f4c785/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Nov 19 13:01:56 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:01:56 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=Cm3+i6cFmc23ZuL+sc7Otp0z8GJ48RNC0jxgC6KyXuw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

thanks for this, no objection from me

Rafik

2014-11-18 15:41 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>  Hi,
>
> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
> ACSO.
>
> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining whether
> there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't an obvious
> consensus)
> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for a
> f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
>
> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
> takes.
> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
>
> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
>
> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
>
> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
> them is the member?
> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member ready
> to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for any
> other reason, complete the task.
>
> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
> objection from anyone on the PC.
>
> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any actions
> I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill a gap here
> and make sure we are ready in time.)
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org> <Glen at icann.org>
> To:     Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was passed
> at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
>
> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> ICANN Accountability
>
> Whereas,
>
> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a
> plan to transition
>  the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
> and related root zone management.
>
> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community raised
> the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability
> given its historical
> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
> statement[1], as the
> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as for
> review and redress.
>
> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
> accountability mechanisms does
> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
> transition, this gap
> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent the
> transition to proceed.
>
> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group
> on
> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
>
> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
> (see:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf
> )
>
> Resolved,
>
> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
> (
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
> co-chair to the CWG.
>
> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 20
> November taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts
> should be
> made to ensure that members:
>
> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
> subject matter
>        (see for example
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
> for areas identified for expertise);
>
> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an
> ongoing and long-term basis; and
>
> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
> of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>
> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
>
> [1]
> http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards.
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141119/de1823d8/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Nov 19 18:37:22 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:37:22 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <WC20141118164731.3405EA@milk.toast.net>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
	<WC20141118164731.3405EA@milk.toast.net>
Message-ID: <546CC742.9060908@mail.utoronto.ca>

+1
On 2014-11-18, 11:47, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Avri,
> Thanks very much for doing all of this.
>
>
>     I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
>     I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the
>     time it takes.
>
> Agreed.
>  Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which 
> of them is the member?
>
>
>     Any support for this course of action? And objections?
>
> Full support.
> It will be good to finally get to work on these issues.
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141119/d21bccbc/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Nov 20 11:19:11 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:19:11 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] new appointment from NPOC to NCSG PC
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkU4g6BjrXdJg9kB9Udp2MhqizPkZkrFmgBSSLzs3SQpw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I was informed by Sam that Rudi is leaving the NCSG PC and replaced by
Klaus as the NPOC representative here.
Thanks to Rudi for his work in the PC and welcome again to Klaus in this
new role.

so the NCSG PC has no chair or alternate chair and so an election process
should starts soon to elect a new chair.

Best Regards,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141120/b28d8102/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sat Nov 22 18:26:38 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:26:38 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
Message-ID: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>

Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to 
have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list 
worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some 
that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous 
discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
cheers Stephanie



From emorris  Sat Nov 22 19:30:53 2014
From: emorris (Edward Morris)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:30:53 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <WC20141122173053.960039@milk.toast.net>

Hi Stephanie,

It strikes me as a newbie to the PC  list that we probably should elect a 
Chair and a Vice Chair of the PC as the first order of business as they are 
the folks who presumably will be able to organise other aspects of our PC. I 
have no idea how we traditionally do that, our November call gave some 
indication of who might be willing to be Chair, but I agree with you that we 
need to get active.

On another matter, I'd just like to welcome Klaus to the PC. It will be nice 
to work with you again, my friend, this time in a bit of a different 
capacity.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
To: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:26:38 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?

Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to
have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list
worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some
that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous
discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
cheers Stephanie

_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141122/eaed1022/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Nov 22 21:25:43 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:25:43 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5470E337.7060207@acm.org>

Hi

I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices
before proceeding.

If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?

Anyone?

We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with
a vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced. 

Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become
functional on this?

avri

On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
> ACSO.
>
> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
> an obvious consensus) 
> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
>
> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
> takes.
> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
>
> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
>
> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
>
> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
> them is the member?
> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
> any other reason, complete the task.
>
> Any support for this course of action? And objections? 
> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
> objection from anyone on the PC.
>
> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> To:     Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
>
> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> ICANN Accountability
>
> Whereas,
>
> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
> a plan to transition
>  the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
> and related root zone management.
>
> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
> accountability given its historical
> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
> statement[1], as the
> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
> for review and redress.
>
> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
> accountability mechanisms does
> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
> transition, this gap
> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
> the transition to proceed.
>
> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
> Group on
> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
>
> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
> (see:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>
> Resolved,
>
> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
> co-chair to the CWG.
>
> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
> efforts should be
> made to ensure that members:
>
> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
> subject matter
>        (see for example
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
> for areas identified for expertise);
>
> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>
> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>
> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
>
> [1]
> http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards.
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141122/37a2941c/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Sat Nov 22 22:11:05 2014
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:11:05 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <WC20141122173053.960039@milk.toast.net>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<WC20141122173053.960039@milk.toast.net>
Message-ID: <5470EDD9.3080802@yorku.ca>

The election process for the Chair (& Vice-Chair) of the NCSG PC 
Committee is spelled out in the NCSG Charter as follows:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf

2.5.3.  NCSG PC  Leadership

  * A  Chair  will  be  elected  or replaced  from  among  the  members 
    of  the  NCSG PC  by a 2/3  vote  of  the  NCSG PC  membership  on 
    a  yearly basis.

      *      The  NCSG  Chair  may  not serve  in  this  role

  * One  or  more  Vice Chairs  may  be chosen  by  the  NCSG PC  on  a 
    yearly  basis.

Sam

/On 22/11/2014 12:30 PM, Edward Morris wrote://
/
> //
> /Hi Stephanie,/
> //
> //
> //
> //
> /It strikes me as a newbie to the PC  list that we probably should 
> elect a Chair and a Vice Chair of the PC as the first order of 
> business as they are the folks who presumably will be able to organise 
> other aspects of our PC. I have no idea how we traditionally do that, 
> our November call gave some indication of who might be willing to be 
> Chair, but I agree with you that we need to get active./
> //
> //
> //
> /On another matter, I'd just like to welcome Klaus to the PC. It will 
> be nice to work with you again, my friend, this time in a bit of a 
> different capacity./
> //
> //
> //
> /Ed/
> //
>
>     /-----Original Message-----//
>     //From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>//
>     //To: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>//
>     //Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:26:38 -0500//
>     //Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?//
>     ///
>     /Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the
>     need to//
>     //have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought
>     the list//
>     //worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on,
>     and some//
>     //that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they
>     are?//
>     //And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more
>     vigorous//
>     //discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.//
>     //cheers Stephanie/
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG%40ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-- 
------------------------------------------------
"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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141122/64e56441/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Nov 23 01:51:22 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 00:51:22 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6EE55024-E5B6-4CE7-AE2A-66F3E224FCE2@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I don?t remember a number of things, but my focus has been elsewhere this past week. I may have missed something. There is ONE thing we need to settle on urgently, which Avri has been asking us to do, and that is select the NCSG member for the Accountability CWG.

On the regular PC calls, I never felt it was actually necessary. But if it will help clear our tasks in a more timely manner, then I don?t mind. 

Thanks.

On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
> cheers Stephanie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Sun Nov 23 01:56:46 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 00:56:46 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <5470E337.7060207@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org> <5470E337.7060207@acm.org>
Message-ID: <D4FDB0D3-4BD4-44F3-9C3B-41AE85939502@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Why don?t we just move forward with the vote? We already missed the November 20th deadline to inform the GNSO who NCSG is appointing to the CWG.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 22, 2014, at 8:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices before proceeding.
> 
> If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with a vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced.  
> 
> Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become functional on this?
> 
> avri
> 
> On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
>> ACSO.
>> 
>> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
>> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
>> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
>> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
>> an obvious consensus) 
>> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
>> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
>> 
>> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
>> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
>> takes.
>> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
>> 
>> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
>> 
>> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
>> 
>> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
>> them is the member?
>> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
>> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
>> any other reason, complete the task.
>> 
>> Any support for this course of action? And objections? 
>> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
>> objection from anyone on the PC.
>> 
>> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
>> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
>> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
>> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
>> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> To:     Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Councillors,
>> 
>> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
>> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
>> 
>> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
>> ICANN Accountability
>> 
>> Whereas,
>> 
>> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
>> a plan to transition
>>  the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
>> and related root zone management.
>> 
>> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
>> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
>> accountability given its historical
>> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
>> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
>> statement[1], as the
>> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
>> for review and redress.
>> 
>> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
>> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
>> accountability mechanisms does
>> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
>> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
>> transition, this gap
>> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
>> the transition to proceed.
>> 
>> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
>> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
>> Group on
>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
>> 
>> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
>> (see:
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>> 
>> Resolved,
>> 
>> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
>> co-chair to the CWG.
>> 
>> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
>> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
>> efforts should be
>> made to ensure that members:
>> 
>> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>> subject matter
>>        (see for example
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
>> for areas identified for expertise);
>> 
>> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
>> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>> 
>> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
>> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>> 
>> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
>> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
>> 
>> [1]
>> http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>> Thank you.
>> Kind regards.
>> Glen
>> 
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/8d0b71b6/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Nov 23 01:58:10 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:58:10 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <5470EDD9.3080802@yorku.ca>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<WC20141122173053.960039@milk.toast.net>
	<5470EDD9.3080802@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <54712312.2080409@mail.utoronto.ca>

Maria has announced her intention to step down, if she has done so, then 
we need to elect a chair.  IN the meantime, Rudi is our Vice Chair.  I 
don't think we should be missing deadlines, can we please elect our rep 
to the CCWG?
Kind regards, Stephanie


On 14-11-22 3:11 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> The election process for the Chair (& Vice-Chair) of the NCSG PC 
> Committee is spelled out in the NCSG Charter as follows:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf
>
> 2.5.3.  NCSG PC  Leadership
>
>   * A  Chair  will  be  elected  or  replaced  from  among the 
>     members  of  the  NCSG PC  by a  2/3  vote  of  the NCSG PC 
>     membership  on  a  yearly  basis.
>
>       *     The  NCSG  Chair  may  not  serve  in  this  role
>
>   * One  or  more  Vice Chairs  may  be  chosen  by  the  NCSG PC  on 
>     a  yearly  basis.
>
> Sam
>
> /On 22/11/2014 12:30 PM, Edward Morris wrote://
> /
>> //
>> /Hi Stephanie,/
>> //
>> //
>> //
>> //
>> /It strikes me as a newbie to the PC  list that we probably should 
>> elect a Chair and a Vice Chair of the PC as the first order of 
>> business as they are the folks who presumably will be able to 
>> organise other aspects of our PC. I have no idea how we traditionally 
>> do that, our November call gave some indication of who might be 
>> willing to be Chair, but I agree with you that we need to get active./
>> //
>> //
>> //
>> /On another matter, I'd just like to welcome Klaus to the PC. It will 
>> be nice to work with you again, my friend, this time in a bit of a 
>> different capacity./
>> //
>> //
>> //
>> /Ed/
>> //
>>
>>     /-----Original Message-----//
>>     //From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>//
>>     //To: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>//
>>     //Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:26:38 -0500//
>>     //Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?//
>>     ///
>>     /Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the
>>     need to//
>>     //have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought
>>     the list//
>>     //worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on,
>>     and some//
>>     //that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what
>>     they are?//
>>     //And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more
>>     vigorous//
>>     //discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.//
>>     //cheers Stephanie/
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG%40ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------
> "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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141122/4890b6ee/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Nov 23 03:05:43 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:05:43 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <54712312.2080409@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<WC20141122173053.960039@milk.toast.net>
	<5470EDD9.3080802@yorku.ca> <54712312.2080409@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkJRMBzxqsUcnoUbf65-pEWUNRFMx2de=y-4Vx3i+3Ggw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Stephanie,

it sounds that you missed some emails , Rudi was replaced in PC and so we
don't have an alt-chair anymore. I announced that and asked for initiating
the election.

Rafik


2014-11-23 8:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

>  Maria has announced her intention to step down, if she has done so, then
> we need to elect a chair.  IN the meantime, Rudi is our Vice Chair.  I
> don't think we should be missing deadlines, can we please elect our rep to
> the CCWG?
> Kind regards, Stephanie
>
>
>
> On 14-11-22 3:11 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> The election process for the Chair (& Vice-Chair) of the NCSG PC Committee
> is spelled out in the NCSG Charter as follows:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf
>
> 2.5.3.  NCSG PC  Leadership
>
>    - A  Chair  will  be  elected  or  replaced  from  among  the
>    members  of  the  NCSG PC  by a  2/3  vote  of  the  NCSG PC  membership
>    on  a  yearly  basis.
>
>
>    -     The  NCSG  Chair  may  not  serve  in  this  role
>
>
>    - One  or  more  Vice Chairs  may  be  chosen  by  the  NCSG PC  on
>    a  yearly  basis.
>
> Sam
>
> *On 22/11/2014 12:30 PM, Edward Morris wrote:*
>
>  *Hi Stephanie,*
>
>  * It strikes me as a newbie to the PC  list that we probably should
> elect a Chair and a Vice Chair of the PC as the first order of business as
> they are the folks who presumably will be able to organise other aspects of
> our PC. I have no idea how we traditionally do that, our November call gave
> some indication of who might be willing to be Chair, but I agree with you
> that we need to get active.*
>
>  * On another matter, I'd just like to welcome Klaus to the PC. It will
> be nice to work with you again, my friend, this time in a bit of a
> different capacity.*
>
>  * Ed*
>
>
> *-----Original Message-----*
> * From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>*
> * To: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>*
> * Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:26:38 -0500*
> * Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?*
>
> *Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to*
> * have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list*
> * worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some*
> * that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?*
> * And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous*
> * discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.*
> * cheers Stephanie*
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>  http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/862daf7a/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Sun Nov 23 03:12:42 2014
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 20:12:42 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <6EE55024-E5B6-4CE7-AE2A-66F3E224FCE2@egyptig.org>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<6EE55024-E5B6-4CE7-AE2A-66F3E224FCE2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5471348A.9060909@yorku.ca>

Amr & All,

Amr is not alone is having to focus elsewhere for the moment. Since the 
LA ICANN meetings I too have been hit with unanticipated ( and unwelcome 
:-( ) work demanding large chunks of my attention. I have a ways to go 
to get on top of things but I am here and we should be able to quickly 
conclude the process for selecting the NCSG member for the 
Accountability CWG.

We can also proceed to address the election of a NCSG-PC Chair (and 
possibly a Vice-Chair).  In my opinion we should be able to do both of 
these online without requiring a call.

I would add that, for different reasons, several of my colleagues within 
NPOC have also been hit by unanticipated work demanding immediate attention.
This too will pass....as hope springs eternal.

Sam L


/On 22/11/2014 6:51 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote://
/
> /Hi,
>
> I don?t remember a number of things, but my focus has been elsewhere this past week. I may have missed something. There is ONE thing we need to settle on urgently, which Avri has been asking us to do, and that is select the NCSG member for the Accountability CWG.
>
> On the regular PC calls, I never felt it was actually necessary. But if it will help clear our tasks in a more timely manner, then I don?t mind.
>
> Thanks.
> /

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141122/9519dba0/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Nov 23 03:20:58 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:20:58 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <5470E337.7060207@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org> <5470E337.7060207@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

the window for any objections was fairly open for days. I do think we can
move to voting.

Rafik

2014-11-23 4:25 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>  Hi
>
> I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices before
> proceeding.
>
> If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?
>
> Anyone?
>
> We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with a
> vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced.
>
> Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become
> functional on this?
>
> avri
>
>
> On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
> ACSO.
>
> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
> an obvious consensus)
> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
>
> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
> takes.
> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
>
> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
>
> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
>
> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
> them is the member?
> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
> any other reason, complete the task.
>
> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
> objection from anyone on the PC.
>
> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org> <Glen at icann.org>
> To:     Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
>
> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> ICANN Accountability
>
> Whereas,
>
> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
> a plan to transition
>  the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
> and related root zone management.
>
> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
> accountability given its historical
> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
> statement[1], as the
> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
> for review and redress.
>
> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
> accountability mechanisms does
> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
> transition, this gap
> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
> the transition to proceed.
>
> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
> Group on
> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
>
> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>
> Resolved,
>
> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
> co-chair to the CWG.
>
> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
> efforts should be
> made to ensure that members:
>
> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
> subject matter
>        (see for examplehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
> for areas identified for expertise);
>
> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>
> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>
> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
>
> [1]http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards.
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariatgnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/2564197b/attachment.html>


From avri  Sun Nov 23 05:36:00 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:36:00 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org> <5470E337.7060207@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54715620.9030108@acm.org>

Ok.

Poll is setup

http://doodle.com/6ys85r6pd9z97ndx

Open until 25 Nov UTC

avri



On 23-Nov-14 05:20, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> the window for any objections was fairly open for days. I do think we can
> move to voting.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-11-23 4:25 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>
>>  Hi
>>
>> I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices before
>> proceeding.
>>
>> If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?
>>
>> Anyone?
>>
>> We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with a
>> vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced.
>>
>> Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become
>> functional on this?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
>> ACSO.
>>
>> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
>> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
>> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
>> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
>> an obvious consensus)
>> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
>> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
>>
>> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
>> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
>> takes.
>> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
>>
>> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
>>
>> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
>>
>> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
>> them is the member?
>> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
>> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
>> any other reason, complete the task.
>>
>> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
>> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
>> objection from anyone on the PC.
>>
>> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
>> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
>> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
>> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
>> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org> <Glen at icann.org>
>> To:     Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Councillors,
>>
>> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
>> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
>>
>> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
>> ICANN Accountability
>>
>> Whereas,
>>
>> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
>> a plan to transition
>>  the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
>> and related root zone management.
>>
>> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
>> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
>> accountability given its historical
>> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
>> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
>> statement[1], as the
>> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
>> for review and redress.
>>
>> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
>> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
>> accountability mechanisms does
>> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
>> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
>> transition, this gap
>> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
>> the transition to proceed.
>>
>> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
>> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
>> Group on
>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
>>
>> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>>
>> Resolved,
>>
>> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
>> co-chair to the CWG.
>>
>> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
>> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
>> efforts should be
>> made to ensure that members:
>>
>> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>> subject matter
>>        (see for examplehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
>> for areas identified for expertise);
>>
>> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
>> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>
>> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
>> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>
>> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
>> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
>>
>> [1]http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>> Thank you.
>> Kind regards.
>> Glen
>>
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariatgnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/4ed6b9b7/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sun Nov 23 05:48:46 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:48:46 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <54715620.9030108@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
	<5470E337.7060207@acm.org>	<CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54715620.9030108@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5471591E.4030706@acm.org>


PS: For member of the PC only

ie.

6 council members
2 NCUC reps
2 NPOC reps
1 NCSG Chair

Note: I set it up so that only I see the votes as the vote is going on,
so that people would not be influenced by the votes of others. 

I already put my vote in.

At the end, if the NCSG-PC agrees I can
-publish the vote
-or keep it secret
-or just give the NCSG chair the full results to deal with.

I made the secret ballot decision myself so as not to spend another few
days discussing the issue before the vote, figuring I could always
reveal later if desired.

avri


On 23-Nov-14 07:36, Avri Doria wrote:
> Ok.
>
> Poll is setup
>
> http://doodle.com/6ys85r6pd9z97ndx
>
> Open until 25 Nov UTC
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 23-Nov-14 05:20, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> the window for any objections was fairly open for days. I do think we can
>> move to voting.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-11-23 4:25 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>
>>>  Hi
>>>
>>> I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices before
>>> proceeding.
>>>
>>> If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?
>>>
>>> Anyone?
>>>
>>> We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with a
>>> vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced.
>>>
>>> Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become
>>> functional on this?
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
>>> ACSO.
>>>
>>> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
>>> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
>>> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
>>> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
>>> an obvious consensus)
>>> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
>>> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
>>>
>>> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
>>> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
>>> takes.
>>> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
>>>
>>> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
>>>
>>> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
>>>
>>> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
>>> them is the member?
>>> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
>>> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
>>> any other reason, complete the task.
>>>
>>> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
>>> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
>>> objection from anyone on the PC.
>>>
>>> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
>>> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
>>> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
>>> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
>>> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org> <Glen at icann.org>
>>> To:     Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Councillors,
>>>
>>> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
>>> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
>>>
>>> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
>>> ICANN Accountability
>>>
>>> Whereas,
>>>
>>> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>>> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
>>> a plan to transition
>>>  the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
>>> and related root zone management.
>>>
>>> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
>>> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
>>> accountability given its historical
>>> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
>>> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
>>> statement[1], as the
>>> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
>>> for review and redress.
>>>
>>> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
>>> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
>>> accountability mechanisms does
>>> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
>>> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
>>> transition, this gap
>>> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
>>> the transition to proceed.
>>>
>>> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
>>> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
>>> Group on
>>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
>>>
>>> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
>>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
>>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>>>
>>> Resolved,
>>>
>>> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>>> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
>>> co-chair to the CWG.
>>>
>>> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
>>> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
>>> efforts should be
>>> made to ensure that members:
>>>
>>> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>> subject matter
>>>        (see for examplehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
>>> for areas identified for expertise);
>>>
>>> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
>>> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>>
>>> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
>>> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>>
>>> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
>>> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
>>>
>>> [1]http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
>>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Kind regards.
>>> Glen
>>>
>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>> GNSO Secretariatgnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/389fc831/attachment.html>


From joy  Sun Nov 23 09:39:55 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 20:39:55 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <54715620.9030108@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
	<5470E337.7060207@acm.org>	<CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54715620.9030108@acm.org>
Message-ID: <54718F4B.70902@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/d8fa8e4f/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sun Nov 23 09:58:01 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 11:58:01 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <54718F4B.70902@apc.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>	<5470E337.7060207@acm.org>	<CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>	<54715620.9030108@acm.org>
	<54718F4B.70902@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54719389.9060804@acm.org>

Hi,

In which case, unless there is an objection, Robin is the NCSG member
for the CCWG-Accountabilty.

I will delete the doodle poll.

Thanks

avri

On 23-Nov-14 11:39, joy wrote:
> Hi all
> I really must profusely apologise for not picking up earlier that this would 
> need a vote (I was just volunteering to help and think I was confused between 
> this and the Policy Committee vote for Chair). I'm  really sorry, and would like 
> to withdraw from this. Robin, you are a great candidate and I am happy to 
> support you!
> Regards
>
> Joy
> On 23/11/2014 4:36 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
> > Ok.
> >
> > Poll is setup
> >
> > http://doodle.com/6ys85r6pd9z97ndx
> >
> > Open until 25 Nov UTC
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23-Nov-14 05:20, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >> Hi Avri,
> >>
> >> the window for any objections was fairly open for days. I do think we can
> >> move to voting.
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2014-11-23 4:25 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria<avri at acm.org>:
> >>
> >>>   Hi
> >>>
> >>> I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices before
> >>> proceeding.
> >>>
> >>> If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?
> >>>
> >>> Anyone?
> >>>
> >>> We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with a
> >>> vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced.
> >>>
> >>> Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become
> >>> functional on this?
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
> >>> ACSO.
> >>>
> >>> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
> >>> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
> >>> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
> >>> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
> >>> an obvious consensus)
> >>> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
> >>> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
> >>>
> >>> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
> >>> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
> >>> takes.
> >>> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
> >>>
> >>> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
> >>>
> >>> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
> >>> them is the member?
> >>> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
> >>> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
> >>> any other reason, complete the task.
> >>>
> >>> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
> >>> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
> >>> objection from anyone on the PC.
> >>>
> >>> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
> >>> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
> >>> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
> >>> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
> >>> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry<Glen at icann.org>  <Glen at icann.org>
> >>> To:     Council GNSO<council at gnso.icann.org>  <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Councillors,
> >>>
> >>> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
> >>> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
> >>>
> >>> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> >>> ICANN Accountability
> >>>
> >>> Whereas,
> >>>
> >>> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
> >>> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
> >>> a plan to transition
> >>>   the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
> >>> and related root zone management.
> >>>
> >>> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
> >>> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
> >>> accountability given its historical
> >>> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
> >>> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
> >>> statement[1], as the
> >>> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
> >>> for review and redress.
> >>>
> >>> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
> >>> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
> >>> accountability mechanisms does
> >>> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
> >>> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
> >>> transition, this gap
> >>> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
> >>> the transition to proceed.
> >>>
> >>> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
> >>> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
> >>> Group on
> >>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
> >>>
> >>> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
> >>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
> >>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
> >>>
> >>> Resolved,
> >>>
> >>> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
> >>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
> >>> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
> >>> co-chair to the CWG.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
> >>> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
> >>> efforts should be
> >>> made to ensure that members:
> >>>
> >>> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
> >>> subject matter
> >>>         (see for examplehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
> >>> for areas identified for expertise);
> >>>
> >>> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
> >>> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
> >>>
> >>> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
> >>> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
> >>>
> >>> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
> >>> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
> >>>
> >>> [1]http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
> >>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> Kind regards.
> >>> Glen
> >>>
> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry
> >>> GNSOSecretariatgnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailinglistPC-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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/ae1bd29d/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Sun Nov 23 10:49:20 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 09:49:20 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>

Hi

> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
> cheers Stephanie

On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.

Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to 

*make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
*unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
*when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.

It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.

Best

Bill


From rafik.dammak  Sun Nov 23 11:08:48 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:08:48 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnqWSWPrhODwESbxigr3ZsrRbjmaP+-xRubqc_GLoXKdw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill,


> > Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to
> have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list
> worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some
> that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
> > And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous
> discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
> > cheers Stephanie
>
> On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that
> Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance
> maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with
> inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role
> (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the
> whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this,
> has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
>

an election will happen soon.


> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we
> couldn?t first try to
>
> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about
> the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the
> pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of
> them
>

the issue is that we get the council agenda (with the motions) around
Thursday not so much time to discuss and one of the benefit of the NCSG
call is to discuss with the whole membership to let people know what is
happening. for motions, maybe some councillors can give us priority or
heads-up beforehand.
can we improve that? yes but that needs some additional workload.


> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate
> time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS,
> public comments and other outputs.
>

the call is already 2 hours and we cover working group and public comments
where there is things pressing or need our attention ( it is always in the
agenda ) and that is why I ask people to speak-up. adding 30 minutes may be
too much .


> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on
> ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we
> might want try to leverage the one we have.
>

if the PC members can have a monthly call to handle stuff that didn't move
quickly  in the mailing list, there is possible benefit.
acknowledging  that people are busy with many things, I think it is also
possible to react when needed e.g. agreeing on procedural stuff . currently
we don't have a statement to review or something similar, so workload is
not that much. we have kind of new PC so it is possible to let it
 functions fully.

Rafik

> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/a797587a/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sun Nov 23 13:13:31 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:13:31 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5471C15B.9030103@acm.org>

Hi,

No one has agreed with me on this.  So I will back down on it.  So lets
just get (self) nominations and make an election of it.  Unless of
course we only have one victim in which case we can crown him and be
done with it.

Just FYI,  I don't particularly mind electing a chair from either
constituency as long as they are an effective and neutral chair; both of
which I think are criticial in a chair.  To my mind becoming chair means
giving up partisanship, so it should not matter which constituency they
were selected by.  For example, one of the reasons I no longer put
myself forward for things like chair of GNSO WGs, and do my best to
avoid nominations, is I have no desire to be non-partisan in GNSO WGs.

avri



On 23-Nov-14 12:49, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
>> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
>> cheers Stephanie
> On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
>
> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to 
>
> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.
>
> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/80a89bc9/attachment.html>


From avri  Sun Nov 23 13:27:23 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:27:23 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5471C49B.4020002@acm.org>


On 23-Nov-14 12:49, William Drake wrote:
> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have

ha! now there's wishful thinking for you.  I do not think all PC
members, or even all elected counselors  have ever be in attendance.

avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/98618066/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Nov 23 19:18:06 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:18:06 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <54712312.2080409@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>	<WC20141122173053.960039@milk.toast.net>	<5470EDD9.3080802@yorku.ca>
	<54712312.2080409@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <547216CE.1020707@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks for the clarification, I dont know how I missed it!  I will 
search the deluge...
I was only asking for a call because nothing seems to be happening...I 
had asked on November 11 and did not think we had resolved the matter.
Cheers Stephanie
On 14-11-22 6:58 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Maria has announced her intention to step down, if she has done so, 
> then we need to elect a chair.  IN the meantime, Rudi is our Vice 
> Chair.  I don't think we should be missing deadlines, can we please 
> elect our rep to the CCWG?
> Kind regards, Stephanie
>
>
> On 14-11-22 3:11 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>> The election process for the Chair (& Vice-Chair) of the NCSG PC 
>> Committee is spelled out in the NCSG Charter as follows:
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf
>>
>> 2.5.3.  NCSG PC  Leadership
>>
>>   * A  Chair  will  be  elected  or  replaced  from  among the 
>>     members  of  the  NCSG PC  by a  2/3  vote  of  the NCSG PC 
>>     membership  on  a  yearly  basis.
>>
>>       *     The  NCSG  Chair  may  not  serve  in  this  role
>>
>>   * One  or  more  Vice Chairs  may  be  chosen  by  the NCSG PC  on 
>>     a  yearly  basis.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> /On 22/11/2014 12:30 PM, Edward Morris wrote://
>> /
>>> //
>>> /Hi Stephanie,/
>>> //
>>> //
>>> //
>>> //
>>> /It strikes me as a newbie to the PC  list that we probably should 
>>> elect a Chair and a Vice Chair of the PC as the first order of 
>>> business as they are the folks who presumably will be able to 
>>> organise other aspects of our PC. I have no idea how we 
>>> traditionally do that, our November call gave some indication of who 
>>> might be willing to be Chair, but I agree with you that we need to 
>>> get active./
>>> //
>>> //
>>> //
>>> /On another matter, I'd just like to welcome Klaus to the PC. It 
>>> will be nice to work with you again, my friend, this time in a bit 
>>> of a different capacity./
>>> //
>>> //
>>> //
>>> /Ed/
>>> //
>>>
>>>     /-----Original Message-----//
>>>     //From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>//
>>>     //To: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>//
>>>     //Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:26:38 -0500//
>>>     //Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?//
>>>     ///
>>>     /Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about
>>>     the need to//
>>>     //have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others
>>>     thought the list//
>>>     //worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on,
>>>     and some//
>>>     //that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what
>>>     they are?//
>>>     //And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more
>>>     vigorous//
>>>     //discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.//
>>>     //cheers Stephanie/
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG%40ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> "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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/c8ba3330/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Nov 23 19:20:22 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:20:22 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54721756.5020705@mail.utoronto.ca>

I totally agree, it just seems not much is happening.  Those of us on 
working groups (pol/impl, ppsai being mine) could use some input from 
others as we are influencing outcomes.
cheers Steph
On 14-11-23 3:49 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
>> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
>> cheers Stephanie
> On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
>
> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to
>
> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.
>
> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.
>
> Best
>
> Bill




From avri  Mon Nov 24 08:17:52 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:17:52 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [CWG-RFP3] Separability
In-Reply-To: <CA+aOHUTucBis7RQWacTumYen4XPi1pNCTEHQJoS4oAJhCXSY8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141116114844.9728824825d8130ed546db9649e48f42.1ea8e09857.wbe@email01.secureserver.net>	<bc0e33dc693f4a82a41e511b33124bf2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>	<5472B00D.7000308@acm.org>
	<CA+aOHUTucBis7RQWacTumYen4XPi1pNCTEHQJoS4oAJhCXSY8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5472CD90.6080208@acm.org>

Hi,

Thanks for the response and the correction on the timing.

So the current scheme is

- Weak separability after 3 years and again after another 2 (No RFP
needed, contract renewed unless there are severe issues that cannot be
resolved)
- Strong separability after 3+2+2 (RFP required)

I believe that we need this sort of hybrid approach to continue.

I also think the open comment process the NTIA went through before the 7
year RFP should be replicated by any solution we come up with.

I.e every 7 years we go though the entire RFP process, complexity and
expenses not withstanding.

While I know the Frankfurt discussion did not get to this level, I think
anything less is an unacceptable solution and I believe that I am
expressing a view that is representative of the community I have been
selected as a member by (have bcc'ed the NCSG IANA group
<ncsg-iana at ipjustice.org>  on this as confirmation).  While we have not
settled on any particular details of a regular RFP and Separability or
the length of periods, we are quite convinced that both are required.

Thanks

avri

On 24-Nov-14 08:38, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Avri,
>
> I believe that where we currently stand (understanding that nothing has
> been decided) is that the contract will have a limited duration, and that
> the review team will have the option to put out an RFP tied to the end of
> that contract.  I believe the sense was that it would be better to allow
> the review team to exercise its discretion and judgment, rather than making
> an RFP a requirement.  Among other things, it was noted that the RFP
> process consumes significant amounts of time, money and resources
> (including human resources) for all parties, and that such a process should
> only take place if the circumstances warranted it.
>
> The length of the contract's duration did not receive as much specific
> attention.  That said, my personal belief is that changing the term from
> that in the current contract will require justification (i.e., more
> justification than keeping it as it is) (also, I believe it is currently 3
> years, with two 2 year options).
>
> This discussion may have started because the "flow chart" did not
> explicitly mention the contract or its duration.  This was because the flow
> chart was intended to demonstrate the groups tentatively proposed to
> replace the NTIA's roles, and was not intended to summarize the whole of
> the potential proposal.
>
> I hope this helps clarify these points.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While I wasn't at Frankfurt, I had gotten the impression that there had
>> been a strong notion of separability as one of the objects of the contract
>> review process.  That is, that upon review, if there was the full
>> possibility that that the contract could be given to another operator.  The
>> discussion I am seeing now gives me the impression that perhaps this goal
>> is weakening.  This greatly concerns me.
>>
>> I think separability MUST remain a very strong actual possibility.
>>
>> I see two ways this can happen:
>>
>>
>> 1. Strong separability: every n (n= 2-7?) years a new RFP is released and
>> all comers, current contract holder included, apply for the IANA contract
>> and the best candidate is picked.
>>
>> 2. Weak seperability: every n (n=2-7?) years a review of the current
>> contract holder is reviewed and the review committee has the option to put
>> out an RFP for the IANA contract if there are unresolved issues.
>>
>> I have a preference for strong separability.
>>
>> The current NTIA contract includes both of these:
>>
>> - the seven year contract cycle is strong separability
>> - the renewal after 4 years is weak separability.
>>
>> I favor a solution that gives us the same degree of separability we
>> currently have under the NTIA contract going forward, and my remote
>> impression of the Frankfurt talks was that this is the way we are headed
>> though we still had details to work out.
>>
>> Can anyone confirm this?
>>
>> avri
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/57f07e81/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Mon Nov 24 09:26:21 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:26:21 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <54721756.5020705@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
	<54721756.5020705@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <82C80DC4-44B7-48F4-B1E2-EAB98B6CA0B4@gmail.com>

Hi all,

Sorry! Been in the midst of an intensive teaching and prep period, not that it's an excuse given what others manage to get done...

Just for clarification, am I still chair? I had foolishly assumed I wasn't. 

My apologies, m 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Nov 2014, at 17:20, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> I totally agree, it just seems not much is happening.  Those of us on working groups (pol/impl, ppsai being mine) could use some input from others as we are influencing outcomes.
> cheers Steph
>> On 14-11-23 3:49 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
>>> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
>>> cheers Stephanie
>> On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
>> 
>> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to
>> 
>> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
>> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
>> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.
>> 
>> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Bill
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From aelsadr  Mon Nov 24 14:38:26 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:38:26 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <54719389.9060804@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>	<5470E337.7060207@acm.org>	<CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>	<54715620.9030108@acm.org>
	<54718F4B.70902@apc.org> <54719389.9060804@acm.org>
Message-ID: <F3D5C9FA-BE55-4185-A917-36399F2D1FE2@egyptig.org>

No objection from me. I hope we manage to populate this CWG with NCSG participants to support Robin and Joy.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In which case, unless there is an objection, Robin is the NCSG member for the CCWG-Accountabilty.
> 
> I will delete the doodle poll.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> On 23-Nov-14 11:39, joy wrote:
>> Hi all
>> I really must profusely apologise for not picking up earlier that this would 
>> need a vote (I was just volunteering to help and think I was confused between 
>> this and the Policy Committee vote for Chair). I'm  really sorry, and would like 
>> to withdraw from this. Robin, you are a great candidate and I am happy to 
>> support you!
>> Regards
>> 
>> Joy
>> On 23/11/2014 4:36 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
>> > Ok.
>> >
>> > Poll is setup
>> >
>> > http://doodle.com/6ys85r6pd9z97ndx
>> >
>> > Open until 25 Nov UTC
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 23-Nov-14 05:20, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> >> Hi Avri,
>> >>
>> >> the window for any objections was fairly open for days. I do think we can
>> >> move to voting.
>> >>
>> >> Rafik
>> >>
>> >> 2014-11-23 4:25 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria<avri at acm.org>:
>> >>
>> >>>   Hi
>> >>>
>> >>> I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices before
>> >>> proceeding.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyone?
>> >>>
>> >>> We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with a
>> >>> vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced.
>> >>>
>> >>> Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become
>> >>> functional on this?
>> >>>
>> >>> avri
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
>> >>> ACSO.
>> >>>
>> >>> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
>> >>> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
>> >>> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
>> >>> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
>> >>> an obvious consensus)
>> >>> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
>> >>> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
>> >>> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
>> >>> takes.
>> >>> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
>> >>>
>> >>> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
>> >>> them is the member?
>> >>> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
>> >>> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
>> >>> any other reason, complete the task.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
>> >>> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
>> >>> objection from anyone on the PC.
>> >>>
>> >>> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
>> >>> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
>> >>> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
>> >>>
>> >>> avri
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -------- Original Message --------
>> >>> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
>> >>> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
>> >>> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry<Glen at icann.org>  <Glen at icann.org>
>> >>> To:     Council GNSO<council at gnso.icann.org>  <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Councillors,
>> >>>
>> >>> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
>> >>> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
>> >>>
>> >>> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
>> >>> ICANN Accountability
>> >>>
>> >>> Whereas,
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>> >>> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
>> >>> a plan to transition
>> >>>   the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
>> >>> and related root zone management.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
>> >>> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
>> >>> accountability given its historical
>> >>> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
>> >>> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
>> >>> statement[1], as the
>> >>> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
>> >>> for review and redress.
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
>> >>> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
>> >>> accountability mechanisms does
>> >>> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
>> >>> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
>> >>> transition, this gap
>> >>> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
>> >>> the transition to proceed.
>> >>>
>> >>> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
>> >>> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
>> >>> Group on
>> >>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
>> >>>
>> >>> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
>> >>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
>> >>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>> >>>
>> >>> Resolved,
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>> >>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>> >>> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
>> >>> co-chair to the CWG.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
>> >>> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
>> >>> efforts should be
>> >>> made to ensure that members:
>> >>>
>> >>> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>> >>> subject matter
>> >>>         (see for examplehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
>> >>> for areas identified for expertise);
>> >>>
>> >>> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
>> >>> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>> >>>
>> >>> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
>> >>> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
>> >>> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
>> >>>
>> >>> [1]http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
>> >>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>> >>> Thank you.
>> >>> Kind regards.
>> >>> Glen
>> >>>
>> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> >>> GNSOSecretariatgnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> PC-NCSG mailinglistPC-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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/1112d6a1/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Mon Nov 24 14:36:04 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:36:04 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <F3D5C9FA-BE55-4185-A917-36399F2D1FE2@egyptig.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>	<5470E337.7060207@acm.org>	<CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>	<54715620.9030108@acm.org>	<54718F4B.70902@apc.org>
	<54719389.9060804@acm.org>
	<F3D5C9FA-BE55-4185-A917-36399F2D1FE2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <54732634.205@cdt.org>

Excellent!  And happy to support.

On 11/24/2014 12:38 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> No objection from me. I hope we manage to populate this CWG with NCSG 
> participants to support Robin and Joy.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG 
> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In which case, unless there is an objection, Robin is the NCSG member 
>> for the CCWG-Accountabilty.
>>
>> I will delete the doodle poll.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 23-Nov-14 11:39, joy wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>> I really must profusely apologise for not picking up earlier that this would
>>> need a vote (I was just volunteering to help and think I was confused between
>>> this and the Policy Committee vote for Chair). I'm  really sorry, and would like
>>> to withdraw from this. Robin, you are a great candidate and I am happy to
>>> support you!
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Joy
>>> On 23/11/2014 4:36 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
>>> > Ok.
>>> >
>>> > Poll is setup
>>> >
>>> >http://doodle.com/6ys85r6pd9z97ndx
>>> >
>>> > Open until 25 Nov UTC
>>> >
>>> > avri
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 23-Nov-14 05:20, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> >> Hi Avri,
>>> >>
>>> >> the window for any objections was fairly open for days. I do think we can
>>> >> move to voting.
>>> >>
>>> >> Rafik
>>> >>
>>> >> 2014-11-23 4:25 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria<avri at acm.org>:
>>> >>
>>> >>>   Hi
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices before
>>> >>> proceeding.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Anyone?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with a
>>> >>> vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become
>>> >>> functional on this?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> avri
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
>>> >>> ACSO.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
>>> >>> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
>>> >>> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
>>> >>> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
>>> >>> an obvious consensus)
>>> >>> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
>>> >>> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
>>> >>> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
>>> >>> takes.
>>> >>> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
>>> >>> them is the member?
>>> >>> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
>>> >>> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
>>> >>> any other reason, complete the task.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
>>> >>> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
>>> >>> objection from anyone on the PC.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
>>> >>> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
>>> >>> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> avri
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> >>> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
>>> >>> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
>>> >>> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry<Glen at icann.org>   <Glen at icann.org>
>>> >>> To:     Council GNSO<council at gnso.icann.org>   <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dear Councillors,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
>>> >>> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
>>> >>> ICANN Accountability
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Whereas,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>>> >>> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
>>> >>> a plan to transition
>>> >>>   the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
>>> >>> and related root zone management.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
>>> >>> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
>>> >>> accountability given its historical
>>> >>> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
>>> >>> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
>>> >>> statement[1], as the
>>> >>> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
>>> >>> for review and redress.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
>>> >>> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
>>> >>> accountability mechanisms does
>>> >>> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
>>> >>> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
>>> >>> transition, this gap
>>> >>> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
>>> >>> the transition to proceed.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
>>> >>> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
>>> >>> Group on
>>> >>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
>>> >>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
>>> >>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Resolved,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>> >>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
>>> >>> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
>>> >>> co-chair to the CWG.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
>>> >>> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
>>> >>> efforts should be
>>> >>> made to ensure that members:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>> >>> subject matter
>>> >>>         (see forexamplehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
>>> >>> for areas identified for expertise);
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
>>> >>> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
>>> >>> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
>>> >>> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> [1]http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
>>> >>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>> >>> Thank you.
>>> >>> Kind regards.
>>> >>> Glen
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>> >>>GNSOSecretariatgnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> PC-NCSGmailinglistPC-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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/8d07bd9a/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Nov 24 14:50:25 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:50:25 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <546C54C1.9030406@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sThnffLoKHa3BMrbduYaF8vA9ehN=5f1_zB1z9KNPN=16ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<530E431B-B89F-41BF-9652-D54F9278761D@egyptig.org>
	<546C54C1.9030406@acm.org>
Message-ID: <A922266F-BEA1-4F6E-AA8F-E1E05D56C900@egyptig.org>

Hi,

On Nov 19, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

[SNIP]

> I am not, however, arguing that the GNSO should have more seats, at least not at this point as I am not sure what I would gain.
> 
> I do agree that the nomcom issues is a good one, but will the right people be there? I.e it is a Board issue, will the relavant Board people, e.g. George, be there?  Otherwise, what is our purpose in the discussion?

The feeling I got when this came up in a council discussion was that there was more vocal support for the idea from the contracted parties than our counterpart in the NCPH. So IF we think it is worth pursuing, having a chat with the CSG to see if we can bring them on board might not be such a bad idea - before we take this to the board via the GNSO. I, for one, would like to see the GNSO have more seats considering the number of gTLD related policies the board deals with such as GNSO PDPs (including the upcoming EWG PDP), the board?s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) as well as the constant to and fro from the GAC on gTLD policies.

But that?s just me. :)

Thanks.

Amr


From mariliamaciel  Mon Nov 24 15:49:47 2014
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:49:47 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <54732634.205@cdt.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org> <5470E337.7060207@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54715620.9030108@acm.org> <54718F4B.70902@apc.org>
	<54719389.9060804@acm.org>
	<F3D5C9FA-BE55-4185-A917-36399F2D1FE2@egyptig.org>
	<54732634.205@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3FZi+TQNquYtcyJLoaiKH=m5q+c--duQOJUQRujo9S+g@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Robin, excellent to have you there. Thanks Avri for moving us
forward.
Best,
Mar?lia

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>  Excellent!  And happy to support.
>
>
> On 11/24/2014 12:38 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> No objection from me. I hope we manage to populate this CWG with NCSG
> participants to support Robin and Joy.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
>  On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> In which case, unless there is an objection, Robin is the NCSG member for
> the CCWG-Accountabilty.
>
> I will delete the doodle poll.
>
> Thanks
>
> avri
>
> On 23-Nov-14 11:39, joy wrote:
>
> Hi all
> I really must profusely apologise for not picking up earlier that this would
> need a vote (I was just volunteering to help and think I was confused between
> this and the Policy Committee vote for Chair). I'm  really sorry, and would like
> to withdraw from this. Robin, you are a great candidate and I am happy to
> support you!
> Regards
>
> Joy
> On 23/11/2014 4:36 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
> > Ok.
> >
> > Poll is setup
> >
> > http://doodle.com/6ys85r6pd9z97ndx
> >
> > Open until 25 Nov UTC
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23-Nov-14 05:20, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >> Hi Avri,
> >>
> >> the window for any objections was fairly open for days. I do think we can
> >> move to voting.
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2014-11-23 4:25 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria<avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org>:
> >>
> >>>   Hi
> >>>
> >>> I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices before
> >>> proceeding.
> >>>
> >>> If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?
> >>>
> >>> Anyone?
> >>>
> >>> We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with a
> >>> vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced.
> >>>
> >>> Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become
> >>> functional on this?
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
> >>> ACSO.
> >>>
> >>> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
> >>> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
> >>> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
> >>> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
> >>> an obvious consensus)
> >>> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
> >>> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
> >>>
> >>> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
> >>> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
> >>> takes.
> >>> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
> >>>
> >>> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
> >>>
> >>> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
> >>> them is the member?
> >>> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
> >>> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
> >>> any other reason, complete the task.
> >>>
> >>> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
> >>> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
> >>> objection from anyone on the PC.
> >>>
> >>> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
> >>> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
> >>> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
> >>> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
> >>> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry<Glen at icann.org> <Glen at icann.org>  <Glen at icann.org> <Glen at icann.org>
> >>> To:     Council GNSO<council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>  <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Councillors,
> >>>
> >>> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
> >>> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
> >>>
> >>> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> >>> ICANN Accountability
> >>>
> >>> Whereas,
> >>>
> >>> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
> >>> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
> >>> a plan to transition
> >>>   the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
> >>> and related root zone management.
> >>>
> >>> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
> >>> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
> >>> accountability given its historical
> >>> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
> >>> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
> >>> statement[1], as the
> >>> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
> >>> for review and redress.
> >>>
> >>> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
> >>> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
> >>> accountability mechanisms does
> >>> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
> >>> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
> >>> transition, this gap
> >>> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
> >>> the transition to proceed.
> >>>
> >>> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
> >>> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
> >>> Group on
> >>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
> >>>
> >>> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
> >>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
> >>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
> >>>
> >>> Resolved,
> >>>
> >>> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
> >>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
> >>> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
> >>> co-chair to the CWG.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
> >>> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
> >>> efforts should be
> >>> made to ensure that members:
> >>>
> >>> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
> >>> subject matter
> >>>         (see for examplehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
> >>> for areas identified for expertise);
> >>>
> >>> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
> >>> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
> >>>
> >>> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
> >>> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
> >>>
> >>> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
> >>> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
> >>>
> >>> [1]http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
> >>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> Kind regards.
> >>> Glen
> >>>
> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry
> >>> GNSOSecretariatgnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailinglistPC-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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/1420f0c0/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Mon Nov 24 16:24:45 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:24:45 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <82C80DC4-44B7-48F4-B1E2-EAB98B6CA0B4@gmail.com>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>	<99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>	<54721756.5020705@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<82C80DC4-44B7-48F4-B1E2-EAB98B6CA0B4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54733FAD.1040105@acm.org>

Hi,

I assumed you weren't either since once you ceased being a council
member your seat on the PC was taken by another council member and you
became an observer in the group.

I don't think our charter allows observers to be chair.

We had an alternate chair for a bit, but then he left.

For the CCWG-Account I presumed to play chair, since i had been an alt-
chair last year and gap filling is a natural inclination of mine.

And while the charter prohibits Rafik from being PC Chair, I am hoping
he will act as chair pro tem until we get an election done.

avri

On 24-Nov-14 11:26, Maria Farrell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry! Been in the midst of an intensive teaching and prep period, not that it's an excuse given what others manage to get done...
>
> Just for clarification, am I still chair? I had foolishly assumed I wasn't. 
>
> My apologies, m 
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 17:20, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I totally agree, it just seems not much is happening.  Those of us on working groups (pol/impl, ppsai being mine) could use some input from others as we are influencing outcomes.
>> cheers Steph
>>> On 14-11-23 3:49 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
>>>> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>> On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
>>>
>>> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to
>>>
>>> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
>>> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
>>> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.
>>>
>>> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/9b42fa7d/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Mon Nov 24 16:58:10 2014
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:58:10 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1RLqKtDzqTqht6S7y_OKx3hrUqBjhzW69Zo+mYuRNjhw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I can see Steph?s point, but also agree we already have many calls to
attend. I think that the best way to go is to be more efficient and take
the most from the call we have. I have two suggestions:

- Could we agree on a date for our members who are part of WGs to report
back with key issues about the work of the WG that NCSG PC should take
position in the next mtg? This is based on WG agenda, not GNSO, so maybe we
would have more time to be informed about substantive things. Sharing
concrete and concise issues/questions about course of action would be
helpful. And setting a date would help us keep track of incoming info, I
think.

- I am missing a way to have a quick and clear view about what is going on
in the WGs, the stage of dicussions, the deadlines for action... all in one
focal point. Some time ago I made a spreadsheet that could be uploaded in
drive and shared among our members. I enclose the spreadsheet attached.
Although some ppl had the feeling that this spreadsheet would not be very
useful and would duplicate the space that we have here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40928134 I would
like to make the suggestion again, because I feel the online space is: a)
incomplete; b) harder to keep updated than a drive file; c) Not enough
collaborative; d) completely public, so not good to share internal info
there.
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40928134>

My two cents.
Thanks
Mar?lia


On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> I assumed you weren't either since once you ceased being a council member
> your seat on the PC was taken by another council member and you became an
> observer in the group.
>
> I don't think our charter allows observers to be chair.
>
> We had an alternate chair for a bit, but then he left.
>
> For the CCWG-Account I presumed to play chair, since i had been an alt-
> chair last year and gap filling is a natural inclination of mine.
>
> And while the charter prohibits Rafik from being PC Chair, I am hoping he
> will act as chair pro tem until we get an election done.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 24-Nov-14 11:26, Maria Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry! Been in the midst of an intensive teaching and prep period, not that it's an excuse given what others manage to get done...
>
> Just for clarification, am I still chair? I had foolishly assumed I wasn't.
>
> My apologies, m
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>  On 23 Nov 2014, at 17:20, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> I totally agree, it just seems not much is happening.  Those of us on working groups (pol/impl, ppsai being mine) could use some input from others as we are influencing outcomes.
> cheers Steph
>
>  On 14-11-23 3:49 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>  On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
> cheers Stephanie
>
>  On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
>
> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to
>
> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.
>
> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/86237361/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WG follow-up sheet Beta-1.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 10000 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/86237361/attachment-0001.xlsx>


From lanfran  Mon Nov 24 17:31:24 2014
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:31:24 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <5470E337.7060207@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
	<5470E337.7060207@acm.org>
Message-ID: <54734F4C.1060402@yorku.ca>

Rafik, Avri and NCSG-PC colleagues

The NPOC Policy Committee understands that Robin Gross is willing to serve
as the NCSG representative on the ccWG Accountability working group.

NPOC-PC would like to endorse Robin Gross
as the NCSG appointee to the ccWG on Accountability.

Sam Lanfranco, Chair,
NPOC Policy Committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/93860ff8/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Nov 24 18:06:13 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:06:13 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <54719389.9060804@acm.org>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org> <5470E337.7060207@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThkrVr1vRi4wyEKo2ySXpeXqxTswceQvvGUQ3z9GVvZ0tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54715620.9030108@acm.org> <54718F4B.70902@apc.org>
	<54719389.9060804@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=GUBWHQ___K3zgSsG=TEtcE89mO1hh0DYkrMB1M3Up2A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I am going to share the updtae about appointment of Robin to CCWG on
accountability with Glen.
Thanks for the help and support.

Rafik
On Nov 23, 2014 9:58 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> In which case, unless there is an objection, Robin is the NCSG member for
> the CCWG-Accountabilty.
>
> I will delete the doodle poll.
>
> Thanks
>
> avri
>
> On 23-Nov-14 11:39, joy wrote:
>
> Hi all
> I really must profusely apologise for not picking up earlier that this would
> need a vote (I was just volunteering to help and think I was confused between
> this and the Policy Committee vote for Chair). I'm  really sorry, and would like
> to withdraw from this. Robin, you are a great candidate and I am happy to
> support you!
> Regards
>
> Joy
> On 23/11/2014 4:36 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
> > Ok.
> >
> > Poll is setup
> >
> > http://doodle.com/6ys85r6pd9z97ndx
> >
> > Open until 25 Nov UTC
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23-Nov-14 05:20, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >> Hi Avri,
> >>
> >> the window for any objections was fairly open for days. I do think we can
> >> move to voting.
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2014-11-23 4:25 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria<avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org>:
> >>
> >>>   Hi
> >>>
> >>> I have been waiting, hoping to hear at least one of the NPOC voices before
> >>> proceeding.
> >>>
> >>> If you disagree, please say so, but the silent treatment?
> >>>
> >>> Anyone?
> >>>
> >>> We seem to have agreement on the NCUC side of the SG to move ahead with a
> >>> vote between the candidates.  And no new candidates have surfaced.
> >>>
> >>> Now the ccNSO has approved the charter.  Any chance we can become
> >>> functional on this?
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 18-Nov-14 10:41, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The charter has passed the GNSO and is working its way through the other
> >>> ACSO.
> >>>
> >>> We need to select someone to be the NCSG Member of the group
> >>> (remembering that as many of us can participate as want, only one is a
> >>> member whose special role only comes up in the event of determining
> >>> whether there is rough consensus or  a vote in a case where there isn't
> >>> an obvious consensus)
> >>> As we learned on the CCWG-Stewardship, may be the supported traveler for
> >>> a f2f meeting, if any f2f meeting is arranged.
> >>>
> >>> I think that 2 people have volunteered.  Robin & Joy.
> >>> I think both are qualified as long as they are committed to the time it
> >>> takes.
> >>> (note: the deluge of work for the CSG-Stewardship took even me by surprise)
> >>>
> >>> I think that for the last week we have had no new volunteers.
> >>>
> >>> I think that it is time for us to make a selection.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone object to setting up a simple doodle poll to select which of
> >>> them is the member?
> >>> I would suggest that the other be a designated backup for the member
> >>> ready to jump in, in the case that the member can't travel or can't, for
> >>> any other reason, complete the task.
> >>>
> >>> Any support for this course of action? And objections?
> >>> I will probably wait a day or so before doing anything while waiting for
> >>> objection from anyone on the PC.
> >>>
> >>> (As always if the alt-chair wants to assert his authority over any
> >>> actions I am taking, I will set my plans aside. I am just trying to fill
> >>> a gap here and make sure we are ready in time.)
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject:     [council] GNSO Council resolution 13 November 2014
> >>> Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:06:37 +0000
> >>> From:     Glen de Saint G?ry<Glen at icann.org> <Glen at icann.org>  <Glen at icann.org> <Glen at icann.org>
> >>> To:     Council GNSO<council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>  <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Councillors,
> >>>
> >>> Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was
> >>> passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
> >>>
> >>> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
> >>> ICANN Accountability
> >>>
> >>> Whereas,
> >>>
> >>> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
> >>> has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop
> >>> a plan to transition
> >>>   the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions
> >>> and related root zone management.
> >>>
> >>> 2. During discussions around the transition process, the community
> >>> raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's
> >>> accountability given its historical
> >>> contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability
> >>> in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder
> >>> statement[1], as the
> >>> existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
> >>> for review and redress.
> >>>
> >>> 3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition
> >>> process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN
> >>> accountability mechanisms does
> >>> not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA
> >>> has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the
> >>> transition, this gap
> >>> between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent
> >>> the transition to proceed.
> >>>
> >>> 4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO,
> >>> GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working
> >>> Group on
> >>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
> >>>
> >>> 5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the
> >>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration
> >>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
> >>>
> >>> Resolved,
> >>>
> >>> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
> >>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
> >>> and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO
> >>> co-chair to the CWG.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by
> >>> 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best
> >>> efforts should be
> >>> made to ensure that members:
> >>>
> >>> ?        Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
> >>> subject matter
> >>>         (see for examplehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12
> >>> for areas identified for expertise);
> >>>
> >>> ?        Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on
> >>> an ongoing and long-term basis; and
> >>>
> >>> ?        Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and
> >>> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
> >>>
> >>> 3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call
> >>> for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
> >>>
> >>> [1]http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
> >>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> Kind regards.
> >>> Glen
> >>>
> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry
> >>> GNSOSecretariatgnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailinglistPC-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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/f1964ca8/attachment-0001.html>


From maria.farrell  Mon Nov 24 19:56:43 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:56:43 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1RLqKtDzqTqht6S7y_OKx3hrUqBjhzW69Zo+mYuRNjhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK1RLqKtDzqTqht6S7y_OKx3hrUqBjhzW69Zo+mYuRNjhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdAnDuFTn1NP1Q=PDcoXvzESms1_WzLYeMrLLsC8JDTrKA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Avri. So I'm simply an observer. I'm just relieved I haven't slowed
things down, then!

Maria

On 24 November 2014 at 14:58, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I can see Steph?s point, but also agree we already have many calls to
> attend. I think that the best way to go is to be more efficient and take
> the most from the call we have. I have two suggestions:
>
> - Could we agree on a date for our members who are part of WGs to report
> back with key issues about the work of the WG that NCSG PC should take
> position in the next mtg? This is based on WG agenda, not GNSO, so maybe we
> would have more time to be informed about substantive things. Sharing
> concrete and concise issues/questions about course of action would be
> helpful. And setting a date would help us keep track of incoming info, I
> think.
>
> - I am missing a way to have a quick and clear view about what is going on
> in the WGs, the stage of dicussions, the deadlines for action... all in one
> focal point. Some time ago I made a spreadsheet that could be uploaded in
> drive and shared among our members. I enclose the spreadsheet attached.
> Although some ppl had the feeling that this spreadsheet would not be very
> useful and would duplicate the space that we have here:
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40928134 I would
> like to make the suggestion again, because I feel the online space is: a)
> incomplete; b) harder to keep updated than a drive file; c) Not enough
> collaborative; d) completely public, so not good to share internal info
> there.
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40928134>
>
> My two cents.
> Thanks
> Mar?lia
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> I assumed you weren't either since once you ceased being a council member
>> your seat on the PC was taken by another council member and you became an
>> observer in the group.
>>
>> I don't think our charter allows observers to be chair.
>>
>> We had an alternate chair for a bit, but then he left.
>>
>> For the CCWG-Account I presumed to play chair, since i had been an alt-
>> chair last year and gap filling is a natural inclination of mine.
>>
>> And while the charter prohibits Rafik from being PC Chair, I am hoping he
>> will act as chair pro tem until we get an election done.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 24-Nov-14 11:26, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry! Been in the midst of an intensive teaching and prep period, not that it's an excuse given what others manage to get done...
>>
>> Just for clarification, am I still chair? I had foolishly assumed I wasn't.
>>
>> My apologies, m
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>  On 23 Nov 2014, at 17:20, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I totally agree, it just seems not much is happening.  Those of us on working groups (pol/impl, ppsai being mine) could use some input from others as we are influencing outcomes.
>> cheers Steph
>>
>>  On 14-11-23 3:49 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>  On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
>> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>>  On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
>>
>> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to
>>
>> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
>> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
>> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.
>>
>> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/ab436f25/attachment.html>


From avri  Mon Nov 24 21:01:43 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:01:43 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG-Accountability
In-Reply-To: <54734F4C.1060402@yorku.ca>
References: <422383a036e6441bba80e9bd29f36409@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<546AE9FD.9060701@acm.org>
	<5470E337.7060207@acm.org> <54734F4C.1060402@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <54738097.5080809@acm.org>

Hi

thanks for this.

avri

On 24-Nov-14 19:31, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Rafik, Avri and NCSG-PC colleagues
>
> The NPOC Policy Committee understands that Robin Gross is willing to
> serve
> as the NCSG representative on the ccWG Accountability working group.
>
> NPOC-PC would like to endorse Robin Gross
> as the NCSG appointee to the ccWG on Accountability.
>
> Sam Lanfranco, Chair,
> NPOC Policy Committee
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141124/2be25d37/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 25 05:34:46 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:34:46 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1RLqKtDzqTqht6S7y_OKx3hrUqBjhzW69Zo+mYuRNjhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK1RLqKtDzqTqht6S7y_OKx3hrUqBjhzW69Zo+mYuRNjhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk3RzDX8ti0rvL1rzS1YcV+6txZhq5AaKxaHGk6gx4=0g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marilia,


> - Could we agree on a date for our members who are part of WGs to report
> back with key issues about the work of the WG that NCSG PC should take
> position in the next mtg? This is based on WG agenda, not GNSO, so maybe we
> would have more time to be informed about substantive things. Sharing
> concrete and concise issues/questions about course of action would be
> helpful. And setting a date would help us keep track of incoming info, I
> think.
>

public comments initiated by WG or request of input  can happen anytime,
not necessarily aligned with GNSO council calls schedule and having their
own timeline (good way to see that is to checking the project list). it
happened before that some members asked for input and shared info in NCSG
mailing list and so the PC.

However, GNSO council agenda give a lot of guidance with the updates and
motions there. Moreover councillors get heads-up about things coming since
a lot things should or are already happening in the gnso council mailing
list.
I want to reiterate again that when we discuss about public comments and WG
updates during NCSG calls is giving opportunity for WG members to give
updates or raising attention about something we need to care. it is more
easier and straightforward. to be honest I don't know if we can really get
such written briefings or updates days before and avoiding any burden on
volunteers.


> - I am missing a way to have a quick and clear view about what is going on
> in the WGs, the stage of dicussions, the deadlines for action... all in one
> focal point. Some time ago I made a spreadsheet that could be uploaded in
> drive and shared among our members. I enclose the spreadsheet attached.
> Although some ppl had the feeling that this spreadsheet would not be very
> useful and would duplicate the space that we have here:
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40928134 I would
> like to make the suggestion again, because I feel the online space is: a)
> incomplete; b) harder to keep updated than a drive file; c) Not enough
> collaborative; d) completely public, so not good to share internal info
> there.
>

to clarify some misunderstanding, anybody joining a WG should have a wiki
account , same for councillors so everybody can update it. furthermore,
wiki space is collaborative *online* space (we have history track, comments
space, everyone can populate anytime). it is also possible to restrict the
access of wiki space if needed.

 having a shared spreadsheet doesn't fix the root cause: who will keep the
document updated e.g is it the role of to be elected PC chair?councillors?
only WG members?everybody?
to be blunt here, it is the pattern of someone asking someone else to do
something and usually it is not working well in our context.

my concern is how to keep things manageable and done, we get many ideas and
suggestions. that is good but at the end someone needs to take the lead and
commit to do it. but that is another story....

Rafik

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> I assumed you weren't either since once you ceased being a council member
>> your seat on the PC was taken by another council member and you became an
>> observer in the group.
>>
>> I don't think our charter allows observers to be chair.
>>
>> We had an alternate chair for a bit, but then he left.
>>
>> For the CCWG-Account I presumed to play chair, since i had been an alt-
>> chair last year and gap filling is a natural inclination of mine.
>>
>> And while the charter prohibits Rafik from being PC Chair, I am hoping he
>> will act as chair pro tem until we get an election done.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 24-Nov-14 11:26, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry! Been in the midst of an intensive teaching and prep period, not that it's an excuse given what others manage to get done...
>>
>> Just for clarification, am I still chair? I had foolishly assumed I wasn't.
>>
>> My apologies, m
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>  On 23 Nov 2014, at 17:20, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I totally agree, it just seems not much is happening.  Those of us on working groups (pol/impl, ppsai being mine) could use some input from others as we are influencing outcomes.
>> cheers Steph
>>
>>  On 14-11-23 3:49 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>  On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
>> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>>  On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
>>
>> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to
>>
>> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
>> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
>> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.
>>
>> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/df3445a6/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 25 05:36:44 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:36:44 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <54733FAD.1040105@acm.org>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
	<54721756.5020705@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<82C80DC4-44B7-48F4-B1E2-EAB98B6CA0B4@gmail.com>
	<54733FAD.1040105@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmvOrQ_Ha-7Vsz1g=qqXtiavh+-N=yRKmTeZkocQ1F0OA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

yes I will act as interim chair till we get the election done and having a
newly PC chair.

Rafik

2014-11-24 23:24 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>  Hi,
>
> I assumed you weren't either since once you ceased being a council member
> your seat on the PC was taken by another council member and you became an
> observer in the group.
>
> I don't think our charter allows observers to be chair.
>
> We had an alternate chair for a bit, but then he left.
>
> For the CCWG-Account I presumed to play chair, since i had been an alt-
> chair last year and gap filling is a natural inclination of mine.
>
> And while the charter prohibits Rafik from being PC Chair, I am hoping he
> will act as chair pro tem until we get an election done.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 24-Nov-14 11:26, Maria Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry! Been in the midst of an intensive teaching and prep period, not that it's an excuse given what others manage to get done...
>
> Just for clarification, am I still chair? I had foolishly assumed I wasn't.
>
> My apologies, m
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>  On 23 Nov 2014, at 17:20, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> I totally agree, it just seems not much is happening.  Those of us on working groups (pol/impl, ppsai being mine) could use some input from others as we are influencing outcomes.
> cheers Steph
>
>  On 14-11-23 3:49 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>  On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
> cheers Stephanie
>
>  On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
>
> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to
>
> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.
>
> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/a1844824/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Tue Nov 25 06:04:21 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:04:21 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <593424B4-5995-4B29-ACE6-5325D571F2E6@difference.com.au>

I welcome this suggestion. I don't think the NCSG-PC needs to discuss every item on the council agenda, or we could cover several most meetings in very short order. Information only items should really be covered via email. Spending a little less time discussing the entire council agenda would leave some time for other items. 

I do not think we need a second monthly call - though, if necessary, I would be ok with a one off to establish a chair and clear some backlog. 

David


On 23 Nov 2014, at 4:49 pm, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
>> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
>> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
>> cheers Stephanie
> 
> On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.
> 
> Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to 
> 
> *make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
> *unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
> *when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.
> 
> It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/84713699/attachment.sig>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 25 06:04:46 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:04:46 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmSQxzC2sk5oLbAaBqa7cNHmSy6LdF7pjRgkb3aPEO+7Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

As discussed it is time to get the election of new chair done.

For the vote, we have as eligible voters:
- 6 councillors
- 2 NCUC reps, 2 NPOC reps
- NCSG chair.

As timeline I would suggest:
- nominations starting from Friday  28th Nov, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 2nd
23:59UTC
- candidates confirming the nomination in Wednesday
- Starting the election from Thursday 4th December 00:00UTC  until Monday
8th December 23:59 UTC.
- Tuesday 9th December new PC chair term starts

nominees should be from the the eligible members.

if there is any objection or suggestion , please do by this Thursday so we
can make amendments quickly.

For the vice-chair or alt-chair it is up to PC to decide about having such
position or not.

whoever will be elected, s/he has a critical role to let the PC work and
ensure that things are done. I see some stuff to be handled asap by the PC
chair like :
thinking about some prioritization work for the coming months, moving from
reactive to proactive mode, improving PC working methods .
As NCSG chair, I can commit to provide assistance and support.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/ce34a338/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 25 06:21:29 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:21:29 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update Re: [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnMApQzDR6-AZsCUjJs=rkQ17gqeWNufp0zJyaWmUKmKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

since we resolved the appointment of NCSG rep to CCWG on accountability, I
think we can also finalize the appointment  of Bill Drake to CCWG on IG.
I will share the information regarding NCSG appointmentwith other CCWG-IG
co-chairs.
Thanks,

Rafik

2014-11-11 20:36 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> we have 2 process to act on:
> 1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support in
> NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make the
> final call and move forward
> 2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
> which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
> I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
> is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
> appointments.
>
> we need to act quickly ,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes?, it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that call.
>>
>> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
>> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
>> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
>> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
>> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>>
>> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
>> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I?d get the
>> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
>> as a member of this group. Bill?s already been active on this group, and
>> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>>
>> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>>
>> *20141015-2*
>>
>> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
>> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
>> Whereas,
>>
>>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>>
>> Resolved:
>>
>>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>       subject matter;
>>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>>    rules.
>>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/4a2ff2df/attachment.html>


From joy  Tue Nov 25 07:33:02 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:33:02 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmvOrQ_Ha-7Vsz1g=qqXtiavh+-N=yRKmTeZkocQ1F0OA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5470B93E.6060309@mail.utoronto.ca>	<99B867BE-5BAF-4837-A1FD-C369AB50A13B@gmail.com>	<54721756.5020705@mail.utoronto.ca>	<82C80DC4-44B7-48F4-B1E2-EAB98B6CA0B4@gmail.com>	<54733FAD.1040105@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThmvOrQ_Ha-7Vsz1g=qqXtiavh+-N=yRKmTeZkocQ1F0OA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5474148E.9080101@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/a94dfa1b/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Nov 25 07:54:47 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:54:47 +0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update Re: [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnMApQzDR6-AZsCUjJs=rkQ17gqeWNufp0zJyaWmUKmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnMApQzDR6-AZsCUjJs=rkQ17gqeWNufp0zJyaWmUKmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <547419A7.4070607@acm.org>

Hi,

I thought we already did that.

avri

On 25-Nov-14 08:21, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> since we resolved the appointment of NCSG rep to CCWG on accountability, I
> think we can also finalize the appointment  of Bill Drake to CCWG on IG.
> I will share the information regarding NCSG appointmentwith other CCWG-IG
> co-chairs.
> Thanks,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-11-11 20:36 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we have 2 process to act on:
>> 1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support in
>> NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make the
>> final call and move forward
>> 2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
>> which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
>> I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
>> is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
>> appointments.
>>
>> we need to act quickly ,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Yes..., it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that call.
>>>
>>> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
>>> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
>>> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
>>> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
>>> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>>>
>>> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
>>> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I'd get the
>>> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
>>> as a member of this group. Bill's already been active on this group, and
>>> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>>>
>>> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>>>
>>> *20141015-2*
>>>
>>> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
>>> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
>>> Whereas,
>>>
>>>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>>>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>>>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>>>
>>> Resolved:
>>>
>>>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>>>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>>>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>>       subject matter;
>>>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>>>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>>>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>>>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>>>    rules.
>>>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>>>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>>>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>>>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/13273d99/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 25 08:04:58 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:04:58 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update Re: [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
In-Reply-To: <547419A7.4070607@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sThnMApQzDR6-AZsCUjJs=rkQ17gqeWNufp0zJyaWmUKmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<547419A7.4070607@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=wqDo2wUj3QdmeC_WvACc9P1RNLFkh069OxAUhp==mQQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

Just to document and track this action.

Rafik
On Nov 25, 2014 7:55 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> I thought we already did that.
>
> avri
>
> On 25-Nov-14 08:21, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> since we resolved the appointment of NCSG rep to CCWG on accountability, I
> think we can also finalize the appointment  of Bill Drake to CCWG on IG.
> I will share the information regarding NCSG appointmentwith other CCWG-IG
> co-chairs.
> Thanks,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-11-11 20:36 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>
>  Hi,
>
> we have 2 process to act on:
> 1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support in
> NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make the
> final call and move forward
> 2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
> which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
> I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
> is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
> appointments.
>
> we need to act quickly ,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>
>  Hi,
>
> Yes?, it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that call.
>
> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>
> avri
>
> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>
>  Hi,
>
> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>
> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I?d get the
> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
> as a member of this group. Bill?s already been active on this group, and
> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>
> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>
> *20141015-2*
>
> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
> Whereas,
>
>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>
> Resolved:
>
>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>       subject matter;
>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>    rules.
>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 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 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/394caa0f/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Tue Nov 25 11:02:15 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:02:15 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
References: <18E31637-2DF6-4B8E-842A-40CB7FC9F8B5@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>

Hi

Just to keep folks in the loop on discussions about January.  Any thoughts on any of the below?

Bill

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Subject: Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Date: November 25, 2014 at 9:55:39 AM GMT+1
> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
> 
> Hi
> 
>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> I second Bill?s thanks to Rob for this draft. 
>>  
>> I also think Bill?s suggestions re possible topics for the Monday AM sessions make sense.  Would be interested in others? views.
> 
> Yes, please
>>  
>> Beyond accountability, one topic IPC would like to see addressed in the ?plenary? (perhaps on Tuesday afternoon) would be New gTLDs, which should include preparation for the AOC review as well as the other initiatives staff is undertaking.  
>>  
>> I don?t think EWG is a great topic for this meeting.  GNSO review certainly could be contentious but maybe good to start having that discussion here, as I see was discussed in dialogue between Bill and Tony earlier today.   
> 
> Ok, so if I?m remembering the conversation correctly, the items suggested so far by more than one SG would be
> 
> 1. Accountability 
> 2. GNSO review including SG/C issues
> 3. In-house coordination as needed in light of past differences on board, GNSO VC, etc. (if we exhaust this topic quickly or hit a wall the remaining time could be spent on larger intra-GNSO dynamics, e.g. role of the Council in relation to the GNSO community, contracted/noncontracted, whatever)
> 
> And options suggested by one SG include
> 
> *IANA or EWG (NCSG)
> *New gTLDs and AOC (CSG)
> 
>>  
>> We need to build in a little flexibility to account for the possibility (likelihood?) that the House will want to ?revisit? on Tuesday one or more of the topics first broached on Monday.  For example, we might reach agreement in principle on something and ask a subgroup to draft a statement for discussion the next day.  In other words, best to frontload the plenary topics a bit so there is some extra time on Tuesday afternoon.  
> 
> 3 morning coffee thoughts:
> 
> *As the SGs have separate meetings in slots E and H, we?ll have chances to talk about items of less interest to the other SG.
> 
> *To leave time for Steve?s flexibility and accommodate any unfinished conversational threads or unaddressed items, why not leave the fourth slot unprogrammed, like a big AOB?  It?s only 90 minutes, and an open discussion opportunity would allow for reflections on the meeting and ensure nobody goes away feeling like they didn?t get to raise something they care about. Would be an integrative way to end the two days.
> 
> *Per previous I tend to think it better to lead off with items where there?s broad agreement and ease into topics that might be more difficult after people have been together a bit, which might suggest proceeding 1, 2, 3 above => 4 open/loose ends discussion.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Other bits:
> 
> *Additional bodies: I believe we have agreed 3 per SG.  Personally, I would not designate them as ?observers?, if we are going to invite someone they shouldn?t be somehow marked as different and should be able to participate fully like anyone else.
> 
> *Lunch speakers: Per previous my suggestion would be to let people chat on the first day, and would strongly encourage people to sit intermingled rather than self-segregated into NCSG and CSG tables.  On the second day, we could do a) Larry; b) a less familiar-to-all beltway denizen, e.g. a Congressional or think tank poobah; or c) Fadi, who will have just met separately with the two SGs and might helpfully address us on an integrative basis thereafter.  I guess one also could argue it?d be  sort of bad form to not invite him to address us as group, no?
> 
> *Markus: I would suggest that he be asked to participate in Fadi?s Day 2 discussions with the SGs so he can get more familiar with our respective concerns.
> 
> *?Day 3?: I asked yesterday if others are planning on doing any sort of outreach meeting Wednesday morning on a SG or constituency basis, if so I?d think we should do the same and would need to factor that into our planning soon as it could affect travel schedules etc.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill
> 
>>  
>> 
>>    
>>  
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>] 
>> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:35 AM
>> To: Robert Hoggarth
>> Cc: Tony Holmes; Elisa Cooper; rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Marilyn Cade; lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>; Kristina Rosette; Metalitz, Steven; Rafik Dammak; Jimson Olufuye; Maryam Bakoshi; Brenda Brewer; Benedetta Rossi; Stefania Milan; William Drake
>> Subject: Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>>  
>> Hello
>>  
>> Thanks Rob for moving us along.  Some initial reactions:
>>  
>> The overall schedule maps well with what we discussed.
>>  
>> Re: the Day 1 morning NCPH sessions, perhaps one option would be to lead with one on broader changes/conditions in the ICANN environment on which non-contracted would have broadly similar concerns, e.g. expansion/diversification of contracted parties and possible GNSO implications; and then do the second one on our intra-house dynamics and cooperation, e.g. conduct of elections etc.  In other words, lead off with shared stuff to get everyone acclimated and then ease into items on which we?ve struggled a bit?
>>  
>> Re: the Day 2 afternoon NCPH sessions, it sounded on the call like we all agreed on Accountability as a substantive discussion topic.  If I understood Steve correctly CSG would be less interested in talking about IANA stewardship in this context.  If so, perhaps EWG?  Or would we want to discuss the GNSO Review and structural issues in more detail?
>>  
>> I suppose the four NCPH sessions could be ordered a number of ways. We also could for ex hold the intra-house discussion for one of the Day 2 slots, after folks have been spending time together and are warmed up etc?
>>  
>> Re: lunches,  on the first day, maybe we?d want more casual conversation opportunities? A speaker on the second day might be good, a beltway luminary of some sort?  
>>  
>> Steve suggested expanding the head count a little so a few local community members could join.  As discussed, alternative considerations would be keeping the group size reasonably conversational and not being asymmetric.  Could we compromise on adding two heads per house?
>>  
>> I had a drink with Markus the other night and he didn?t know about the meeting, but he checked his schedule and is available.  I agree it?d be good to have him there so folks who aren?t could get acquainted. 
>>  
>> Also, going forward, two process requests:
>>  
>> *Please include my NCUC EC colleague Stefania Milan on the Cc, Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>.  She is copied here.
>>  
>> *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>, I don?t need copies of every message in both my accounts.
>>  
>> thanks much
>>  
>> Bill
>>  
>> On Nov 15, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi Everyone,
>>  
>> Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting.  Per our discussion this week,  please share and discuss it with your individual communities as you see fit.  If our previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.
>>  
>> Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc. as possible via email over the course of the next week. 
>>  
>> Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date for the next planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line progress prior to that next meeting.
>>  
>> Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to assist you in prepping your individual meeting agendas during the course of the events that week.
>>  
>> Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the 2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY need your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting. Please provide that info to me as soon as possible so that we can maximize the use of our support resources for the meeting.
>>  
>> Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> Rob 
>> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>
>>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/b7111395/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Tue Nov 25 11:56:06 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:56:06 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting
 Agenda
In-Reply-To: <E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>
References: <18E31637-2DF6-4B8E-842A-40CB7FC9F8B5@uzh.ch>
	<E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54745236.2040401@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/eaa024e5/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Tue Nov 25 13:52:45 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:52:45 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting
 Agenda
In-Reply-To: <54745236.2040401@apc.org>
References: <18E31637-2DF6-4B8E-842A-40CB7FC9F8B5@uzh.ch>	<E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>
	<54745236.2040401@apc.org>
Message-ID: <54746D8D.30704@cdt.org>

Excellent idea - Rafik and I were just discussing the same.  Should we 
create some shareable doc to start the process?  Is there some more 
formal way of doing it within the PC?

Matthew


On 11/25/2014 9:56 AM, joy wrote:
> Hi Bill - thanks a lot for sharing this - just wondering .... would it 
> also be useful to do some kind of forward looking exercise to help 
> planning? For example, mapping those new or emerging issues likely to 
> impact on policy work in the 2015 as well as those spaces outside 
> ICANN where SGs are planning to engage in 2015.
> Joy
>
>
> On 25/11/2014 10:02 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Just to keep folks in the loop on discussions about January.  Any 
>> thoughts on any of the below?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda*
>>> *From: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>> *Date: *November 25, 2014 at 9:55:39 AM GMT+1
>>> *Cc: *Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org 
>>> <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, Tony Holmes 
>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, 
>>> Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com 
>>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 
>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 
>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Marilyn Cade 
>>> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, 
>>> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" 
>>> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina 
>>> Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak 
>>> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, Jimson 
>>> Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net 
>>> <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Maryam Bakoshi 
>>> <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>, Brenda 
>>> Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>, 
>>> Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org 
>>> <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, Stefania Milan 
>>> <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, William 
>>> Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>> *To: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com 
>>>> <mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I second Bill's thanks to Rob for this draft.
>>>> I also think Bill's suggestions re possible topics for the Monday 
>>>> AM sessions make sense.  Would be interested in others' views.
>>>
>>> Yes, please
>>>> Beyond accountability, one topic IPC would like to see addressed in 
>>>> the "plenary" (perhaps on Tuesday afternoon) would be New gTLDs, 
>>>> which should include preparation for the AOC review as well as the 
>>>> other initiatives staff is undertaking.
>>>> I don't think EWG is a great topic for this meeting.  GNSO review 
>>>> certainly could be contentious but maybe good to start having that 
>>>> discussion here, as I see was discussed in dialogue between Bill 
>>>> and Tony earlier today.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if I'm remembering the conversation correctly, the items 
>>> suggested so far by more than one SG would be
>>>
>>> 1. Accountability
>>> 2. GNSO review including SG/C issues
>>> 3. In-house coordination as needed in light of past differences on 
>>> board, GNSO VC, etc. (if we exhaust this topic quickly or hit a wall 
>>> the remaining time could be spent on larger intra-GNSO dynamics, 
>>> e.g. role of the Council in relation to the GNSO community, 
>>> contracted/noncontracted, whatever)
>>>
>>> And options suggested by one SG include
>>>
>>> *IANA or EWG (NCSG)
>>> *New gTLDs and AOC (CSG)
>>>
>>>> We need to build in a little flexibility to account for the 
>>>> possibility (likelihood?) that the House will want to "revisit" on 
>>>> Tuesday one or more of the topics first broached on Monday.  For 
>>>> example, we might reach agreement in principle on something and ask 
>>>> a subgroup to draft a statement for discussion the next day.  In 
>>>> other words, best to frontload the plenary topics a bit so there is 
>>>> some extra time on Tuesday afternoon.
>>>
>>> 3 morning coffee thoughts:
>>>
>>> *As the SGs have separate meetings in slots E and H, we'll have 
>>> chances to talk about items of less interest to the other SG.
>>>
>>> *To leave time for Steve's flexibility and accommodate any 
>>> unfinished conversational threads or unaddressed items, why not 
>>> leave the fourth slot unprogrammed, like a big AOB?  It's only 90 
>>> minutes, and an open discussion opportunity would allow for 
>>> reflections on the meeting and ensure nobody goes away feeling like 
>>> they didn't get to raise something they care about. Would be an 
>>> integrative way to end the two days.
>>>
>>> *Per previous I tend to think it better to lead off with items where 
>>> there's broad agreement and ease into topics that might be more 
>>> difficult after people have been together a bit, which might suggest 
>>> proceeding 1, 2, 3 above => 4 open/loose ends discussion.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Other bits:
>>>
>>> *Additional bodies: I believe we have agreed 3 per SG.  Personally, 
>>> I would not designate them as 'observers', if we are going to invite 
>>> someone they shouldn't be somehow marked as different and should be 
>>> able to participate fully like anyone else.
>>>
>>> *Lunch speakers: Per previous my suggestion would be to let people 
>>> chat on the first day, and would strongly encourage people to sit 
>>> intermingled rather than self-segregated into NCSG and CSG tables. 
>>>  On the second day, we could do a) Larry; b) a less familiar-to-all 
>>> beltway denizen, e.g. a Congressional or think tank poobah; or c) 
>>> Fadi, who will have just met separately with the two SGs and might 
>>> helpfully address us on an integrative basis thereafter.  I guess 
>>> one also could argue it'd be  sort of bad form to not invite him to 
>>> address us as group, no?
>>>
>>> *Markus: I would suggest that he be asked to participate in Fadi's 
>>> Day 2 discussions with the SGs so he can get more familiar with our 
>>> respective concerns.
>>>
>>> *"Day 3": I asked yesterday if others are planning on doing any sort 
>>> of outreach meeting Wednesday morning on a SG or constituency basis, 
>>> if so I'd think we should do the same and would need to factor that 
>>> into our planning soon as it could affect travel schedules etc.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch]
>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:35 AM
>>>> *To:*Robert Hoggarth
>>>> *Cc:*Tony Holmes; Elisa Cooper;rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 
>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Marilyn Cade;lori.schulman at ascd.org 
>>>> <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>; Kristina Rosette; Metalitz, 
>>>> Steven; Rafik Dammak; Jimson Olufuye; Maryam Bakoshi; Brenda 
>>>> Brewer; Benedetta Rossi; Stefania Milan; William Drake
>>>> *Subject:*Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>>>> Hello
>>>> Thanks Rob for moving us along.  Some initial reactions:
>>>> The overall schedule maps well with what we discussed.
>>>> Re: the Day 1 morning NCPH sessions, perhaps one option would be to 
>>>> lead with one on broader changes/conditions in the ICANN 
>>>> environment on which non-contracted would have broadly similar 
>>>> concerns, e.g. expansion/diversification of contracted parties and 
>>>> possible GNSO implications; and then do the second one on our 
>>>> intra-house dynamics and cooperation, e.g. conduct of elections 
>>>> etc.  In other words, lead off with shared stuff to get everyone 
>>>> acclimated and then ease into items on which we've struggled a bit?
>>>> Re: the Day 2 afternoon NCPH sessions, it sounded on the call like 
>>>> we all agreed on Accountability as a substantive discussion topic. 
>>>>  If I understood Steve correctly CSG would be less interested in 
>>>> talking about IANA stewardship in this context.  If so, perhaps 
>>>> EWG?  Or would we want to discuss the GNSO Review and structural 
>>>> issues in more detail?
>>>> I suppose the four NCPH sessions could be ordered a number of ways. 
>>>> We also could for ex hold the intra-house discussion for one of the 
>>>> Day 2 slots, after folks have been spending time together and are 
>>>> warmed up etc...
>>>> Re: lunches,  on the first day, maybe we'd want more casual 
>>>> conversation opportunities? A speaker on the second day might be 
>>>> good, a beltway luminary of some sort?
>>>> Steve suggested expanding the head count a little so a few local 
>>>> community members could join.  As discussed, alternative 
>>>> considerations would be keeping the group size reasonably 
>>>> conversational and not being asymmetric.  Could we compromise on 
>>>> adding two heads per house?
>>>> I had a drink with Markus the other night and he didn't know about 
>>>> the meeting, but he checked his schedule and is available.  I agree 
>>>> it'd be good to have him there so folks who aren't could get 
>>>> acquainted.
>>>> Also, going forward, two process requests:
>>>> *Please include my NCUC EC colleague Stefania Milan on the Cc, 
>>>> Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>.  She is 
>>>> copied here.
>>>> *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch 
>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>, I don't need copies of every message 
>>>> in both my accounts.
>>>> thanks much
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>     On Nov 15, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Robert Hoggarth
>>>>     <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>
>>>>     wrote:
>>>>     Hi Everyone,
>>>>     Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure
>>>>     (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting.  Per our
>>>>     discussion this week,  please share and discuss it with your
>>>>     individual communities as you see fit.  If our previous 2013
>>>>     effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of
>>>>     several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.
>>>>     Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc.
>>>>     as possible via email over the course of the next week.
>>>>     Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date
>>>>     for the next planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line
>>>>     progress prior to that next meeting.
>>>>     Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda
>>>>     Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to assist you
>>>>     in prepping your individual meeting agendas during the course
>>>>     of the events that week.
>>>>     Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning
>>>>     timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the
>>>>     2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY need
>>>>     your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate names as soon
>>>>     as  possible so that we can make sure that all intended
>>>>     travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any
>>>>     visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting.
>>>>     Please provide that info to me as soon as possible so that we
>>>>     can maximize the use of our support resources for the meeting.
>>>>     Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!
>>>>     Best,
>>>>     Rob
>>>>     <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/e457aa41/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Tue Nov 25 14:01:45 2014
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:01:45 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update Re: [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=wqDo2wUj3QdmeC_WvACc9P1RNLFkh069OxAUhp==mQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnMApQzDR6-AZsCUjJs=rkQ17gqeWNufp0zJyaWmUKmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<547419A7.4070607@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=wqDo2wUj3QdmeC_WvACc9P1RNLFkh069OxAUhp==mQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1T3aSYQS0Nn4rTLYDP1JGLCPBxg3tTPxJY8AgOukT1DA@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, we should proceed with Bill?s appointment.
Best
Mar?lia

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Avri,
>
> Just to document and track this action.
>
> Rafik
> On Nov 25, 2014 7:55 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> I thought we already did that.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 25-Nov-14 08:21, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> since we resolved the appointment of NCSG rep to CCWG on accountability, I
>> think we can also finalize the appointment  of Bill Drake to CCWG on IG.
>> I will share the information regarding NCSG appointmentwith other CCWG-IG
>> co-chairs.
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-11-11 20:36 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> we have 2 process to act on:
>> 1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support in
>> NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make the
>> final call and move forward
>> 2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
>> which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
>> I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
>> is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
>> appointments.
>>
>> we need to act quickly ,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Yes?, it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that call.
>>
>> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
>> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
>> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
>> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
>> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>>
>> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
>> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I?d get the
>> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
>> as a member of this group. Bill?s already been active on this group, and
>> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>>
>> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>>
>> *20141015-2*
>>
>> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
>> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
>> Whereas,
>>
>>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>>
>> Resolved:
>>
>>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>       subject matter;
>>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>>    rules.
>>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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 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
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/279b62b7/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Nov 25 14:11:13 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:11:13 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update Re: [urgent] 2 process for PC to act
In-Reply-To: <547419A7.4070607@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sThnMApQzDR6-AZsCUjJs=rkQ17gqeWNufp0zJyaWmUKmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<547419A7.4070607@acm.org>
Message-ID: <51BB6DF8-212B-4590-AB86-EF235CAFF009@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I was also under the impression that this was done a while ago.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 25, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I thought we already did that.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 25-Nov-14 08:21, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> since we resolved the appointment of NCSG rep to CCWG on accountability, I
>> think we can also finalize the appointment  of Bill Drake to CCWG on IG.
>> I will share the information regarding NCSG appointmentwith other CCWG-IG
>> co-chairs.
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2014-11-11 20:36 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> we have 2 process to act on:
>>> 1- appointing a NCSG representative to the CCWG on IG. there is support in
>>> NCSG mailing to appoint Bill Drake and support within PC. can we make the
>>> final call and move forward
>>> 2- we have the process to appoint a NCSG rep to  CCWG on accountability
>>> which charter should be approved during the GNSO council this thursday. if
>>> I understand correctly, we got expression of interests already and the call
>>> is still open (I assume till the end of this week). the PC can make the
>>> appointments.
>>> 
>>> we need to act quickly ,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 2014-10-27 20:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Yes?, it would be good of Rudi to set a deadline for a consensus call.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Well, I guess it is for Rudi, our continuing alt-chair to make that call.
>>>> 
>>>> I repeat my support for Bill Drake as expressed on the discuss list.
>>>> I plan to continue as an observer/participant.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 26-Oct-14 19:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello,
>>>> 
>>>> can the PC make decision and sent the name to GNSO council and CCWG on IG?
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 2014-10-20 0:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> During the public GNSO council meeting in Los Angeles, the council adopted
>>>> the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance
>>>> (CCWG-IG), as well as the manner in which the GNSO would be represented by
>>>> members of this CCWG. The resolution can be found here:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410
>>>> 
>>>> It was also agreed that each GNSO group should identify its representative
>>>> by October 22nd, which is only in a few days. I thought I?d get the
>>>> nomination process started by nominating Bill Drake to represent the NCSG
>>>> as a member of this group. Bill?s already been active on this group, and
>>>> certainly meets the desirable criteria of membership.
>>>> 
>>>> For easier reference, here is the exact language of the resolution:
>>>> 
>>>> *20141015-2*
>>>> 
>>>> *Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make
>>>> recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues*
>>>> Whereas,
>>>> 
>>>>    1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call
>>>>    from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
>>>>    2. The group has developed the charter found at
>>>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>>    3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.
>>>> 
>>>> Resolved:
>>>> 
>>>>    1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter
>>>>    http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
>>>>    2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one
>>>>    member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the
>>>>    charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>>>       - Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable
>>>>       subject matter;
>>>>       - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on
>>>>       an ongoing and long-term basis; and
>>>>       - Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns
>>>>       of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
>>>>    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a
>>>>    call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own
>>>>    rules.
>>>>    4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to
>>>>    appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to
>>>>    serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the
>>>>    CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/62b60c05/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Wed Nov 26 10:57:12 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:57:12 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <54746D8D.30704@cdt.org>
References: <18E31637-2DF6-4B8E-842A-40CB7FC9F8B5@uzh.ch>
	<E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>
	<54745236.2040401@apc.org> <54746D8D.30704@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <8ECC009F-9A88-49ED-A256-3F937C031F1A@gmail.com>

Hi

Thanks folks for the good suggestion.   It?s not clear we'd need to do this with the CSG since a) the 4 plenary slots look to be full, b) their forward looking agenda would be different from ours, and c) co-designing it this would turn into another protracted negotiation with our hydra-headed counterpart.  My suggestion would be that we do this amongst ourselves in one of the two time slots reserved for NCSG.  There are a number of other items we may also want to pack into those slots, e.g.

Procedural: dialogue on improving the functioning of NCSG

Substantive: discussions in various places led me to believe that people would like to talk about IANA and/or EWG and privacy.  CSG is not interested in either of these as plenary topics (although if we do the open fourth session I propose we could still raise some things to air views and see what they?ll say).  

(Privacy was part of why I reach out to Rotenberg as a possibility for one of the three additional slots, along with Kathy K and another player TBD.  If we drop it probably he skips, whatever.  Or we could maybe do an outreach thing Wed where he?d fit.  Matt is there someone from CDT that might be interested in attending?)

Fadi: We need the man the morning of day 2 after he visits CSG.  I think it?s important that we are well prepared to lay out our concerns and seek concrete look me in the eye responses, otherwise he?ll fill the void and give us a speech like last time, when we learned that civil society is a bunch of crazies locked in the basement (seriously).  So really, unless we do it online prior, I?d suggest that the day 2 slot entail Fadi-prep.  Which would mean packing everything else into the day one slot, and the constituency slots.

In any event: the participants (NCSG Councilors + 3 others from the PC, NCUC EC, NPOC EC) should have a dialogue about how they want to use those slots.

Bill

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

> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Excellent idea - Rafik and I were just discussing the same.  Should we create some shareable doc to start the process?  Is there some more formal way of doing it within the PC?
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> On 11/25/2014 9:56 AM, joy wrote:
>> Hi Bill - thanks a lot for sharing this - just wondering .... would it also be useful to do some kind of forward looking exercise to help planning? For example, mapping those new or emerging issues likely to impact on policy work in the 2015 as well as those spaces outside ICANN where SGs are planning to engage in 2015.
>> Joy
>> 
>> 
>> On 25/11/2014 10:02 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> Just to keep folks in the loop on discussions about January.  Any thoughts on any of the below?
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> Subject: Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>>>> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>>> Date: November 25, 2014 at 9:55:39 AM GMT+1
>>>> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>>> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>> 
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I second Bill?s thanks to Rob for this draft. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> I also think Bill?s suggestions re possible topics for the Monday AM sessions make sense.  Would be interested in others? views.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, please
>>>>>  
>>>>> Beyond accountability, one topic IPC would like to see addressed in the ?plenary? (perhaps on Tuesday afternoon) would be New gTLDs, which should include preparation for the AOC review as well as the other initiatives staff is undertaking.  
>>>>>  
>>>>> I don?t think EWG is a great topic for this meeting.  GNSO review certainly could be contentious but maybe good to start having that discussion here, as I see was discussed in dialogue between Bill and Tony earlier today.   
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, so if I?m remembering the conversation correctly, the items suggested so far by more than one SG would be
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Accountability 
>>>> 2. GNSO review including SG/C issues
>>>> 3. In-house coordination as needed in light of past differences on board, GNSO VC, etc. (if we exhaust this topic quickly or hit a wall the remaining time could be spent on larger intra-GNSO dynamics, e.g. role of the Council in relation to the GNSO community, contracted/noncontracted, whatever)
>>>> 
>>>> And options suggested by one SG include
>>>> 
>>>> *IANA or EWG (NCSG)
>>>> *New gTLDs and AOC (CSG)
>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> We need to build in a little flexibility to account for the possibility (likelihood?) that the House will want to ?revisit? on Tuesday one or more of the topics first broached on Monday.  For example, we might reach agreement in principle on something and ask a subgroup to draft a statement for discussion the next day.  In other words, best to frontload the plenary topics a bit so there is some extra time on Tuesday afternoon.  
>>>> 
>>>> 3 morning coffee thoughts:
>>>> 
>>>> *As the SGs have separate meetings in slots E and H, we?ll have chances to talk about items of less interest to the other SG.
>>>> 
>>>> *To leave time for Steve?s flexibility and accommodate any unfinished conversational threads or unaddressed items, why not leave the fourth slot unprogrammed, like a big AOB?  It?s only 90 minutes, and an open discussion opportunity would allow for reflections on the meeting and ensure nobody goes away feeling like they didn?t get to raise something they care about. Would be an integrative way to end the two days.
>>>> 
>>>> *Per previous I tend to think it better to lead off with items where there?s broad agreement and ease into topics that might be more difficult after people have been together a bit, which might suggest proceeding 1, 2, 3 above => 4 open/loose ends discussion.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Other bits:
>>>> 
>>>> *Additional bodies: I believe we have agreed 3 per SG.  Personally, I would not designate them as ?observers?, if we are going to invite someone they shouldn?t be somehow marked as different and should be able to participate fully like anyone else.
>>>> 
>>>> *Lunch speakers: Per previous my suggestion would be to let people chat on the first day, and would strongly encourage people to sit intermingled rather than self-segregated into NCSG and CSG tables.  On the second day, we could do a) Larry; b) a less familiar-to-all beltway denizen, e.g. a Congressional or think tank poobah; or c) Fadi, who will have just met separately with the two SGs and might helpfully address us on an integrative basis thereafter.  I guess one also could argue it?d be  sort of bad form to not invite him to address us as group, no?
>>>> 
>>>> *Markus: I would suggest that he be asked to participate in Fadi?s Day 2 discussions with the SGs so he can get more familiar with our respective concerns.
>>>> 
>>>> *?Day 3?: I asked yesterday if others are planning on doing any sort of outreach meeting Wednesday morning on a SG or constituency basis, if so I?d think we should do the same and would need to factor that into our planning soon as it could affect travel schedules etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>>    
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>] 
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:35 AM
>>>>> To: Robert Hoggarth
>>>>> Cc: Tony Holmes; Elisa Cooper; rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Marilyn Cade; lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>; Kristina Rosette; Metalitz, Steven; Rafik Dammak; Jimson Olufuye; Maryam Bakoshi; Brenda Brewer; Benedetta Rossi; Stefania Milan; William Drake
>>>>> Subject: Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>>>>>  
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thanks Rob for moving us along.  Some initial reactions:
>>>>>  
>>>>> The overall schedule maps well with what we discussed.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Re: the Day 1 morning NCPH sessions, perhaps one option would be to lead with one on broader changes/conditions in the ICANN environment on which non-contracted would have broadly similar concerns, e.g. expansion/diversification of contracted parties and possible GNSO implications; and then do the second one on our intra-house dynamics and cooperation, e.g. conduct of elections etc.  In other words, lead off with shared stuff to get everyone acclimated and then ease into items on which we?ve struggled a bit?
>>>>>  
>>>>> Re: the Day 2 afternoon NCPH sessions, it sounded on the call like we all agreed on Accountability as a substantive discussion topic.  If I understood Steve correctly CSG would be less interested in talking about IANA stewardship in this context.  If so, perhaps EWG?  Or would we want to discuss the GNSO Review and structural issues in more detail?
>>>>>  
>>>>> I suppose the four NCPH sessions could be ordered a number of ways. We also could for ex hold the intra-house discussion for one of the Day 2 slots, after folks have been spending time together and are warmed up etc?
>>>>>  
>>>>> Re: lunches,  on the first day, maybe we?d want more casual conversation opportunities? A speaker on the second day might be good, a beltway luminary of some sort?  
>>>>>  
>>>>> Steve suggested expanding the head count a little so a few local community members could join.  As discussed, alternative considerations would be keeping the group size reasonably conversational and not being asymmetric.  Could we compromise on adding two heads per house?
>>>>>  
>>>>> I had a drink with Markus the other night and he didn?t know about the meeting, but he checked his schedule and is available.  I agree it?d be good to have him there so folks who aren?t could get acquainted. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Also, going forward, two process requests:
>>>>>  
>>>>> *Please include my NCUC EC colleague Stefania Milan on the Cc, Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>.  She is copied here.
>>>>>  
>>>>> *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>, I don?t need copies of every message in both my accounts.
>>>>>  
>>>>> thanks much
>>>>>  
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>  
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting.  Per our discussion this week,  please share and discuss it with your individual communities as you see fit.  If our previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc. as possible via email over the course of the next week. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date for the next planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line progress prior to that next meeting.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to assist you in prepping your individual meeting agendas during the course of the events that week.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the 2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY need your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting. Please provide that info to me as soon as possible so that we can maximize the use of our support resources for the meeting.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!
>>>>>  
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Rob 
>>>>> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>
>>>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> + 44 771 247 2987
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141126/c88bc819/attachment-0001.html>