From rafik.dammak Wed Oct 1 03:43:15 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:43:15 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BBA0A1.2040404@apc.org> <53C8DB48.6050401@apc.org> <53CED19F.8000209@apc.org> <53D16DDA.5000108@apc.org> <53D80A7A.2040203@apc.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hi Rudi, I think the deadline is passed and we can consider that the report is endorsed? Rafik 2014-09-25 16:27 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > Dear all, > > With regards the document containing NCSG comments on the report from the > Council of Europe on ICANN and Human Rights, I?m now calling for consensus > on the for laying document (see link on > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/). > May I ask for a Yes or No e-vote accepting the present version of the > document which is also attached to this email. This e-vote will close on 30 > september 23:59 UTC. > > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate chair PC-NCSG > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Wed Oct 1 04:04:51 2014 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:04:51 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wrote to Steve saying that meeting with CSG EC was fine by me, and suggesting a meeting in LA. I'm also willing to work on election procedures - I know Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is also willing from CSG. David On 30 Sep 2014, at 2:00 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > it sounds we fixed this matter quite quickly and there is no need for call this week . > CSG accepts David as vice-chair for another term and we will have an election with him running against NOTA(non of the above). hopefully, we can start that tomorrow. however they are adding a caveat: > "The caveat is that we would like David?s commitment to work with us to arrange regular consultations (perhaps every 2 months or so) with the CSG, especially regarding the Vice Chair?s role in appointing GNSO representatives (such as the recently appointed liaison to the GAC). " > I think that is fair request and move for more coordination among NCPH. @David is it OK for you? > > on other hand, we have agreement to finalize those elections process operating procedures by the intercessional meeting next January. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-18 23:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > hello, > > I pinged CSG counterpart to start the discussion, getting their acknowledgment I will include the PC&EC. > > but first trying to see first comments on the list: > * it sound that we get good argument for David to run again as vice-chair for 1 term. > * we are not submitting a name for chair election from NCPH but we will support Jonathan > > on other hand, the whole process would be a topic for the intersessional planned in January 2015 (TBC) and hopefully we will have a clear and final process. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Cake > Date: 2014-09-18 12:05 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > > > I'm willing to run for a second term as NCPH (though of course if anyone else wants to nominate, please do). > I've heard nothing from the CSG. We currently have no agreement with the CSG as to how to proceed with the selection. > On the one hand, there has been much discussion in the past of an alternating system with the CSG. On the other hand, immediately preceding me as NCPH Vice-Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben of the CSG had two terms. > > We should start discussion with the CSG leadership on this soon. > > David > > > On 18 Sep 2014, at 6:50 am, Avri Doria wrote: > > fyi > > wonder what NCPH is going to do. > > avri > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO > Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:27:45 +0000 > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > To: Council GNSO > > > Dear Councillors, > > Please find below the CPH nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO > Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] > Sent: jeudi 18 septembre 2014 00:20 > To: Glen de Saint G?ry > Cc: Cherie Stubbs (rysgsecretariat at gmail.com); Michele Neylon :: > Blacknight (michele at blacknight.com); Jonathan Robinson > (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); vgreimann at key-systems.net > Subject: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and > Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair > > Hi Glen, > > The GNSO Contracted Party House is pleased to nominate Jonathan Robinson > for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. > > Please contact me if you have any questions. > > Thanks and regards, > > Keith Drazek > > > > > ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use > of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain > information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential > and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as > attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of > this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message > immediately.? > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Oct 1 04:08:50 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:08:50 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi David, thanks, can you please initiate the work with Wolf so we get something to agree on and finalize in January? Rafik 2014-10-01 10:04 GMT+09:00 David Cake : > I wrote to Steve saying that meeting with CSG EC was fine by me, and > suggesting a meeting in LA. > > I'm also willing to work on election procedures - I know Wolf-Ulrich > Knoben is also willing from CSG. > > David > > On 30 Sep 2014, at 2:00 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > it sounds we fixed this matter quite quickly and there is no need for call > this week . > CSG accepts David as vice-chair for another term and we will have an > election with him running against NOTA(non of the above). hopefully, we can > start that tomorrow. however they are adding a caveat: > "The caveat is that we would like David?s commitment to work with us to > arrange regular consultations (perhaps every 2 months or so) with the CSG, > especially regarding the Vice Chair?s role in appointing GNSO > representatives (such as the recently appointed liaison to the GAC). " > I think that is fair request and move for more coordination among NCPH. > @David is it OK for you? > > on other hand, we have agreement to finalize those elections process > operating procedures by the intercessional meeting next January. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-18 23:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> hello, >> >> I pinged CSG counterpart to start the discussion, getting their >> acknowledgment I will include the PC&EC. >> >> but first trying to see first comments on the list: >> * it sound that we get good argument for David to run again as vice-chair >> for 1 term. >> * we are not submitting a name for chair election from NCPH but we will >> support Jonathan >> >> on other hand, the whole process would be a topic for the intersessional >> planned in January 2015 (TBC) and hopefully we will have a clear and final >> process. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Cake >> Date: 2014-09-18 12:05 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan >> Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> >> >> I'm willing to run for a second term as NCPH (though of course if anyone >> else wants to nominate, please do). >> I've heard nothing from the CSG. We currently have no agreement with the >> CSG as to how to proceed with the selection. >> On the one hand, there has been much discussion in the past of an >> alternating system with the CSG. On the other hand, immediately preceding >> me as NCPH Vice-Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben of the CSG had two terms. >> >> We should start discussion with the CSG leadership on this soon. >> >> David >> >> >> On 18 Sep 2014, at 6:50 am, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> fyi >> >> wonder what NCPH is going to do. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [council] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:27:45 +0000 >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> To: Council GNSO >> >> >> Dear Councillors, >> >> Please find below the CPH nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >> >> Thank you. >> Kind regards, >> >> Glen >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry >> GNSO Secretariat >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] >> Sent: jeudi 18 septembre 2014 00:20 >> To: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Cc: Cherie Stubbs (rysgsecretariat at gmail.com); Michele Neylon :: >> Blacknight (michele at blacknight.com); Jonathan Robinson >> (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); vgreimann at key-systems.net >> Subject: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and >> Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >> >> Hi Glen, >> >> The GNSO Contracted Party House is pleased to nominate Jonathan Robinson >> for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >> >> Please contact me if you have any questions. >> >> Thanks and regards, >> >> Keith Drazek >> >> >> >> >> ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use >> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain >> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential >> and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as >> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of >> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message >> immediately.? >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Oct 1 05:45:11 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:45:11 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53D16DDA.5000108@apc.org> <53D80A7A.2040203@apc.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> Message-ID: <542B6AB7.20100@mail.utoronto.ca> Yes from me Stephanie On 2014-09-30, 20:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Rudi, > > I think the deadline is passed and we can consider that the report is > endorsed? > > Rafik > > 2014-09-25 16:27 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >: > > Dear all, > > With regards the document containing NCSG comments on the report > from the Council of Europe on ICANN and Human Rights, I'm now > calling for consensus on the for laying document (see link on > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/). > May I ask for a Yes or No e-vote accepting the present version of > the document which is also attached to this email. This e-vote > will close on 30 september 23:59 UTC. > > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate chair PC-NCSG > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Wed Oct 1 08:23:00 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 07:23:00 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Speaking of January and the NCPH, I have included a bit of time for discussion of these on the NCUC CD agenda. Could we clarify the participation? Do I understand that CSG would send its EC (including constituency chairs) but not its Councilors/voters? And we would send just our Councilors/voters? Or is it y?all come?? Best Bill On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi David, > > thanks, can you please initiate the work with Wolf so we get something to agree on and finalize in January? > > Rafik > > 2014-10-01 10:04 GMT+09:00 David Cake : > I wrote to Steve saying that meeting with CSG EC was fine by me, and suggesting a meeting in LA. > > I'm also willing to work on election procedures - I know Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is also willing from CSG. > > David > > On 30 Sep 2014, at 2:00 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> it sounds we fixed this matter quite quickly and there is no need for call this week . >> CSG accepts David as vice-chair for another term and we will have an election with him running against NOTA(non of the above). hopefully, we can start that tomorrow. however they are adding a caveat: >> "The caveat is that we would like David?s commitment to work with us to arrange regular consultations (perhaps every 2 months or so) with the CSG, especially regarding the Vice Chair?s role in appointing GNSO representatives (such as the recently appointed liaison to the GAC). " >> I think that is fair request and move for more coordination among NCPH. @David is it OK for you? >> >> on other hand, we have agreement to finalize those elections process operating procedures by the intercessional meeting next January. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-09-18 23:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> hello, >> >> I pinged CSG counterpart to start the discussion, getting their acknowledgment I will include the PC&EC. >> >> but first trying to see first comments on the list: >> * it sound that we get good argument for David to run again as vice-chair for 1 term. >> * we are not submitting a name for chair election from NCPH but we will support Jonathan >> >> on other hand, the whole process would be a topic for the intersessional planned in January 2015 (TBC) and hopefully we will have a clear and final process. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Cake >> Date: 2014-09-18 12:05 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> >> >> I'm willing to run for a second term as NCPH (though of course if anyone else wants to nominate, please do). >> I've heard nothing from the CSG. We currently have no agreement with the CSG as to how to proceed with the selection. >> On the one hand, there has been much discussion in the past of an alternating system with the CSG. On the other hand, immediately preceding me as NCPH Vice-Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben of the CSG had two terms. >> >> We should start discussion with the CSG leadership on this soon. >> >> David >> >> >> On 18 Sep 2014, at 6:50 am, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> fyi >> >> wonder what NCPH is going to do. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [council] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:27:45 +0000 >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> To: Council GNSO >> >> >> Dear Councillors, >> >> Please find below the CPH nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >> >> Thank you. >> Kind regards, >> >> Glen >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry >> GNSO Secretariat >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] >> Sent: jeudi 18 septembre 2014 00:20 >> To: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Cc: Cherie Stubbs (rysgsecretariat at gmail.com); Michele Neylon :: >> Blacknight (michele at blacknight.com); Jonathan Robinson >> (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); vgreimann at key-systems.net >> Subject: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and >> Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >> >> Hi Glen, >> >> The GNSO Contracted Party House is pleased to nominate Jonathan Robinson >> for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >> >> Please contact me if you have any questions. >> >> Thanks and regards, >> >> Keith Drazek >> >> >> >> >> ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use >> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain >> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential >> and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as >> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of >> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message >> immediately.? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Oct 1 08:39:28 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:39:28 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Bill, such topic should be in another thread to avoid confusion since we are talking about VC election. saying that, we have the intercessional meeting in January for NCSPH (12/13 january). we are having call with ICANN staff and CSG rep today to discuss about logistics and agenda. we have 21 slots. for participation last time, it was 9 for NCSG, 6 for NCUC and 6 for NPOC. for NCSG that will include the 6 councillors + EC members . the repartition is like for usual ICANN meeting + 2 seats by constituency. so it won't be just "voters" from our side. that is list of participants from 2013 https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/2013+GNSO-NCPH+Intersessional+Meeting+Agenda we will have to confirm the names list by 1st Nov. Rafik 2014-10-01 14:23 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > Hi > > Speaking of January and the NCPH, I have included a bit of time for > discussion of these on the NCUC CD agenda. > > Could we clarify the participation? Do I understand that CSG would send > its EC (including constituency chairs) but not its Councilors/voters? And > we would send just our Councilors/voters? Or is it y?all come?? > > Best > > Bill > > > On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi David, > > thanks, can you please initiate the work with Wolf so we get something to > agree on and finalize in January? > > Rafik > > 2014-10-01 10:04 GMT+09:00 David Cake : > >> I wrote to Steve saying that meeting with CSG EC was fine by me, and >> suggesting a meeting in LA. >> >> I'm also willing to work on election procedures - I know Wolf-Ulrich >> Knoben is also willing from CSG. >> >> David >> >> On 30 Sep 2014, at 2:00 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> it sounds we fixed this matter quite quickly and there is no need for >> call this week . >> CSG accepts David as vice-chair for another term and we will have an >> election with him running against NOTA(non of the above). hopefully, we can >> start that tomorrow. however they are adding a caveat: >> "The caveat is that we would like David?s commitment to work with us to >> arrange regular consultations (perhaps every 2 months or so) with the CSG, >> especially regarding the Vice Chair?s role in appointing GNSO >> representatives (such as the recently appointed liaison to the GAC). " >> I think that is fair request and move for more coordination among NCPH. >> @David is it OK for you? >> >> on other hand, we have agreement to finalize those elections process >> operating procedures by the intercessional meeting next January. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-09-18 23:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> hello, >>> >>> I pinged CSG counterpart to start the discussion, getting their >>> acknowledgment I will include the PC&EC. >>> >>> but first trying to see first comments on the list: >>> * it sound that we get good argument for David to run again as >>> vice-chair for 1 term. >>> * we are not submitting a name for chair election from NCPH but we will >>> support Jonathan >>> >>> on other hand, the whole process would be a topic for the intersessional >>> planned in January 2015 (TBC) and hopefully we will have a clear and final >>> process. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: David Cake >>> Date: 2014-09-18 12:05 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan >>> Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>> >>> >>> I'm willing to run for a second term as NCPH (though of course if anyone >>> else wants to nominate, please do). >>> I've heard nothing from the CSG. We currently have no agreement with the >>> CSG as to how to proceed with the selection. >>> On the one hand, there has been much discussion in the past of an >>> alternating system with the CSG. On the other hand, immediately preceding >>> me as NCPH Vice-Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben of the CSG had two terms. >>> >>> We should start discussion with the CSG leadership on this soon. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On 18 Sep 2014, at 6:50 am, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> fyi >>> >>> wonder what NCPH is going to do. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [council] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >>> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >>> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:27:45 +0000 >>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>> To: Council GNSO >>> >>> >>> Dear Councillors, >>> >>> Please find below the CPH nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >>> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>> GNSO Secretariat >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>> http://gnso.icann.org >>> >>> From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] >>> Sent: jeudi 18 septembre 2014 00:20 >>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Cc: Cherie Stubbs (rysgsecretariat at gmail.com); Michele Neylon :: >>> Blacknight (michele at blacknight.com); Jonathan Robinson >>> (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); vgreimann at key-systems.net >>> Subject: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and >>> Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >>> >>> Hi Glen, >>> >>> The GNSO Contracted Party House is pleased to nominate Jonathan Robinson >>> for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >>> >>> Please contact me if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thanks and regards, >>> >>> Keith Drazek >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use >>> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain >>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential >>> and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as >>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of >>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message >>> immediately.? >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Wed Oct 1 09:09:34 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 08:09:34 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02E4F9F0-4ABF-4777-B717-AC5C059630F3@gmail.com> Hi I wasn?t asking about the intersessional, I obviously know all that since I sent mail saying the same. I was asking about the VC election discussion. They are sending the SG EC, and we are sending?? BD On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Bill, > > such topic should be in another thread to avoid confusion since we are talking about VC election. > > saying that, we have the intercessional meeting in January for NCSPH (12/13 january). we are having call with ICANN staff and CSG rep today to discuss about logistics and agenda. > > we have 21 slots. for participation last time, it was 9 for NCSG, 6 for NCUC and 6 for NPOC. for NCSG that will include the 6 councillors + EC members . the repartition is like for usual ICANN meeting + 2 seats by constituency. > so it won't be just "voters" from our side. that is list of participants from 2013 https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/2013+GNSO-NCPH+Intersessional+Meeting+Agenda > we will have to confirm the names list by 1st Nov. > > Rafik > > > 2014-10-01 14:23 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > Hi > > Speaking of January and the NCPH, I have included a bit of time for discussion of these on the NCUC CD agenda. > > Could we clarify the participation? Do I understand that CSG would send its EC (including constituency chairs) but not its Councilors/voters? And we would send just our Councilors/voters? Or is it y?all come?? > > Best > > Bill > > > On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> thanks, can you please initiate the work with Wolf so we get something to agree on and finalize in January? >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-10-01 10:04 GMT+09:00 David Cake : >> I wrote to Steve saying that meeting with CSG EC was fine by me, and suggesting a meeting in LA. >> >> I'm also willing to work on election procedures - I know Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is also willing from CSG. >> >> David >> >> On 30 Sep 2014, at 2:00 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> it sounds we fixed this matter quite quickly and there is no need for call this week . >>> CSG accepts David as vice-chair for another term and we will have an election with him running against NOTA(non of the above). hopefully, we can start that tomorrow. however they are adding a caveat: >>> "The caveat is that we would like David?s commitment to work with us to arrange regular consultations (perhaps every 2 months or so) with the CSG, especially regarding the Vice Chair?s role in appointing GNSO representatives (such as the recently appointed liaison to the GAC). " >>> I think that is fair request and move for more coordination among NCPH. @David is it OK for you? >>> >>> on other hand, we have agreement to finalize those elections process operating procedures by the intercessional meeting next January. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-09-18 23:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> hello, >>> >>> I pinged CSG counterpart to start the discussion, getting their acknowledgment I will include the PC&EC. >>> >>> but first trying to see first comments on the list: >>> * it sound that we get good argument for David to run again as vice-chair for 1 term. >>> * we are not submitting a name for chair election from NCPH but we will support Jonathan >>> >>> on other hand, the whole process would be a topic for the intersessional planned in January 2015 (TBC) and hopefully we will have a clear and final process. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: David Cake >>> Date: 2014-09-18 12:05 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>> >>> >>> I'm willing to run for a second term as NCPH (though of course if anyone else wants to nominate, please do). >>> I've heard nothing from the CSG. We currently have no agreement with the CSG as to how to proceed with the selection. >>> On the one hand, there has been much discussion in the past of an alternating system with the CSG. On the other hand, immediately preceding me as NCPH Vice-Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben of the CSG had two terms. >>> >>> We should start discussion with the CSG leadership on this soon. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On 18 Sep 2014, at 6:50 am, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> fyi >>> >>> wonder what NCPH is going to do. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [council] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >>> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >>> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:27:45 +0000 >>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>> To: Council GNSO >>> >>> >>> Dear Councillors, >>> >>> Please find below the CPH nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >>> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>> GNSO Secretariat >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>> http://gnso.icann.org >>> >>> From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] >>> Sent: jeudi 18 septembre 2014 00:20 >>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Cc: Cherie Stubbs (rysgsecretariat at gmail.com); Michele Neylon :: >>> Blacknight (michele at blacknight.com); Jonathan Robinson >>> (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); vgreimann at key-systems.net >>> Subject: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and >>> Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >>> >>> Hi Glen, >>> >>> The GNSO Contracted Party House is pleased to nominate Jonathan Robinson >>> for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >>> >>> Please contact me if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thanks and regards, >>> >>> Keith Drazek >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use >>> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain >>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential >>> and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as >>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of >>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message >>> immediately.? >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Oct 1 09:12:00 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 15:12:00 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: <02E4F9F0-4ABF-4777-B717-AC5C059630F3@gmail.com> References: <02E4F9F0-4ABF-4777-B717-AC5C059630F3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill. What discussion? There is no call . They agreed for david to be VC and run for the election to be started soon . In NCPH the election procedure is a topic for the agenda. Rafik On Oct 1, 2014 3:08 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi > > I wasn?t asking about the intersessional, I obviously know all that since > I sent mail saying the same. I was asking about the VC election > discussion. They are sending the SG EC, and we are sending?? > > BD > > On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > such topic should be in another thread to avoid confusion since we are > talking about VC election. > > saying that, we have the intercessional meeting in January for NCSPH > (12/13 january). we are having call with ICANN staff and CSG rep today to > discuss about logistics and agenda. > > we have 21 slots. for participation last time, it was 9 for NCSG, 6 for > NCUC and 6 for NPOC. for NCSG that will include the 6 councillors + EC > members . the repartition is like for usual ICANN meeting + 2 seats by > constituency. > so it won't be just "voters" from our side. that is list of participants > from 2013 > https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/2013+GNSO-NCPH+Intersessional+Meeting+Agenda > > we will have to confirm the names list by 1st Nov. > > Rafik > > > 2014-10-01 14:23 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > >> Hi >> >> Speaking of January and the NCPH, I have included a bit of time for >> discussion of these on the NCUC CD agenda. >> >> Could we clarify the participation? Do I understand that CSG would send >> its EC (including constituency chairs) but not its Councilors/voters? And >> we would send just our Councilors/voters? Or is it y?all come?? >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi David, >> >> thanks, can you please initiate the work with Wolf so we get something to >> agree on and finalize in January? >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-10-01 10:04 GMT+09:00 David Cake : >> >>> I wrote to Steve saying that meeting with CSG EC was fine by me, and >>> suggesting a meeting in LA. >>> >>> I'm also willing to work on election procedures - I know Wolf-Ulrich >>> Knoben is also willing from CSG. >>> >>> David >>> >>> On 30 Sep 2014, at 2:00 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> it sounds we fixed this matter quite quickly and there is no need for >>> call this week . >>> CSG accepts David as vice-chair for another term and we will have an >>> election with him running against NOTA(non of the above). hopefully, we can >>> start that tomorrow. however they are adding a caveat: >>> "The caveat is that we would like David?s commitment to work with us to >>> arrange regular consultations (perhaps every 2 months or so) with the CSG, >>> especially regarding the Vice Chair?s role in appointing GNSO >>> representatives (such as the recently appointed liaison to the GAC). " >>> I think that is fair request and move for more coordination among NCPH. >>> @David is it OK for you? >>> >>> on other hand, we have agreement to finalize those elections process >>> operating procedures by the intercessional meeting next January. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-09-18 23:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>>> hello, >>>> >>>> I pinged CSG counterpart to start the discussion, getting their >>>> acknowledgment I will include the PC&EC. >>>> >>>> but first trying to see first comments on the list: >>>> * it sound that we get good argument for David to run again as >>>> vice-chair for 1 term. >>>> * we are not submitting a name for chair election from NCPH but we will >>>> support Jonathan >>>> >>>> on other hand, the whole process would be a topic for the >>>> intersessional planned in January 2015 (TBC) and hopefully we will have a >>>> clear and final process. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: David Cake >>>> Date: 2014-09-18 12:05 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan >>>> Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm willing to run for a second term as NCPH (though of course if >>>> anyone else wants to nominate, please do). >>>> I've heard nothing from the CSG. We currently have no agreement with >>>> the CSG as to how to proceed with the selection. >>>> On the one hand, there has been much discussion in the past of an >>>> alternating system with the CSG. On the other hand, immediately preceding >>>> me as NCPH Vice-Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben of the CSG had two terms. >>>> >>>> We should start discussion with the CSG leadership on this soon. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Sep 2014, at 6:50 am, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> fyi >>>> >>>> wonder what NCPH is going to do. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [council] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >>>> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >>>> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:27:45 +0000 >>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> To: Council GNSO >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Councillors, >>>> >>>> Please find below the CPH nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO >>>> Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Glen >>>> >>>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> GNSO Secretariat >>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>>> http://gnso.icann.org >>>> >>>> From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] >>>> Sent: jeudi 18 septembre 2014 00:20 >>>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> Cc: Cherie Stubbs (rysgsecretariat at gmail.com); Michele Neylon :: >>>> Blacknight (michele at blacknight.com); Jonathan Robinson >>>> (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); vgreimann at key-systems.net >>>> Subject: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and >>>> Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair >>>> >>>> Hi Glen, >>>> >>>> The GNSO Contracted Party House is pleased to nominate Jonathan Robinson >>>> for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair. >>>> >>>> Please contact me if you have any questions. >>>> >>>> Thanks and regards, >>>> >>>> Keith Drazek >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use >>>> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain >>>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential >>>> and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as >>>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of >>>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message >>>> immediately.? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Wed Oct 1 10:03:30 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:03:30 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: <02E4F9F0-4ABF-4777-B717-AC5C059630F3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi On Oct 1, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > What discussion? There is no call . Silly me, I misunderstood the conversation below about having a meeting in LA to mean that we?d be having a meeting in LA. So I was asking about the intended participants. If there is no meeting in LA great we take it up all together in DC in January as previously agreed on the NCPH list and in London. Best Bill >> On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> thanks, can you please initiate the work with Wolf so we get something to agree on and finalize in January? >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-10-01 10:04 GMT+09:00 David Cake : >>> I wrote to Steve saying that meeting with CSG EC was fine by me, and suggesting a meeting in LA. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Oct 1 14:20:22 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 07:20:22 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: <02E4F9F0-4ABF-4777-B717-AC5C059630F3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <542BE376.108@acm.org> confused now! On 01-Oct-14 03:03, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Oct 1, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> What discussion? There is no call . > > > Silly me, I misunderstood the conversation below about having a meeting in LA to mean that we?d be having a meeting in LA. So I was asking about the intended participants. If there is no meeting in LA great we take it up all together in DC in January as previously agreed on the NCPH list and in London. > > Best > > Bill > > >>> On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> thanks, can you please initiate the work with Wolf so we get something to agree on and finalize in January? >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2014-10-01 10:04 GMT+09:00 David Cake : >>>> I wrote to Steve saying that meeting with CSG EC was fine by me, and suggesting a meeting in LA. >>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Wed Oct 1 17:11:08 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 23:11:08 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BBA0A1.2040404@apc.org> <53C8DB48.6050401@apc.org> <53CED19F.8000209@apc.org> <53D16DDA.5000108@apc.org> <53D80A7A.2040203@apc.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hi Rudi, can we consider it endorsed? I was just told that we should send comment by today to get them included in the revised report. Rafik 2014-10-01 9:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Rudi, > > I think the deadline is passed and we can consider that the report is > endorsed? > > Rafik > > 2014-09-25 16:27 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > >> Dear all, >> >> With regards the document containing NCSG comments on the report from the >> Council of Europe on ICANN and Human Rights, I?m now calling for consensus >> on the for laying document (see link on >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/). >> May I ask for a Yes or No e-vote accepting the present version of the >> document which is also attached to this email. This e-vote will close on 30 >> september 23:59 UTC. >> >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> Alternate chair PC-NCSG >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Wed Oct 1 17:38:42 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 16:38:42 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BBA0A1.2040404@apc.org> <53C8DB48.6050401@apc.org> <53CED19F.8000209@apc.org> <53D16DDA.5000108@apc.org> <53D80A7A.2040203@apc.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> Message-ID: <152F3D70-8AF8-484D-88B0-277B367EB36B@isoc.be> Sorry Rafik, too busy here .. Yes can be considered endorsed. Rudi Op 1-okt.-2014, om 16:11 heeft Rafik Dammak het volgende geschreven: > Hi Rudi, > > can we consider it endorsed? I was just told that we should send comment by today to get them included in the revised report. > > Rafik > > 2014-10-01 9:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Rudi, > > I think the deadline is passed and we can consider that the report is endorsed? > > Rafik > > 2014-09-25 16:27 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > Dear all, > > With regards the document containing NCSG comments on the report from the Council of Europe on ICANN and Human Rights, I?m now calling for consensus on the for laying document (see link on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/). May I ask for a Yes or No e-vote accepting the present version of the document which is also attached to this email. This e-vote will close on 30 september 23:59 UTC. > > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate chair PC-NCSG > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Oct 1 17:40:06 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:40:06 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <152F3D70-8AF8-484D-88B0-277B367EB36B@isoc.be> References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> <152F3D70-8AF8-484D-88B0-277B367EB36B@isoc.be> Message-ID: <542C1246.5010306@mail.utoronto.ca> Please send it now, they are revising the report today.... STephanie Perrin On 2014-10-01, 10:38, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Sorry Rafik, too busy here .. > > Yes can be considered endorsed. > > Rudi > > Op 1-okt.-2014, om 16:11 heeft Rafik Dammak > het volgende geschreven: > >> Hi Rudi, >> >> can we consider it endorsed? I was just told that we should send >> comment by today to get them included in the revised report. >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-10-01 9:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi Rudi, >> >> I think the deadline is passed and we can consider that the >> report is endorsed? >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-09-25 16:27 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > >: >> >> Dear all, >> >> With regards the document containing NCSG comments on the >> report from the Council of Europe on ICANN and Human Rights, >> I'm now calling for consensus on the for laying document (see >> link on >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/). >> May I ask for a Yes or No e-vote accepting the present >> version of the document which is also attached to this email. >> This e-vote will close on 30 september 23:59 UTC. >> >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> Alternate chair PC-NCSG >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Oct 1 18:25:57 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 17:25:57 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> Hi, I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s rejection of GAC Advice. The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last bit I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear objections against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are any objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to both the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: 1. Milton Mueller 2. Robin Gross 3. Edward Morris 4. Avri Doria 5. Wisdom Kwasi 6. Amr Elsadr (me) as well as two other comments submitted by: 1. Tucows (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) and 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html) The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate it if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. Thanks everyone. Amr On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. > > Amr > > On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez wrote: > >> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. >> >> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >> _____________________ >> >> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >> Skype: carlos.raulg >> +506 8335 2487 >> >> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo el mundo. >> >> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr escribi?: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted by NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I don?t know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please let me know. >>> >>> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track of them. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is really bad!! >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with us. >>>>> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is time to summarise a common position on that matter. we need volunteer(s) to collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a comment for review. the deadline is 14th september but we have still the reply period we can use to submit our comment. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >>>>> >>>>> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Avri Doria >>>>> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice amendment >>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I submitted an individual comment. >>>>> >>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Wed Oct 1 18:47:23 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 04:47:23 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <542C1246.5010306@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> <152F3D70-8AF8-484D-88B0-277B367EB36B@isoc.be> <542C1246.5010306@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <542C220B.70504@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Thu Oct 2 12:57:23 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:57:23 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> Dear all, Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I?m calling for a consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice. The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 UTC. Thus allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline (6th October). May I request prompt action please ? Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Alternate chair PC-NCSG Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Amr Elsadr > Onderwerp: Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice > Datum: 1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST > Aan: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, NCSG Policy Committee > > Hi, > > I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s rejection of GAC Advice. > > The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last bit I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear objections against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are any objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to both the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. > > Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: > > 1. Milton Mueller > 2. Robin Gross > 3. Edward Morris > 4. Avri Doria > 5. Wisdom Kwasi > 6. Amr Elsadr (me) > > as well as two other comments submitted by: > > 1. Tucows (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) and > 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html) > > The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate it if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. > > Thanks everyone. > > Amr > > On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez wrote: >> >>> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. >>> >>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >>> _____________________ >>> >>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>> +506 8335 2487 >>> >>> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo el mundo. >>> >>> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr escribi?: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted by NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I don?t know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please let me know. >>>> >>>> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track of them. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is really bad!! >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with us. >>>>>> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is time to summarise a common position on that matter. we need volunteer(s) to collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a comment for review. the deadline is 14th september but we have still the reply period we can use to submit our comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >>>>>> >>>>>> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: Avri Doria >>>>>> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice amendment >>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I submitted an individual comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Oct 2 13:38:54 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 06:38:54 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> Message-ID: <542D2B3E.2020209@acm.org> Hi, While I agree with the recommendation against the change in the response, I disagree with many of the reasons given and with many of the given arguments for these reasons. I, therefore, abstain avri On 02-Oct-14 05:57, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Dear all, > > Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I?m calling for a consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice. The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 UTC. Thus allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline (6th October). > May I request prompt action please ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate chair PC-NCSG > > > > Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > >> Van: Amr Elsadr >> Onderwerp: Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice >> Datum: 1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST >> Aan: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, NCSG Policy Committee >> >> Hi, >> >> I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s rejection of GAC Advice. >> >> The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last bit I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear objections against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are any objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to both the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. >> >> Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: >> >> 1. Milton Mueller >> 2. Robin Gross >> 3. Edward Morris >> 4. Avri Doria >> 5. Wisdom Kwasi >> 6. Amr Elsadr (me) >> >> as well as two other comments submitted by: >> >> 1. Tucows (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) and >> 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html) >> >> The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate it if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. >> >> Thanks everyone. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez wrote: >>> >>>> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. >>>> >>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >>>> _____________________ >>>> >>>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >>>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>>> +506 8335 2487 >>>> >>>> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo el mundo. >>>> >>>> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr escribi?: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted by NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I don?t know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track of them. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is really bad!! >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with us. >>>>>>> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is time to summarise a common position on that matter. we need volunteer(s) to collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a comment for review. the deadline is 14th september but we have still the reply period we can use to submit our comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Avri Doria >>>>>>> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice amendment >>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I submitted an individual comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From aelsadr Thu Oct 2 15:40:51 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:40:51 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> Message-ID: Thanks Rudi, It?d also be helpful to include wether we?d like to endorse the various NCSG individual statements as well as the two others, or not, in the consensus call. Thanks again. Amr On Oct 2, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Dear all, > > Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I?m calling for a consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice. The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 UTC. Thus allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline (6th October). > May I request prompt action please ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate chair PC-NCSG > > > > Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > >> Van: Amr Elsadr >> Onderwerp: Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice >> Datum: 1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST >> Aan: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, NCSG Policy Committee >> >> Hi, >> >> I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s rejection of GAC Advice. >> >> The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last bit I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear objections against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are any objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to both the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. >> >> Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: >> >> 1. Milton Mueller >> 2. Robin Gross >> 3. Edward Morris >> 4. Avri Doria >> 5. Wisdom Kwasi >> 6. Amr Elsadr (me) >> >> as well as two other comments submitted by: >> >> 1. Tucows (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) and >> 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html) >> >> The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate it if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. >> >> Thanks everyone. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez wrote: >>> >>>> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. >>>> >>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >>>> _____________________ >>>> >>>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >>>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>>> +506 8335 2487 >>>> >>>> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo el mundo. >>>> >>>> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr escribi?: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted by NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I don?t know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track of them. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is really bad!! >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with us. >>>>>>> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is time to summarise a common position on that matter. we need volunteer(s) to collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a comment for review. the deadline is 14th september but we have still the reply period we can use to submit our comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Avri Doria >>>>>>> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice amendment >>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I submitted an individual comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Oct 2 19:43:46 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:43:46 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> Message-ID: <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> I support it. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-10-02, 5:57, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Dear all, > > Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I'm calling > for a consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for > GAC advice. The comment can be found here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 > UTC. Thus allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline > (6th October). > May I request prompt action please ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate chair PC-NCSG > > > > Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > >> *Van: *Amr Elsadr > >> *Onderwerp: **Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working >> on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice* >> *Datum: *1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST >> *Aan: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> , NCSG Policy Committee >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm reopening this thread because there have been a significant >> number of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of >> the NCSG for the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the >> ICANN board's rejection of GAC Advice. >> >> The comment can be found here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, >> and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the >> last bit I've come up with. If you do read it, please note that I >> also plan on taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, >> unless I hear objections against doing so. At this point, I'd like to >> know if there are any objections to submitting the comment in its >> current form. I ask this to both the NCSG PC members, as well as the >> full NCSG membership. >> >> Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) >> endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: >> >> 1. Milton Mueller >> 2. Robin Gross >> 3. Edward Morris >> 4. Avri Doria >> 5. Wisdom Kwasi >> 6. Amr Elsadr (me) >> >> as well as two other comments submitted by: >> >> 1. Tucows >> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) >> and >> 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition >> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html) >> >> The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate >> it if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. >> >> Thanks everyone. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr > > wrote: >> >>> Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison >>>> between GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and >>>> engagement. >>>> >>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >>>> _____________________ >>>> >>>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >>>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>>> +506 8335 2487 >>>> >>>> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin >>>> fines de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en >>>> est?ndares relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con >>>> oficinas en Washington DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, >>>> busca asegurar el desarrollo, la evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de >>>> Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo el mundo. >>>> >>>> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr >>> > escribi?: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I've tried to capture the essence of the different comments >>>>> submitted by NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, >>>>> Wisdom and my own. I don't know if it does them all justice, but >>>>> I've posted it here: >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> If I've missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, >>>>> please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it'd be helpful >>>>> if folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can >>>>> keep track of them. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members >>>>>> into one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they >>>>>> all cover different and important aspects of why the proposed >>>>>> by-laws amendment is really bad!! >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing >>>>>>> it with us. >>>>>>> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe >>>>>>> it is time to summarise a common position on that matter. we >>>>>>> need volunteer(s) to collect the opinions shared in the list and >>>>>>> draft a comment for review. the deadline is 14th september but >>>>>>> we have still the reply period we can use to submit our comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to >>>>>>> volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: *Avri Doria* > >>>>>>> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC >>>>>>> advice amendment >>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I submitted an individual comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Oct 3 06:15:16 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 12:15:16 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] High Interest Topic Session ay LA meeting Message-ID: Hi everyone, There will be a high interest topic session in Monday at LA meeting ( http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-soac-high-interest) and 2 topic consensus were selected: (1) The Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN Policy Development (2) Identifying and Prioritizing Matters of Interest for the Second Round of New gTLDs. We are supposed to identify and explain the priority concerns and/or overall points of view of NCSG have on these topics. For the first topic, it can be of course about the change in by-law for GAC. GAC chair asked to reword the topic to avoid "cross-examination of GAC" but I think they will on spot anyway. we are asked to share one or two specific ?seed? questions for each topic that we might like the session moderator to ask overall panel during the session or the NCSG representative. We need to share those seed question those questions by Saturday next week. I am also volunteering to be the NCSG representative in the panel. Waiting for your comments and suggestion for seed questions. Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Oct 3 15:11:45 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:11:45 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> Message-ID: <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 From: Jonathan Robinson Reply-To: Organization: Afilias To: , All, May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would like to ask for one participant from each SG. Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the Council. In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is also in attendance / engaged. Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. Thank-you, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 To: council at gnso.icann.org Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report All, Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve Crocker. Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the GNSO PDP. Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and background to the EWG. Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is obviously highly desirable. Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such response will be appreciated. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [ mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report Jonathan, I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session devoted to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in hand but we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our heads together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we take that step. We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before attempting to initiate another policy development process. I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might choose them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always better in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many who will want to participate. I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars this past week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was intended to provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've ever had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to understand what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do have a stronger chance this time. My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get this right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have given this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but we do not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something that can come from the working group. Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule time for the working group to meet. Thanks! Steve From aelsadr Fri Oct 3 16:32:08 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 15:32:08 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, This being a discussion mainly concerned with reconciling the ad-hoc nature of the EWG process with the normal PDP, I would ask that you (Avri) consider taking up this task. There?s going to be a lot of discussion on detailing how this PDP will move forward from a process perspective regarding the role of the council, the opportunity for public comment, as well as the drafting of the PDP charter. You?re experience on this front will be extremely valuable to the discussion. I would have liked to be on this group, but it was recommended during the last council meeting that whoever is selected to join this group be in LA for a possible first F2F. Alas, I won?t be joining you all there, but hope to participate remotely as often as I can. Thanks. Amr On Oct 3, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. > > avri > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the > EWG Final Report > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 > From: Jonathan Robinson > Reply-To: > Organization: Afilias > To: , > > All, > > > > May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. > > > > To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would > like to ask for one participant from each SG. > > Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I > suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the > Council. > > In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is > also in attendance / engaged. > > > > Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. > > > > Thank-you, > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] > Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 > To: council at gnso.icann.org > Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report > > > > All, > > > > Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve > Crocker. > > > > Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested > response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this > request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. > > > > Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers > should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the > GNSO PDP. > > Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and > background to the EWG. > > > > Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach > above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. > > > > Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is > obviously highly desirable. > > Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such > response will be appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Crocker [ mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] > > Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 > > To: Jonathan Robinson > > Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN > > Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report > > > > Jonathan, > > > > I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. > > > > During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session devoted > to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that > exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in hand but > we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy > development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our heads > together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we take > that step. > > > > We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of > members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, > organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before attempting to > initiate another policy development process. > > > > I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might choose > them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always better > in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many who will > want to participate. > > > > I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars this past > week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. > > > > The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was intended to > provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've ever > had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to understand > what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do have a > stronger chance this time. > > > > My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get this > right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have given > this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the > resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but we do > not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something that > can come from the working group. > > > > Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA > meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule time > for the working group to meet. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 3 17:03:56 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:03:56 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> Message-ID: <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, they will never pick him... cheers steph On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: > another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. > > avri > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the > EWG Final Report > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 > From: Jonathan Robinson > Reply-To: > Organization: Afilias > To: , > > All, > > > > May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. > > > > To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would > like to ask for one participant from each SG. > > Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I > suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the > Council. > > In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is > also in attendance / engaged. > > > > Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. > > > > Thank-you, > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] > Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 > To: council at gnso.icann.org > Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report > > > > All, > > > > Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve > Crocker. > > > > Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested > response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this > request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. > > > > Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers > should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the > GNSO PDP. > > Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and > background to the EWG. > > > > Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach > above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. > > > > Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is > obviously highly desirable. > > Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such > response will be appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Crocker [ mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] > > Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 > > To: Jonathan Robinson > > Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN > > Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report > > > > Jonathan, > > > > I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. > > > > During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session devoted > to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that > exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in hand but > we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy > development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our heads > together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we take > that step. > > > > We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of > members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, > organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before attempting to > initiate another policy development process. > > > > I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might choose > them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always better > in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many who will > want to participate. > > > > I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars this past > week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. > > > > The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was intended to > provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've ever > had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to understand > what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do have a > stronger chance this time. > > > > My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get this > right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have given > this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the > resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but we do > not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something that > can come from the working group. > > > > Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA > meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule time > for the working group to meet. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Fri Oct 3 17:54:24 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:54:24 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> Hi, We have to pick 1. We are they they in this case. If you want to do, I am sure you can. Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be surprised if he wanted it. avri On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. > we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, they will > never pick him... > cheers steph > On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: >> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the >> EWG Final Report >> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 >> From: Jonathan Robinson >> Reply-To: >> Organization: Afilias >> To: , >> >> All, >> >> >> >> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. >> >> >> >> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and >> would >> like to ask for one participant from each SG. >> >> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I >> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the >> Council. >> >> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy >> staff is >> also in attendance / engaged. >> >> >> >> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. >> >> >> >> Thank-you, >> >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] >> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 >> To: council at gnso.icann.org >> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >> Report >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve >> Crocker. >> >> >> >> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested >> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this >> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. >> >> >> >> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers >> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the >> GNSO PDP. >> >> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the >> work and >> background to the EWG. >> >> >> >> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / >> approach >> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. >> >> >> >> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is >> obviously highly desirable. >> >> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such >> response will be appreciated. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Steve Crocker [ >> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] >> >> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 >> >> To: Jonathan Robinson >> >> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN >> >> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report >> >> >> >> Jonathan, >> >> >> >> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. >> >> >> >> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session >> devoted >> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that >> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in >> hand but >> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy >> development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our >> heads >> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we take >> that step. >> >> >> >> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of >> members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, >> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before >> attempting to >> initiate another policy development process. >> >> >> >> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might >> choose >> them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always >> better >> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many >> who will >> want to participate. >> >> >> >> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars >> this past >> week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. >> >> >> >> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was >> intended to >> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've >> ever >> had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to >> understand >> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do >> have a >> stronger chance this time. >> >> >> >> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get >> this >> right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have >> given >> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the >> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but we do >> not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something that >> can come from the working group. >> >> >> >> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA >> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule >> time >> for the working group to meet. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > From stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 3 17:57:31 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:57:31 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> Message-ID: <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> Oh sorry, I misread it...I thought we had to provide several names. Since I still find the process mystifying, it should be you, as Amr suggests. I am hopeless at that stuff still....although I trust I will be better after I am trained next week... :-) On 14-10-03 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > We have to pick 1. We are they they in this case. > > If you want to do, I am sure you can. > > Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be surprised if he > wanted it. > > avri > > > On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. >> we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, they will >> never pick him... >> cheers steph >> On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: >>> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the >>> EWG Final Report >>> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 >>> From: Jonathan Robinson >>> Reply-To: >>> Organization: Afilias >>> To: , >>> >>> All, >>> >>> >>> >>> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. >>> >>> >>> >>> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and >>> would >>> like to ask for one participant from each SG. >>> >>> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I >>> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the >>> Council. >>> >>> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy >>> staff is >>> also in attendance / engaged. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank-you, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] >>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 >>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >>> Report >>> >>> >>> >>> All, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve >>> Crocker. >>> >>> >>> >>> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested >>> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this >>> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. >>> >>> >>> >>> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers >>> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the >>> GNSO PDP. >>> >>> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the >>> work and >>> background to the EWG. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / >>> approach >>> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is >>> obviously highly desirable. >>> >>> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such >>> response will be appreciated. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Steve Crocker [ >>> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] >>> >>> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 >>> >>> To: Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN >>> >>> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report >>> >>> >>> >>> Jonathan, >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. >>> >>> >>> >>> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session >>> devoted >>> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that >>> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in >>> hand but >>> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy >>> development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our >>> heads >>> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we take >>> that step. >>> >>> >>> >>> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of >>> members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, >>> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before >>> attempting to >>> initiate another policy development process. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might >>> choose >>> them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always >>> better >>> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many >>> who will >>> want to participate. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars >>> this past >>> week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was >>> intended to >>> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've >>> ever >>> had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to >>> understand >>> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do >>> have a >>> stronger chance this time. >>> >>> >>> >>> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get >>> this >>> right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have >>> given >>> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the >>> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but we do >>> not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something that >>> can come from the working group. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA >>> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule >>> time >>> for the working group to meet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Fri Oct 3 18:35:52 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:35:52 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <542EC258.2070603@acm.org> Hi, I am fine with doing it if no one else wants it. But will stand aside happily if there is more that one candidate for the task and someone else is chosen by the PC. avri On 03-Oct-14 10:57, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Oh sorry, I misread it...I thought we had to provide several names. > Since I still find the process mystifying, it should be you, as Amr > suggests. I am hopeless at that stuff still....although I trust I will > be better after I am trained next week... > :-) > On 14-10-03 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We have to pick 1. We are they they in this case. >> >> If you want to do, I am sure you can. >> >> Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be surprised if he >> wanted it. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. >>> we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, they will >>> never pick him... >>> cheers steph >>> On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the >>>> EWG Final Report >>>> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson >>>> Reply-To: >>>> Organization: Afilias >>>> To: , >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and >>>> would >>>> like to ask for one participant from each SG. >>>> >>>> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I >>>> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the >>>> Council. >>>> >>>> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy >>>> staff is >>>> also in attendance / engaged. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank-you, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] >>>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>>> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >>>> Report >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve >>>> Crocker. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested >>>> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this >>>> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these >>>> volunteers >>>> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in >>>> the >>>> GNSO PDP. >>>> >>>> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the >>>> work and >>>> background to the EWG. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / >>>> approach >>>> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's >>>> letter is >>>> obviously highly desirable. >>>> >>>> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative >>>> such >>>> response will be appreciated. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> From: Steve Crocker [ >>>> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] >>>> >>>> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 >>>> >>>> To: Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN >>>> >>>> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >>>> Report >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session >>>> devoted >>>> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that >>>> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in >>>> hand but >>>> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy >>>> development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our >>>> heads >>>> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we >>>> take >>>> that step. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of >>>> members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, >>>> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before >>>> attempting to >>>> initiate another policy development process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might >>>> choose >>>> them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always >>>> better >>>> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many >>>> who will >>>> want to participate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars >>>> this past >>>> week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was >>>> intended to >>>> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've >>>> ever >>>> had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to >>>> understand >>>> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do >>>> have a >>>> stronger chance this time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get >>>> this >>>> right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have >>>> given >>>> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the >>>> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but >>>> we do >>>> not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something >>>> that >>>> can come from the working group. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA >>>> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule >>>> time >>>> for the working group to meet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > From aelsadr Sun Oct 5 15:10:42 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 14:10:42 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> Hi again, May we now consider this consensus period closed? I note Avri?s abstention, but there were no objections unless I missed them. The last draft is attached to this email. I?m not sure if the PC has also decided to endorse the other comments that were suggested, or not. Thanks. Amr On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I support it. > Stephanie Perrin > On 2014-10-02, 5:57, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I?m calling for a consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice. The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 UTC. Thus allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline (6th October). >> May I request prompt action please ? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> Alternate chair PC-NCSG >> >> >> >> Begin doorgestuurd bericht: >> >>> Van: Amr Elsadr >>> Onderwerp: Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice >>> Datum: 1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST >>> Aan: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, NCSG Policy Committee >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s rejection of GAC Advice. >>> >>> The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>> >>> There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last bit I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear objections against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are any objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to both the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. >>> >>> Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: >>> >>> 1. Milton Mueller >>> 2. Robin Gross >>> 3. Edward Morris >>> 4. Avri Doria >>> 5. Wisdom Kwasi >>> 6. Amr Elsadr (me) >>> >>> as well as two other comments submitted by: >>> >>> 1. Tucows (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) and >>> 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html) >>> >>> The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate it if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. >>> >>> Thanks everyone. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>>> Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez wrote: >>>> >>>>> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. >>>>> >>>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>>> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >>>>> _____________________ >>>>> >>>>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >>>>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>>>> +506 8335 2487 >>>>> >>>>> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo el mundo. >>>>> >>>>> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr escribi?: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted by NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I don?t know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please let me know. >>>>>> >>>>>> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is really bad!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with us. >>>>>>>> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is time to summarise a common position on that matter. we need volunteer(s) to collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a comment for review. the deadline is 14th september but we have still the reply period we can use to submit our comment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Avri Doria >>>>>>>> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice amendment >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I submitted an individual comment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Response to the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding Consideration of GAC Advice.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 151316 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Response to the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding Consideration of GAC Advice.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 61118 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sun Oct 5 15:10:22 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:10:22 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi Amr, yes I think the deadline for consensus is already passed. Rafik 2014-10-05 21:10 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Hi again, > > May we now consider this consensus period closed? I note Avri?s > abstention, but there were no objections unless I missed them. The last > draft is attached to this email. > > I?m not sure if the PC has also decided to endorse the other comments that > were suggested, or not. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > > > > On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > I support it. > Stephanie Perrin > On 2014-10-02, 5:57, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > > Dear all, > > Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I?m calling for > a consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC > advice. The comment can be found here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 UTC. > Thus allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline (6th October). > May I request prompt action please ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate chair PC-NCSG > > > > Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > > *Van: *Amr Elsadr > *Onderwerp: **Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on > NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice* > *Datum: *1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST > *Aan: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, NCSG Policy Committee < > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> > > Hi, > > I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number > of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for > the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s > rejection of GAC Advice. > > The comment can be found here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, > and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last > bit I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on > taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear > objections against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are > any objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to > both the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. > > Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) > endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: > > 1. Milton Mueller > 2. Robin Gross > 3. Edward Morris > 4. Avri Doria > 5. Wisdom Kwasi > 6. Amr Elsadr (me) > > as well as two other comments submitted by: > > 1. Tucows ( > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) > and > 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition ( > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html > ) > > The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate it > if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. > > Thanks everyone. > > Amr > > On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. > > Amr > > On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > wrote: > > Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between > GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > _____________________ > > email: crg at isoc-cr.org > Skype: carlos.raulg > +506 8335 2487 > > La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines > de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares > relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington > DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la > evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo > el mundo. > > El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr escribi?: > > Hi, > > I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted by > NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I don?t > know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing > > If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please let > me know. > > The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if > folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track of > them. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into > one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover > different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is > really bad!! > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with > us. > we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is time > to summarise a common position on that matter. we need volunteer(s) to > collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a comment for review. > the deadline is 14th september but we have still the reply period we can > use to submit our comment. > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en > > @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to > volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? > > Thanks! > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Avri Doria > Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice > amendment > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > > > Hi, > > I submitted an individual comment. > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html > > > avri > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Mon Oct 6 00:36:50 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:36:50 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> Message-ID: <5431B9F2.5060204@apc.org> Hi - I would volunteer, but I will not be at the ICANN meeting, sorry. Joy On 4/10/2014 1:11 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: > another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. > > avri > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the > EWG Final Report > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 > From: Jonathan Robinson > Reply-To: > Organization: Afilias > To: , > > All, > > > > May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. > > > > To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and would > like to ask for one participant from each SG. > > Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I > suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the > Council. > > In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy staff is > also in attendance / engaged. > > > > Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. > > > > Thank-you, > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] > Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 > To: council at gnso.icann.org > Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report > > > > All, > > > > Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve > Crocker. > > > > Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested > response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this > request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. > > > > Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these volunteers > should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in the > GNSO PDP. > > Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the work and > background to the EWG. > > > > Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / approach > above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. > > > > Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's letter is > obviously highly desirable. > > Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative such > response will be appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Crocker [ mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] > > Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 > > To: Jonathan Robinson > > Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN > > Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report > > > > Jonathan, > > > > I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. > > > > During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session devoted > to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that > exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in hand but > we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy > development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our heads > together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we take > that step. > > > > We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of > members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, > organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before attempting to > initiate another policy development process. > > > > I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might choose > them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always better > in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many who will > want to participate. > > > > I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars this past > week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. > > > > The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was intended to > provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've ever > had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to understand > what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do have a > stronger chance this time. > > > > My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get this > right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have given > this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the > resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but we do > not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something that > can come from the working group. > > > > Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA > meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule time > for the working group to meet. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From joy Mon Oct 6 02:00:22 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:00:22 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <5431CD86.7050307@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Oct 6 09:53:57 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:53:57 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi Rudi, Maria, can we consider the statement endorsed? the deadline to send the comment is today. Rafik 2014-10-05 21:10 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Amr, > > yes I think the deadline for consensus is already passed. > > Rafik > > 2014-10-05 21:10 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > >> Hi again, >> >> May we now consider this consensus period closed? I note Avri?s >> abstention, but there were no objections unless I missed them. The last >> draft is attached to this email. >> >> I?m not sure if the PC has also decided to endorse the other comments >> that were suggested, or not. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >> I support it. >> Stephanie Perrin >> On 2014-10-02, 5:57, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I?m calling >> for a consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC >> advice. The comment can be found here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 UTC. >> Thus allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline (6th October). >> May I request prompt action please ? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> Alternate chair PC-NCSG >> >> >> >> Begin doorgestuurd bericht: >> >> *Van: *Amr Elsadr >> *Onderwerp: **Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on >> NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice* >> *Datum: *1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST >> *Aan: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, NCSG Policy Committee < >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> >> >> Hi, >> >> I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number >> of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for >> the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s >> rejection of GAC Advice. >> >> The comment can be found here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, >> and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last >> bit I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on >> taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear >> objections against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are >> any objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to >> both the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. >> >> Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) >> endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: >> >> 1. Milton Mueller >> 2. Robin Gross >> 3. Edward Morris >> 4. Avri Doria >> 5. Wisdom Kwasi >> 6. Amr Elsadr (me) >> >> as well as two other comments submitted by: >> >> 1. Tucows ( >> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) >> and >> 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition ( >> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html >> ) >> >> The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate it >> if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. >> >> Thanks everyone. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez < >> carlosraulg at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between >> GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. >> >> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >> _____________________ >> >> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >> Skype: carlos.raulg >> +506 8335 2487 >> >> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines >> de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares >> relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington >> DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la >> evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo >> el mundo. >> >> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr escribi?: >> >> Hi, >> >> I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted >> by NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I >> don?t know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please let >> me know. >> >> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if >> folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track of >> them. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into >> one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover >> different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is >> really bad!! >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with >> us. >> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is >> time to summarise a common position on that matter. we need volunteer(s) to >> collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a comment for review. >> the deadline is 14th september but we have still the reply period we can >> use to submit our comment. >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >> >> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to >> volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Avri Doria >> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice >> amendment >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I submitted an individual comment. >> >> >> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >> >> >> avri >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Mon Oct 6 11:48:13 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:48:13 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <603EE622-C6F9-481C-93A9-652C09E6D2E6@isoc.be> Hi Rafik, Sorry, I have been offline since friday due to family matters. Yes we can consider the statement being endorsed by a majority of the PC NCSG members. Rudi Vansnick Op 6-okt.-2014, om 08:53 heeft Rafik Dammak het volgende geschreven: > Hi Rudi, Maria, > > can we consider the statement endorsed? the deadline to send the comment is today. > > Rafik > > 2014-10-05 21:10 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Amr, > > yes I think the deadline for consensus is already passed. > > Rafik > > 2014-10-05 21:10 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Hi again, > > May we now consider this consensus period closed? I note Avri?s abstention, but there were no objections unless I missed them. The last draft is attached to this email. > > I?m not sure if the PC has also decided to endorse the other comments that were suggested, or not. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > > > > On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> I support it. >> Stephanie Perrin >> On 2014-10-02, 5:57, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I?m calling for a consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice. The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>> >>> This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 UTC. Thus allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline (6th October). >>> May I request prompt action please ? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> Alternate chair PC-NCSG >>> >>> >>> >>> Begin doorgestuurd bericht: >>> >>>> Van: Amr Elsadr >>>> Onderwerp: Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice >>>> Datum: 1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST >>>> Aan: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, NCSG Policy Committee >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s rejection of GAC Advice. >>>> >>>> The comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>>> >>>> There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last bit I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear objections against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are any objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to both the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. >>>> >>>> Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: >>>> >>>> 1. Milton Mueller >>>> 2. Robin Gross >>>> 3. Edward Morris >>>> 4. Avri Doria >>>> 5. Wisdom Kwasi >>>> 6. Amr Elsadr (me) >>>> >>>> as well as two other comments submitted by: >>>> >>>> 1. Tucows (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) and >>>> 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html) >>>> >>>> The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate it if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. >>>> >>>> Thanks everyone. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> >>>>> Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>>>> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >>>>>> _____________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >>>>>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>>>>> +506 8335 2487 >>>>>> >>>>>> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo el mundo. >>>>>> >>>>>> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr escribi?: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted by NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I don?t know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please let me know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is really bad!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with us. >>>>>>>>> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is time to summarise a common position on that matter. we need volunteer(s) to collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a comment for review. the deadline is 14th september but we have still the reply period we can use to submit our comment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> From: Avri Doria >>>>>>>>> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice amendment >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I submitted an individual comment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Oct 6 12:25:13 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:25:13 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <603EE622-C6F9-481C-93A9-652C09E6D2E6@isoc.be> References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> <603EE622-C6F9-481C-93A9-652C09E6D2E6@isoc.be> Message-ID: Thanks Rudi, I will submit the comment. Rafik 2014-10-06 17:48 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > Hi Rafik, > > Sorry, I have been offline since friday due to family matters. > > Yes we can consider the statement being endorsed by a majority of the PC > NCSG members. > > Rudi Vansnick > > > Op 6-okt.-2014, om 08:53 heeft Rafik Dammak het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi Rudi, Maria, > > can we consider the statement endorsed? the deadline to send the comment > is today. > > Rafik > > 2014-10-05 21:10 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi Amr, >> >> yes I think the deadline for consensus is already passed. >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-10-05 21:10 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : >> >>> Hi again, >>> >>> May we now consider this consensus period closed? I note Avri?s >>> abstention, but there were no objections unless I missed them. The last >>> draft is attached to this email. >>> >>> I?m not sure if the PC has also decided to endorse the other comments >>> that were suggested, or not. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin < >>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>> >>> I support it. >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> On 2014-10-02, 5:57, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I?m calling >>> for a consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC >>> advice. The comment can be found here: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>> >>> This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 >>> UTC. Thus allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline (6th >>> October). >>> May I request prompt action please ? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> Alternate chair PC-NCSG >>> >>> >>> >>> Begin doorgestuurd bericht: >>> >>> *Van: *Amr Elsadr >>> *Onderwerp: **Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working >>> on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice* >>> *Datum: *1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST >>> *Aan: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, NCSG Policy Committee < >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number >>> of changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for >>> the reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s >>> rejection of GAC Advice. >>> >>> The comment can be found here: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>> >>> There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, >>> and what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last >>> bit I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on >>> taking the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear >>> objections against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are >>> any objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to >>> both the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. >>> >>> Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) >>> endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG members: >>> >>> 1. Milton Mueller >>> 2. Robin Gross >>> 3. Edward Morris >>> 4. Avri Doria >>> 5. Wisdom Kwasi >>> 6. Amr Elsadr (me) >>> >>> as well as two other comments submitted by: >>> >>> 1. Tucows ( >>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) >>> and >>> 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition ( >>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html >>> ) >>> >>> The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate >>> it if the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. >>> >>> Thanks everyone. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez < >>> carlosraulg at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between >>> GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. >>> >>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >>> _____________________ >>> >>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>> +506 8335 2487 >>> >>> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines >>> de lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares >>> relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington >>> DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la >>> evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en todo >>> el mundo. >>> >>> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr escribi?: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted >>> by NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I >>> don?t know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please >>> let me know. >>> >>> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if >>> folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track of >>> them. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into >>> one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover >>> different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is >>> really bad!! >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with >>> us. >>> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is >>> time to summarise a common position on that matter. we need volunteer(s) to >>> collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a comment for review. >>> the deadline is 14th september but we have still the reply period we can >>> use to submit our comment. >>> >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >>> >>> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to >>> volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Avri Doria >>> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice >>> amendment >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I submitted an individual comment. >>> >>> >>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >>> >>> >>> avri >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing 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: From rafik.dammak Mon Oct 6 12:43:00 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:43:00 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <542EC258.2070603@acm.org> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EC258.2070603@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, I support Avri doing it, since that will be a lot about process and fixing this "adhocracy" issue again . moreover Stephanie, Amr and other will follow and can participate in the discussion we would have here about this working group. Jonathan, expected name by Friday, can we agree by today and move on? Rafik 2014-10-04 0:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I am fine with doing it if no one else wants it. > > But will stand aside happily if there is more that one candidate for the > task and someone else is chosen by the PC. > > avri > > > On 03-Oct-14 10:57, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Oh sorry, I misread it...I thought we had to provide several names. > > Since I still find the process mystifying, it should be you, as Amr > > suggests. I am hopeless at that stuff still....although I trust I will > > be better after I am trained next week... > > :-) > > On 14-10-03 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> We have to pick 1. We are they they in this case. > >> > >> If you want to do, I am sure you can. > >> > >> Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be surprised if he > >> wanted it. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >>> I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. > >>> we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, they will > >>> never pick him... > >>> cheers steph > >>> On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -------- Original Message -------- > >>>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the > >>>> EWG Final Report > >>>> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 > >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson > >>>> Reply-To: > >>>> Organization: Afilias > >>>> To: , > >>>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and > >>>> would > >>>> like to ask for one participant from each SG. > >>>> > >>>> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, > I > >>>> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the > >>>> Council. > >>>> > >>>> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy > >>>> staff is > >>>> also in attendance / engaged. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thank-you, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jonathan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] > >>>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 > >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org > >>>> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final > >>>> Report > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve > >>>> Crocker. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested > >>>> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to > this > >>>> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these > >>>> volunteers > >>>> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in > >>>> the > >>>> GNSO PDP. > >>>> > >>>> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the > >>>> work and > >>>> background to the EWG. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / > >>>> approach > >>>> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's > >>>> letter is > >>>> obviously highly desirable. > >>>> > >>>> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative > >>>> such > >>>> response will be appreciated. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jonathan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> > >>>> From: Steve Crocker [ > >>>> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] > >>>> > >>>> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 > >>>> > >>>> To: Jonathan Robinson > >>>> > >>>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN > >>>> > >>>> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final > >>>> Report > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jonathan, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session > >>>> devoted > >>>> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that > >>>> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in > >>>> hand but > >>>> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy > >>>> development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our > >>>> heads > >>>> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we > >>>> take > >>>> that step. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of > >>>> members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, > >>>> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before > >>>> attempting to > >>>> initiate another policy development process. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might > >>>> choose > >>>> them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always > >>>> better > >>>> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many > >>>> who will > >>>> want to participate. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars > >>>> this past > >>>> week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was > >>>> intended to > >>>> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've > >>>> ever > >>>> had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to > >>>> understand > >>>> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do > >>>> have a > >>>> stronger chance this time. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get > >>>> this > >>>> right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have > >>>> given > >>>> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the > >>>> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but > >>>> we do > >>>> not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something > >>>> that > >>>> can come from the working group. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA > >>>> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule > >>>> time > >>>> for the working group to meet. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Mon Oct 6 15:02:17 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:02:17 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <5431CD86.7050307@apc.org> References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> <5431CD86.7050307@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Joy, Yes, the deadline for submission is today, but there is also a time-consuming process to get PC endorsement. Not sure that any additions at this stage will have the time to go through that, but that?s not my call. Thanks. Amr On Oct 6, 2014, at 1:00 AM, joy wrote: > Hi - I thought the deadline for comments is 6 October? > I have made some comments in the draft submission > > Joy > On 6/10/2014 1:10 a.m., Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> May we now consider this consensus period closed? I note Avri?s abstention, but >> there were no objections unless I missed them. The last draft is attached to >> this email. >> >> I?m not sure if the PC has also decided to endorse the other comments that were >> suggested, or not. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: >> >> > I support it. >> > Stephanie Perrin >> > On 2014-10-02, 5:57, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Based on the request received by Amr Elsadr (see below), I?m calling for a >> >> consensus vote on the NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice. >> >> The comment can be found here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> >> >> This e-vote consensus call will last till Saturday 4 October 23:59 UTC. Thus >> >> allowing us to provide NCSG comments before the deadline (6th October). >> >> May I request prompt action please ? >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> >> Alternate chair PC-NCSG >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Begin doorgestuurd bericht: >> >> >> >>> *Van: *Amr Elsadr > >> >>> *Onderwerp: **Antw.: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG >> >>> position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice* >> >>> *Datum: *1 oktober 2014 17:25:57 CEST >> >>> *Aan: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU , >> >>> NCSG Policy Committee > >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I?m reopening this thread because there have been a significant number of >> >>> changes to the comment I would like to submit on behalf of the NCSG for the >> >>> reply period on the by-laws change regarding the ICANN board?s rejection of >> >>> GAC Advice. >> >>> >> >>> The comment can be found here: >> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >>> >> >>> There has been some discussion regarding what to keep in the comment, and >> >>> what to take out on the NCSG Policy Committee list. This is the last bit >> >>> I?ve come up with. If you do read it, please note that I also plan on taking >> >>> the second sentence out of the first paragraph, unless I hear objections >> >>> against doing so. At this point, I?d like to know if there are any >> >>> objections to submitting the comment in its current form. I ask this to both >> >>> the NCSG PC members, as well as the full NCSG membership. >> >>> >> >>> Finally, I would also appreciate it if the NCSG (in its response) endorses >> >>> the comments submitted by the NCSG members: >> >>> >> >>> 1. Milton Mueller >> >>> 2. Robin Gross >> >>> 3. Edward Morris >> >>> 4. Avri Doria >> >>> 5. Wisdom Kwasi >> >>> 6. Amr Elsadr (me) >> >>> >> >>> as well as two other comments submitted by: >> >>> >> >>> 1. Tucows >> >>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) >> >>> and >> >>> 2. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition >> >>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html) >> >>> >> >>> The deadline for submission is on October 6th, so I would appreciate it if >> >>> the NCSG PC also set a deadline for a consensus call. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks everyone. >> >>> >> >>> Amr >> >>> >> >>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Amr Elsadr > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Great catch, Carlos. Slipped my mind. Thanks for that. >> >>>> >> >>>> Amr >> >>>> >> >>>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Only one additional comment: there is already a direct liaison between >> >>>>> GNSO and GAC to ensure early and active communication and engagement. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >> >>>>> Chair ISOC Costa Rica Chapter >> >>>>> _____________________ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org >> >>>>> Skype: carlos.raulg >> >>>>> +506 8335 2487 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> La Internet Society (ISOC) es una organizaci?n internacional sin fines de >> >>>>> lucro fundada en 1992 para proporcionar liderazgo en est?ndares >> >>>>> relacionados educaci?n y pol?tica de Internet. Con oficinas en Washington >> >>>>> DC, Estados Unidos, y en Ginebra, Suiza, busca asegurar el desarrollo, la >> >>>>> evoluci?n y la utilizaci?n de Internet en beneficio de las personas en >> >>>>> todo el mundo. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> El 15/09/2014, a las 08:58, Amr Elsadr > >>>>> > escribi?: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I?ve tried to capture the essence of the different comments submitted by >> >>>>>> NCSG members including, Milton, Robin, Ed, Avri, Wisdom and my own. I >> >>>>>> don?t know if it does them all justice, but I?ve posted it here: >> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit?usp=sharing >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If I?ve missed any other comments submitted by NCSG members, please let >> >>>>>> me know. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The document is open for viewing and editing, but it?d be helpful if >> >>>>>> folks highlighted and commented on proposed changes so I can keep track >> >>>>>> of them. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Amr >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Amr Elsadr > >>>>>> > wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I could try to consolidate the comments submitted by NCSG members into >> >>>>>>> one document and see if folks like it. I believe that they all cover >> >>>>>>> different and important aspects of why the proposed by-laws amendment is >> >>>>>>> really bad!! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Amr >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Rafik Dammak > >>>>>>> > wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks Avri again for submitting your contribution and sharing it with us. >> >>>>>>>> we had discussion within NCSG list about the proposal and maybe it is >> >>>>>>>> time to summarise a common position on that matter. we need >> >>>>>>>> volunteer(s) to collect the opinions shared in the list and draft a >> >>>>>>>> comment for review. the deadline is 14th september but we have still >> >>>>>>>> the reply period we can use to submit our comment. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> @Amr @Kathy you participated in the discussion is it possible to >> >>>>>>>> volunteer for drafting a NCSG contribution? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Rafik >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>>>>>>> From: *Avri Doria* > >> >>>>>>>> Date: 2014-09-09 3:23 GMT+09:00 >> >>>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submitted individual comment on GAC advice >> >>>>>>>> amendment >> >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I submitted an individual comment. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00017.html >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> avri >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Mon Oct 6 15:04:10 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:04:10 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EC258.2070603@acm.org> Message-ID: <1915EBE6-79F8-4236-9FB4-57B7F8CAC616@egyptig.org> Hi, I?m also in favour of Avri repping NCSG on this. Thanks. Amr On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > I support Avri doing it, since that will be a lot about process and fixing this "adhocracy" issue again . moreover Stephanie, Amr and other will follow and can participate in the discussion we would have here about this working group. > > Jonathan, expected name by Friday, can we agree by today and move on? > > Rafik > > > 2014-10-04 0:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I am fine with doing it if no one else wants it. > > But will stand aside happily if there is more that one candidate for the > task and someone else is chosen by the PC. > > avri > > > On 03-Oct-14 10:57, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Oh sorry, I misread it...I thought we had to provide several names. > > Since I still find the process mystifying, it should be you, as Amr > > suggests. I am hopeless at that stuff still....although I trust I will > > be better after I am trained next week... > > :-) > > On 14-10-03 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> We have to pick 1. We are they they in this case. > >> > >> If you want to do, I am sure you can. > >> > >> Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be surprised if he > >> wanted it. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >>> I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. > >>> we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, they will > >>> never pick him... > >>> cheers steph > >>> On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -------- Original Message -------- > >>>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the > >>>> EWG Final Report > >>>> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 > >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson > >>>> Reply-To: > >>>> Organization: Afilias > >>>> To: , > >>>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and > >>>> would > >>>> like to ask for one participant from each SG. > >>>> > >>>> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I > >>>> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the > >>>> Council. > >>>> > >>>> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy > >>>> staff is > >>>> also in attendance / engaged. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thank-you, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jonathan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] > >>>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 > >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org > >>>> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final > >>>> Report > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve > >>>> Crocker. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested > >>>> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this > >>>> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these > >>>> volunteers > >>>> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in > >>>> the > >>>> GNSO PDP. > >>>> > >>>> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the > >>>> work and > >>>> background to the EWG. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / > >>>> approach > >>>> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's > >>>> letter is > >>>> obviously highly desirable. > >>>> > >>>> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative > >>>> such > >>>> response will be appreciated. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jonathan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> > >>>> From: Steve Crocker [ > >>>> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] > >>>> > >>>> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 > >>>> > >>>> To: Jonathan Robinson > >>>> > >>>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN > >>>> > >>>> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final > >>>> Report > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jonathan, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session > >>>> devoted > >>>> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that > >>>> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in > >>>> hand but > >>>> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy > >>>> development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our > >>>> heads > >>>> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we > >>>> take > >>>> that step. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of > >>>> members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, > >>>> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before > >>>> attempting to > >>>> initiate another policy development process. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might > >>>> choose > >>>> them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always > >>>> better > >>>> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many > >>>> who will > >>>> want to participate. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars > >>>> this past > >>>> week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was > >>>> intended to > >>>> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've > >>>> ever > >>>> had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to > >>>> understand > >>>> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do > >>>> have a > >>>> stronger chance this time. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get > >>>> this > >>>> right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have > >>>> given > >>>> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the > >>>> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but > >>>> we do > >>>> not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something > >>>> that > >>>> can come from the working group. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA > >>>> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule > >>>> time > >>>> for the working group to meet. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Mon Oct 6 23:59:58 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:59:58 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <1915EBE6-79F8-4236-9FB4-57B7F8CAC616@egyptig.org> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EC258.2070603@acm.org> <1915EBE6-79F8-4236-9FB4-57B7F8CAC616@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <543302CE.6040509@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Tue Oct 7 00:01:46 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:01:46 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: <450EB1AD-BAA3-404E-BEC8-001A154608C8@egyptig.org> <6585064B-B428-4A34-B926-E61D8F3C0463@isoc.be> <542D80C2.1070709@mail.utoronto.ca> <44D5157E-6F72-4612-A99A-AACD930AC419@egyptig.org> <5431CD86.7050307@apc.org> Message-ID: <5433033A.60701@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Wed Oct 8 01:26:06 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 11:26:06 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <542C220B.70504@apc.org> References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> <152F3D70-8AF8-484D-88B0-277B367EB36B@isoc.be> <542C1246.5010306@mail.utoronto.ca> <542C220B.70504@apc.org> Message-ID: <5434687E.3020905@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Oct 8 04:04:48 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 10:04:48 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <5434687E.3020905@apc.org> References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> <152F3D70-8AF8-484D-88B0-277B367EB36B@isoc.be> <542C1246.5010306@mail.utoronto.ca> <542C220B.70504@apc.org> <5434687E.3020905@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Joy, I dont think there is any specific process, APC can endorse the statement without problem. maybe sending a letter to CoE in that effect? Rafik 2014-10-08 7:26 GMT+09:00 joy : > Hi - one follow up - APC would like to formally endorse this NCSG > submission - is there any particular process for doing so? We have posted a > link to it on our website: https://www.apc.org > Thanks > Joy > > > On 2/10/2014 4:47 a.m., joy wrote: > > thanks Rafik for following this up > Joy > On 2/10/2014 3:40 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Please send it now, they are revising the report today.... > STephanie Perrin > On 2014-10-01, 10:38, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > > Sorry Rafik, too busy here .. > > Yes can be considered endorsed. > > Rudi > > Op 1-okt.-2014, om 16:11 heeft Rafik Dammak > het volgende > geschreven: > > Hi Rudi, > > can we consider it endorsed? I was just told that we should send comment > by today to get them included in the revised report. > > Rafik > > 2014-10-01 9:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi Rudi, > > I think the deadline is passed and we can consider that the > report is endorsed? > > Rafik > > 2014-09-25 16:27 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >: > > Dear all, > > With regards the document containing NCSG comments on the > report from the Council of Europe on ICANN and Human Rights, > I'm now calling for consensus on the for laying document (see > link on > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/ > ). > May I ask for a Yes or No e-vote accepting the present > version of the document which is also attached to this email. > This e-vote will close on 30 september 23:59 UTC. > > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate chair 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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Wed Oct 8 04:25:22 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:25:22 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> <152F3D70-8AF8-484D-88B0-277B367EB36B@isoc.be> <542C1246.5010306@mail.utoronto.ca> <542C220B.70504@apc.org> <5434687E.3020905@apc.org> Message-ID: <54349282.4090302@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Wed Oct 8 14:34:19 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:34:19 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> <152F3D70-8AF8-484D-88B0-277B367EB36B@isoc.be> <542C1246.5010306@mail.utoronto.ca> <542C220B.70504@apc.org> <5434687E.3020905@apc.org> Message-ID: Since APC is a member of NCUC and NCSG it sort of has endorsed already, but there?s no reason not to do a separate thing too?? Bill On Oct 8, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Joy, > > I dont think there is any specific process, APC can endorse the statement without problem. maybe sending a letter to CoE in that effect? > > Rafik > > > 2014-10-08 7:26 GMT+09:00 joy : > Hi - one follow up - APC would like to formally endorse this NCSG submission - is there any particular process for doing so? We have posted a link to it on our website: https://www.apc.org > Thanks > Joy > > > On 2/10/2014 4:47 a.m., joy wrote: >> thanks Rafik for following this up >> Joy >> On 2/10/2014 3:40 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> Please send it now, they are revising the report today.... >>> STephanie Perrin >>> On 2014-10-01, 10:38, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>>> Sorry Rafik, too busy here .. >>>> >>>> Yes can be considered endorsed. >>>> >>>> Rudi >>>> >>>> Op 1-okt.-2014, om 16:11 heeft Rafik Dammak > het volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>>> Hi Rudi, >>>>> >>>>> can we consider it endorsed? I was just told that we should send comment by today to get them included in the revised report. >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2014-10-01 9:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rudi, >>>>> >>>>> I think the deadline is passed and we can consider that the >>>>> report is endorsed? >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2014-09-25 16:27 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> With regards the document containing NCSG comments on the >>>>> report from the Council of Europe on ICANN and Human Rights, >>>>> I'm now calling for consensus on the for laying document (see >>>>> link on >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/). >>>>> May I ask for a Yes or No e-vote accepting the present >>>>> version of the document which is also attached to this email. >>>>> This e-vote will close on 30 september 23:59 UTC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>> Alternate chair PC-NCSG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Wed Oct 8 14:35:54 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:35:54 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET References: Message-ID: Hello A group of civil society folks have been trying to assemble a input letter for the ITU Plenipotentiary conference asking for what should be some rather simple things, i.e. transparency and inclusiveness. A number of NCUCers have been involved (e.g. Avri, Niels, Lea, Deborah, myself) in this discussion. The letter has now gone out for endorsements, and a number of civil society organizations including NCUC/SG members have signed on. I think it?d be nice if we could as a network, whether at the SG level or at the constituency level. On the assumption that the SG should have ?first dibs? on any policy statements, would it be possible for the NCSG PC to organize a decision on the timeline below? Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: Anne Jellema > Subject: [bestbits] ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET > Date: October 7, 2014 at 9:40:07 PM GMT+2 > To: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Reply-To: Anne Jellema > > Dear friends, > > > > After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a group of around 25 members of civil society have been coordinating various activities: > > ? Pre-conference knowledge sharing; > > ? Coordination of specific advocacy efforts; > > ? Organising on the ground civil society activities in Busan. > > > > As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP Conference processes. Please find the letter here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . > > > > Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process of consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that the text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather than the standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After this, a final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as possible, will be available for 24 hours for endorsements. > > > > During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage members to focus on red lines that would prevent them from endorsing the letter rather than detailed line by line edits. > > > > This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate broader stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This does not preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at Member States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the Conference outcomes. > > > > This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary General/Secretariat later this week, and then to various ITU delegations as an FYI. > > > > Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the drafting. > > > > In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. > > > > Very best, > > Anne > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Thu Oct 9 01:07:25 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:07:25 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <543302CE.6040509@apc.org> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EC258.2070603@acm.org> <1915EBE6-79F8-4236-9FB4-57B7F8CAC616@egyptig.org> <543302CE.6040509@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, Are we settled on Avri?s selection yet? We need to let the GNSO council know. Thanks. Amr On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:59 PM, joy wrote: > I also support Avri for this role > Joy > On 7/10/2014 1:04 a.m., Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I?m also in favour of Avri repping NCSG on this. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I support Avri doing it, since that will be a lot about process and fixing this "adhocracy" issue again . moreover Stephanie, Amr and other will follow and can participate in the discussion we would have here about this working group. >>> >>> Jonathan, expected name by Friday, can we agree by today and move on? >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-10-04 0:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am fine with doing it if no one else wants it. >>> >>> But will stand aside happily if there is more that one candidate for the >>> task and someone else is chosen by the PC. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 03-Oct-14 10:57, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> > Oh sorry, I misread it...I thought we had to provide several names. >>> > Since I still find the process mystifying, it should be you, as Amr >>> > suggests. I am hopeless at that stuff still....although I trust I will >>> > be better after I am trained next week... >>> > :-) >>> > On 14-10-03 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> We have to pick 1. We are they they in this case. >>> >> >>> >> If you want to do, I am sure you can. >>> >> >>> >> Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be surprised if he >>> >> wanted it. >>> >> >>> >> avri >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>> I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. >>> >>> we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, they will >>> >>> never pick him... >>> >>> cheers steph >>> >>> On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> avri >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> >>>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the >>> >>>> EWG Final Report >>> >>>> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 >>> >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson >>> >>>> Reply-To: >>> >>>> Organization: Afilias >>> >>>> To: , >>> >>>> >>> >>>> All, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and >>> >>>> would >>> >>>> like to ask for one participant from each SG. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I >>> >>>> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the >>> >>>> Council. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy >>> >>>> staff is >>> >>>> also in attendance / engaged. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thank-you, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Jonathan >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] >>> >>>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 >>> >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>> >>>> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >>> >>>> Report >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> All, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve >>> >>>> Crocker. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested >>> >>>> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this >>> >>>> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these >>> >>>> volunteers >>> >>>> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in >>> >>>> the >>> >>>> GNSO PDP. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the >>> >>>> work and >>> >>>> background to the EWG. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / >>> >>>> approach >>> >>>> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's >>> >>>> letter is >>> >>>> obviously highly desirable. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative >>> >>>> such >>> >>>> response will be appreciated. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Jonathan >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> From: Steve Crocker [ >>> >>>> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> To: Jonathan Robinson >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >>> >>>> Report >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Jonathan, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session >>> >>>> devoted >>> >>>> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that >>> >>>> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in >>> >>>> hand but >>> >>>> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy >>> >>>> development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our >>> >>>> heads >>> >>>> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we >>> >>>> take >>> >>>> that step. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of >>> >>>> members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, >>> >>>> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before >>> >>>> attempting to >>> >>>> initiate another policy development process. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might >>> >>>> choose >>> >>>> them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always >>> >>>> better >>> >>>> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many >>> >>>> who will >>> >>>> want to participate. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars >>> >>>> this past >>> >>>> week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was >>> >>>> intended to >>> >>>> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've >>> >>>> ever >>> >>>> had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to >>> >>>> understand >>> >>>> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do >>> >>>> have a >>> >>>> stronger chance this time. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get >>> >>>> this >>> >>>> right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have >>> >>>> given >>> >>>> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the >>> >>>> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but >>> >>>> we do >>> >>>> not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something >>> >>>> that >>> >>>> can come from the working group. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA >>> >>>> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule >>> >>>> time >>> >>>> for the working group to meet. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks! >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Steve >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Oct 9 01:06:30 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 18:06:30 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EC258.2070603@acm.org> <1915EBE6-79F8-4236-9FB4-57B7F8CAC616@egyptig.org> <543302CE.6040509@apc.org> Message-ID: <5435B566.7010309@mail.utoronto.ca> sure.... SP On 2014-10-08, 18:07, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Are we settled on Avri's selection yet? We need to let the GNSO > council know. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:59 PM, joy > wrote: > >> I also support Avri for this role >> Joy >> On 7/10/2014 1:04 a.m., Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm also in favour of Avri repping NCSG on this. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I support Avri doing it, since that will be a lot about process and >>>> fixing this "adhocracy" issue again . moreover Stephanie, Amr and >>>> other will follow and can participate in the discussion we would >>>> have here about this working group. >>>> >>>> Jonathan, expected name by Friday, can we agree by today and move on? >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-10-04 0:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >>> >: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am fine with doing it if no one else wants it. >>>> >>>> But will stand aside happily if there is more that one >>>> candidate for the >>>> task and someone else is chosen by the PC. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 03-Oct-14 10:57, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> > Oh sorry, I misread it...I thought we had to provide several >>>> names. >>>> > Since I still find the process mystifying, it should be you, >>>> as Amr >>>> > suggests. I am hopeless at that stuff still....although I >>>> trust I will >>>> > be better after I am trained next week... >>>> > :-) >>>> > On 14-10-03 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >> Hi, >>>> >> >>>> >> We have to pick 1. We are they they in this case. >>>> >> >>>> >> If you want to do, I am sure you can. >>>> >> >>>> >> Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be >>>> surprised if he >>>> >> wanted it. >>>> >> >>>> >> avri >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>> I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. >>>> >>> we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, >>>> they will >>>> >>> never pick him... >>>> >>> cheers steph >>>> >>> On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> >>>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working >>>> Group re the >>>> >>>> EWG Final Report >>>> >>>> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 >>>> >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson >>> > >>>> >>>> Reply-To: >>> > >>>> >>>> Organization: Afilias >>>> >>>> To: >>> >, >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of >>>> participants and >>>> >>>> would >>>> >>>> like to ask for one participant from each SG. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or >>>> five names, I >>>> >>>> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com >>>> appointees to the >>>> >>>> Council. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO >>>> policy >>>> >>>> staff is >>>> >>>> also in attendance / engaged. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank-you, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info >>>> ] >>>> >>>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 >>>> >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>>> >>>> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re >>>> the EWG Final >>>> >>>> Report >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request >>>> from Steve >>>> >>>> Crocker. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, >>>> the suggested >>>> >>>> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in >>>> response to this >>>> >>>> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these >>>> >>>> volunteers >>>> >>>> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and >>>> experienced in >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> GNSO PDP. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable >>>> about the >>>> >>>> work and >>>> >>>> background to the EWG. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed >>>> response / >>>> >>>> approach >>>> >>>> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to >>>> Steve's >>>> >>>> letter is >>>> >>>> obviously highly desirable. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an >>>> alternative >>>> >>>> such >>>> >>>> response will be appreciated. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Steve Crocker [ >>> > >>>> >>>> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com ] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To: Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the >>>> EWG Final >>>> >>>> Report >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a >>>> session >>>> >>>> devoted >>>> >>>> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've >>>> reached that >>>> >>>> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's >>>> report in >>>> >>>> hand but >>>> >>>> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a >>>> policy >>>> >>>> development process. Instead, this is the time for us all >>>> to put our >>>> >>>> heads >>>> >>>> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out >>>> before we >>>> >>>> take >>>> >>>> that step. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a >>>> handful of >>>> >>>> members from both groups to identify the main issues - >>>> technical, >>>> >>>> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before >>>> >>>> attempting to >>>> >>>> initiate another policy development process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or >>>> how you might >>>> >>>> choose >>>> >>>> them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. >>>> Fewer is always >>>> >>>> better >>>> >>>> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there >>>> will be many >>>> >>>> who will >>>> >>>> want to participate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the >>>> webinars >>>> >>>> this past >>>> >>>> week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was >>>> >>>> intended to >>>> >>>> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a >>>> PDP than we've >>>> >>>> ever >>>> >>>> had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all >>>> of us to >>>> >>>> understand >>>> >>>> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we >>>> really do >>>> >>>> have a >>>> >>>> stronger chance this time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the >>>> time to get >>>> >>>> this >>>> >>>> right. The problem has been lingering for a very long >>>> time. We have >>>> >>>> given >>>> >>>> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so >>>> it has the >>>> >>>> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority >>>> issues, but >>>> >>>> we do >>>> >>>> not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's >>>> something >>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>> can come from the working group. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. >>>> With the LA >>>> >>>> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we >>>> can schedule >>>> >>>> time >>>> >>>> for the working group to meet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Thu Oct 9 05:47:34 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:47:34 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> <541057A6.7090206@acm.org> <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> <152F3D70-8AF8-484D-88B0-277B367EB36B@isoc.be> <542C1246.5010306@mail.utoronto.ca> <542C220B.70504@apc.org> <5434687E.3020905@a... Message-ID: <5435F746.3090308@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Oct 9 06:06:42 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:06:42 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: <5435B566.7010309@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EC258.2070603@acm.org> <1915EBE6-79F8-4236-9FB4-57B7F8CAC616@egyptig.org> <543302CE.6040509@apc.org> <5435B566.7010309@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi , I think Avri got a clear support and so I will send her name to Glen Rafik 2014-10-09 7:06 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > sure.... > SP > > On 2014-10-08, 18:07, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > Are we settled on Avri?s selection yet? We need to let the GNSO council > know. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:59 PM, joy wrote: > > I also support Avri for this role > Joy > On 7/10/2014 1:04 a.m., Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > I?m also in favour of Avri repping NCSG on this. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > I support Avri doing it, since that will be a lot about process and > fixing this "adhocracy" issue again . moreover Stephanie, Amr and other > will follow and can participate in the discussion we would have here about > this working group. > > Jonathan, expected name by Friday, can we agree by today and move on? > > Rafik > > > 2014-10-04 0:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > >> Hi, >> >> I am fine with doing it if no one else wants it. >> >> But will stand aside happily if there is more that one candidate for the >> task and someone else is chosen by the PC. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 03-Oct-14 10:57, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> > Oh sorry, I misread it...I thought we had to provide several names. >> > Since I still find the process mystifying, it should be you, as Amr >> > suggests. I am hopeless at that stuff still....although I trust I will >> > be better after I am trained next week... >> > :-) >> > On 14-10-03 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> We have to pick 1. We are they they in this case. >> >> >> >> If you want to do, I am sure you can. >> >> >> >> Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be surprised if he >> >> wanted it. >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> >> On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. >> >>> we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, they will >> >>> never pick him... >> >>> cheers steph >> >>> On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>>> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. >> >>>> >> >>>> avri >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >> >>>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the >> >>>> EWG Final Report >> >>>> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 >> >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson >> >>>> Reply-To: >> >>>> Organization: Afilias >> >>>> To: , >> >>>> >> >>>> All, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and >> >>>> would >> >>>> like to ask for one participant from each SG. >> >>>> >> >>>> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five >> names, I >> >>>> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to >> the >> >>>> Council. >> >>>> >> >>>> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy >> >>>> staff is >> >>>> also in attendance / engaged. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Thank-you, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Jonathan >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] >> >>>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 >> >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >> >>>> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >> >>>> Report >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> All, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve >> >>>> Crocker. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the >> suggested >> >>>> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to >> this >> >>>> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these >> >>>> volunteers >> >>>> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in >> >>>> the >> >>>> GNSO PDP. >> >>>> >> >>>> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the >> >>>> work and >> >>>> background to the EWG. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / >> >>>> approach >> >>>> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's >> >>>> letter is >> >>>> obviously highly desirable. >> >>>> >> >>>> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative >> >>>> such >> >>>> response will be appreciated. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Jonathan >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> >> >>>> From: Steve Crocker [ >> >>>> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 >> >>>> >> >>>> To: Jonathan Robinson >> >>>> >> >>>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN >> >>>> >> >>>> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >> >>>> Report >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Jonathan, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session >> >>>> devoted >> >>>> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached >> that >> >>>> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in >> >>>> hand but >> >>>> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy >> >>>> development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our >> >>>> heads >> >>>> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we >> >>>> take >> >>>> that step. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of >> >>>> members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, >> >>>> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before >> >>>> attempting to >> >>>> initiate another policy development process. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might >> >>>> choose >> >>>> them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always >> >>>> better >> >>>> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many >> >>>> who will >> >>>> want to participate. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars >> >>>> this past >> >>>> week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was >> >>>> intended to >> >>>> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than >> we've >> >>>> ever >> >>>> had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to >> >>>> understand >> >>>> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do >> >>>> have a >> >>>> stronger chance this time. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get >> >>>> this >> >>>> right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have >> >>>> given >> >>>> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the >> >>>> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but >> >>>> we do >> >>>> not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something >> >>>> that >> >>>> can come from the working group. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA >> >>>> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can >> schedule >> >>>> time >> >>>> for the working group to meet. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks! >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Steve >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Thu Oct 9 09:35:48 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 08:35:48 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report In-Reply-To: References: <0b9d01cfdee3$a43df4e0$ecb9dea0$@afilias.info> <542E9281.4040600@acm.org> <542EACCC.7000908@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EB8A0.30506@acm.org> <542EB95B.2000307@mail.utoronto.ca> <542EC258.2070603@acm.org> <1915EBE6-79F8-4236-9FB4-57B7F8CAC616@egyptig.org> <543302CE.6040509@apc.org> <5435B566.7010309@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <7134F5AF-E25C-4E97-8C9C-1A7CD5EE7966@egyptig.org> Great. I?ll also let Jonathan know. Thanks. Amr On Oct 9, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi , > > I think Avri got a clear support and so I will send her name to Glen > > Rafik > > 2014-10-09 7:06 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : > sure.... > SP > > On 2014-10-08, 18:07, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Are we settled on Avri?s selection yet? We need to let the GNSO council know. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:59 PM, joy wrote: >> >>> I also support Avri for this role >>> Joy >>> On 7/10/2014 1:04 a.m., Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I?m also in favour of Avri repping NCSG on this. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I support Avri doing it, since that will be a lot about process and fixing this "adhocracy" issue again . moreover Stephanie, Amr and other will follow and can participate in the discussion we would have here about this working group. >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan, expected name by Friday, can we agree by today and move on? >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-10-04 0:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am fine with doing it if no one else wants it. >>>>> >>>>> But will stand aside happily if there is more that one candidate for the >>>>> task and someone else is chosen by the PC. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 03-Oct-14 10:57, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>> > Oh sorry, I misread it...I thought we had to provide several names. >>>>> > Since I still find the process mystifying, it should be you, as Amr >>>>> > suggests. I am hopeless at that stuff still....although I trust I will >>>>> > be better after I am trained next week... >>>>> > :-) >>>>> > On 14-10-03 10:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >> Hi, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We have to pick 1. We are they they in this case. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If you want to do, I am sure you can. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Since Milton is not a lover of process &c. I would be surprised if he >>>>> >> wanted it. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> avri >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 03-Oct-14 10:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>> >>> I volunteer for that task. they will not likely pick me though. >>>>> >>> we need lots more names. I think Milton should volunteer, they will >>>>> >>> never pick him... >>>>> >>> cheers steph >>>>> >>> On 2014-10-03, 8:11, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>> another task that need someone from the SG to be assigned to. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> avri >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> >>>> Subject: [council] RE: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the >>>>> >>>> EWG Final Report >>>>> >>>> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:25:50 +0100 >>>>> >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson >>>>> >>>> Reply-To: >>>>> >>>> Organization: Afilias >>>>> >>>> To: , >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> All, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> May I please ask you for names to undertake this task. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> To be clear, I do not propose to select the list of participants and >>>>> >>>> would >>>>> >>>> like to ask for one participant from each SG. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Since we were offered the opportunity to provide four or five names, I >>>>> >>>> suggest we offer a fifth place to one of the Nom Com appointees to the >>>>> >>>> Council. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> In addition, I intend to request that a member of the GNSO policy >>>>> >>>> staff is >>>>> >>>> also in attendance / engaged. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Please may I have names asap. Today if possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Thank-you, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] >>>>> >>>> Sent: 26 September 2014 02:08 >>>>> >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>>>> >>>> Subject: FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >>>>> >>>> Report >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> All, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Please see below for a reminder of the proposal / request from Steve >>>>> >>>> Crocker. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Following our discussion in yesterday's council meeting, the suggested >>>>> >>>> response is that we offer 4 volunteers (one per SG) in response to this >>>>> >>>> request and who will be in a position to meet in LA. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Assuming we go down this route, I believe we agreed that these >>>>> >>>> volunteers >>>>> >>>> should primarily certainly be knowledgeable about and experienced in >>>>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>> GNSO PDP. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Ideally some or all should additionally be knowledgeable about the >>>>> >>>> work and >>>>> >>>> background to the EWG. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Please can you review the letter below and the proposed response / >>>>> >>>> approach >>>>> >>>> above and provide any additional comment or input you see fit. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Bear in mind that a timely and constructive response to Steve's >>>>> >>>> letter is >>>>> >>>> obviously highly desirable. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Therefore if you are not in agreement with the above, an alternative >>>>> >>>> such >>>>> >>>> response will be appreciated. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> From: Steve Crocker [ >>>>> >>>> mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> To: Jonathan Robinson >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final >>>>> >>>> Report >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Jonathan, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session >>>>> >>>> devoted >>>>> >>>> to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that >>>>> >>>> exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in >>>>> >>>> hand but >>>>> >>>> we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy >>>>> >>>> development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our >>>>> >>>> heads >>>>> >>>> together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we >>>>> >>>> take >>>>> >>>> that step. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of >>>>> >>>> members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, >>>>> >>>> organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before >>>>> >>>> attempting to >>>>> >>>> initiate another policy development process. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might >>>>> >>>> choose >>>>> >>>> them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always >>>>> >>>> better >>>>> >>>> in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many >>>>> >>>> who will >>>>> >>>> want to participate. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars >>>>> >>>> this past >>>>> >>>> week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was >>>>> >>>> intended to >>>>> >>>> provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've >>>>> >>>> ever >>>>> >>>> had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to >>>>> >>>> understand >>>>> >>>> what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do >>>>> >>>> have a >>>>> >>>> stronger chance this time. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get >>>>> >>>> this >>>>> >>>> right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have >>>>> >>>> given >>>>> >>>> this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the >>>>> >>>> resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but >>>>> >>>> we do >>>>> >>>> not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something >>>>> >>>> that >>>>> >>>> can come from the working group. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA >>>>> >>>> meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule >>>>> >>>> time >>>>> >>>> for the working group to meet. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Steve >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Oct 10 13:38:33 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 19:38:33 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Results: Non-contracted party house election for GNSO Council vice chair. Message-ID: Hi, results of the election for GNSO council vice-chair below, congratulations David. Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint G?ry Date: 2014-10-10 14:31 GMT+09:00 Subject: Results: Non-contracted party house election for GNSO Council vice chair. To: Rafik Dammak , "met at msk.com" Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Dear Rafik and Steve, Attached and below, please find the results of the non-contracted party house election for GNSO Council vice chair. 11 votes [] David Cake 2 votes [] None of the above 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Results of the Non Contracted Party House Vice Chair Election.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 10 17:10:10 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:10:10 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Results: Non-contracted party house election for GNSO Council vice chair. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5437E8C2.601@mail.utoronto.ca> Congratulations David! Wonderful news! stephanie On 2014-10-10, 6:38, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > results of the election for GNSO council vice-chair below, > congratulations David. > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* > > Date: 2014-10-10 14:31 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Results: Non-contracted party house election for GNSO Council > vice chair. > To: Rafik Dammak >, "met at msk.com " > > > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > > > > Dear Rafik and Steve, > > Attached and below, please find the results of the non-contracted > party house election for GNSO Council vice chair. > 11 votes [] David Cake > > 2 votes [] None of the above > > 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: From rafik.dammak Sun Oct 12 19:25:43 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 01:25:43 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_DEADLINE_REMINDER_-_High_Interest_Topi?= =?utf-8?q?c_Session_Update_=C2=AD_Draft_Seed_Questions_and_Request?= =?utf-8?q?_For_Panel_Member_Names?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, you will find below the seed questions that may be asked during the High Interest Topic session in Monday. we can talk quickly about during the PC meeting today. Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive Date: 2014-10-07 5:36 GMT+09:00 Subject: DEADLINE REMINDER - High Interest Topic Session Update ? Draft Seed Questions and Request For Panel Member Names To: Byron Holland , "heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca" < heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Jonathan Robinson , Louie Lee , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Patrik F?ltstr?m , Jun Murai , Lars-Johan Liman , Elisa Cooper , tony holmes , William Drake , "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" , "Drazek, Keith" < kdrazek at verisign.com>, Rudi Vansnick , "Rosette, Kristina" , Rafik Dammak , Global Leadership , Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> Cc: Robert Hoggarth , Duncan Burns < duncan.burns at icann.org>, Jim Trengrove , Cassia Oliveira , Susie Johnson , Brad White , Lynn Gravel Dear SO-AC-SG Leaders: We are all looking forward to the high interest topic session next Monday in Los Angeles. Based on your previous email dialogue, attached please find several draft/sample ?seed? questions that we have developed for the moderator (Brad White) to pose during the session on each of the two topics that have been selected. Please take a look at the draft questions and let me know if there are any particular questions that you like or dislike. In any reply, simply refer to the draft question by number. We only have about 45 minutes available for each topic so please note that Brad cannot ask every question and every speaker will not be able or asked to respond to every question that is asked. I hope the drafts will spark some other thoughts from you. Feel free to suggest any other questions you would like Brad to ask you (directly) or the panel (generally). Please provide any feedback on the questions to me and Rob by COB this Friday. *Also, please remember to provide Rob and myself with the names of your panel participants for the session by COB Friday this week.* *Remember that the panel participation is as follows - there will be a maximum two (2) representatives from each of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC, SSAC and RSSAC communities, and a maximum of four (4) participants from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large (one per RALO). * Thank you all for your cooperation. Looking forward to seeing you in Los Angeles very soon. Best regards, David David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive at icann.org www.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Seed Questions SO-AC LA51 (v3)[5].docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17542 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maria.farrell Sun Oct 12 20:01:46 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 10:01:46 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee meeting later today Message-ID: Hi all, Below is the agenda for today's meeting of the NCSG's Policy Committee. Everyone in the NCSG is welcome and encouraged to attend. Location: Brentwood room Time: 1630 - 1800 AGENDA 1 Prepare for SO/AC High Interest Topic Session Tomorrow, Monday 13 Oct, Room: Los Angeles, 10:30 - 12:00 Topics: (1) The Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN Policy Development (2) Identifying and Prioritizing Matters of Interest for the Second Round of New gTLDs. Discuss and prepare for GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday - GNSO Agenda copied below 2 *Item 4: MOTION - On the adoption of the IRTP Part D Final Report and Recommendations (15 mins)* The final report of the policy work on the inter-registrar transfer process has been published. The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) provides the policy framework for domain name transfers between registrars. The IRTP also provides standardized requirements for inter-registrar transfer disputes - through the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP). The policy is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and has been revised numerous times since then. The IRTP Part D Policy Development Process (PDP) is the fourth and final PDP of this series of revisions. The Generic Names Supporting Organization ( GNSO) Council resolved at its meeting on 17 October 2012 to launch an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, ?which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers Working Groups as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG.? Here the Council will vote on whether or not to adopt the IRTP Part D Final Report and Recommendations. 4.1 ? Review the motion: Motion 1 4.2 ? Discussion 4.3 ? Vote *Item 5: MOTION ? To adopt the Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and to make recommendations to the chartering organisation on these issues (15 mins)* The Internet Governance Cross Community Working Group CWG has been established by the participating SO?s and AC?s to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of the ICANN community in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance. All issues, processes and discussions regarding the Transition of NTIA?s Stewardship of the IANA Functions, and/or current and future accountability and accountability mechanisms related to the aforementioned Transition, are deemed to be out of scope of the objective of the WG. The CWG has a charter which has previously been adopted by ICANN?s ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC. In this item the GNSO Council will vote on whether or not to adopt the charter of the CWG. 5.1 ? Review the motion: *Motion 2 *5.2 ? Discussion 5.3 ? Vote *Item 6: UPDATE ? A GNSO liaison to the GAC (10 mins)* The council voted to appoint Mason Cole as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC with immediate effect such that he can be well informed and up to speed in order to participate effectively as soon as possible and, in particular, at ICANN 51. Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear from Mason Cole with any initial input and feedback derived from the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. 6.1 ? Update (Mason Cole) 6.2 ? Discussion *Item 7: UPDATE ? A letter to the ICANN NGPC regarding the proposed modification of GNSO consensus recommendations relating to IGO acronyms and Red Cross identifiers (10 mins)* On 10 November 2013 the PDP Working Group (IGO-INGO PDP WG) delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council that included twenty-five consensus recommendations. On 20 November 2013 the GNSO Council unanimously adopted all twenty-five consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP WG and forwarded them to the ICANN Board in January 2014 with a recommendation for their adoption. On 30 April 2014 the Board resolved to adopt those of the GNSO's recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice, and to facilitate dialogue between the affected parties in order to reconcile the remaining differences, as further detailed in Annex A and Annex B of the Board's resolution. The GNSO's recommendations and GAC advice are largely consistent except in relation to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and the full names and acronyms of 189 Red Cross national societies and the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, for which the GNSO had recommended a 90-day period of protection by way of a claim notification service utilising the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). On 16 June 2014 the NGPC sent a letter to the GNSO Council requesting that the GNSO consider modifying its recommendations relating to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and national society names of the Red Cross. This modification to be in accordance with and as envisaged by Section 16 of the GNSO's PDP Manual . On 24 July 2014, the Chair of the NGPC followed up with a note to the Chair of the GNSO Council and offered to provide a written or oral briefing to provide greater clarity on the GAC?s advice and expectations with respect to protections of IGO-INGO Identifiers. As a result of the briefing it was agreed to send a follow-up *letter* to the NGPC which has now been done (see http://gnso .icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-chalaby-disspain-07oct14-en.pdf) . Here the Council will have the opportunity to receive an update and discuss any next steps. 7.1 ? Update (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 7.2 ? Next steps *Item 8: ? UPDATE - Name Collision* On the 30 July 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board directed staff to "provide information to, and work with the GNSO to consider whether policy work on developing a long-term plan to manage gTLD name collision issues should be undertaken." ICANN Staff submitted this paper to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2014 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-gnso -policy-07oct14-en.pdf). This is an opportunity for the Council to discuss which steps, if any, it would like to take in relation to this topic. 8.1 Discussion 8.2 Next steps *Item 9: UPDATE ? **A cross community working group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (10 mins)* A drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. Following adoption of the charter at the previous meeting, this is an opportunity for the Council to receive a brief update on the next steps. 9.1 ? Update (Jonathan Robinson) 9.2 ? Next steps *Item 10: **Thanks to outgoing councillors and ALAC Liaison (5 mins)* - Jennifer Wolfe (NCA) - Ching Chiao (RySG) - John Berard (CSG / BC) - Magaly Pazello (NCSG) - Klaus Stoll (NCSG) - Alan Greenberg (ALAC Liaison) - Maria Farrell (NCSG) - Petter Rindforth (IPC) *Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins) * *Item 12: Open microphone* Logistical details that Maryam sent out already are repeated below: Please find below details of the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting on Sunday 12th October, 16:30 local time. *Who should attend*: Mandatory for NCSG Policy Committee Members. All members are welcome to participate as observers. *Adobe Connect Link*: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/ *Dial in numbers: Below* *Pass code: **NCSG PC* *Country* *Toll Numbers* *Freephone/ Toll Free Number* ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Sun Oct 12 20:07:12 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 10:07:12 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee meeting later today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry everyone, hit 'send' too soon. Here's the complete agenda; with apologies for the uneven formatting. Hi all, > > Below is the agenda for today's meeting of the NCSG's Policy Committee. > Everyone in the NCSG is welcome and encouraged to attend. > > > Location: Brentwood room > Time: 1630 - 1800 > > > AGENDA > > 1 Prepare for SO/AC High Interest Topic Session > > Tomorrow, Monday 13 Oct, Room: Los Angeles, 10:30 - 12:00 > > Topics: (1) The Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN Policy Development > > (2) Identifying and Prioritizing Matters of Interest for the > Second > > Round of New gTLDs. > > > 2 Prepare for NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board > The NCSG / Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, 1545 - 1645 The NCSG PC will discuss which topics we should address with the Board and how to handle them. 3 Discuss and prepare for GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday - GNSO Agenda copied below 4 NCSG future leadership GNSO Council AGENDA, Wednesday 15 October *Item 4: MOTION - On the adoption of the IRTP Part D Final Report and Recommendations (15 mins)* The final report of the policy work on the inter-registrar transfer process has been published. The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) provides the policy framework for domain name transfers between registrars. The IRTP also provides standardized requirements for inter-registrar transfer disputes - through the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP). The policy is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and has been revised numerous times since then. The IRTP Part D Policy Development Process (PDP) is the fourth and final PDP of this series of revisions. The Generic Names Supporting Organization ( GNSO) Council resolved at its meeting on 17 October 2012 to launch an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, ?which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers Working Groups as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG.? Here the Council will vote on whether or not to adopt the IRTP Part D Final Report and Recommendations. 4.1 ? Review the motion: Motion 1 4.2 ? Discussion 4.3 ? Vote *Item 5: MOTION ? To adopt the Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and to make recommendations to the chartering organisation on these issues (15 mins)* The Internet Governance Cross Community Working Group CWG has been established by the participating SO?s and AC?s to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of the ICANN community in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance. All issues, processes and discussions regarding the Transition of NTIA?s Stewardship of the IANA Functions, and/or current and future accountability and accountability mechanisms related to the aforementioned Transition, are deemed to be out of scope of the objective of the WG. The CWG has a charter which has previously been adopted by ICANN?s ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC. In this item the GNSO Council will vote on whether or not to adopt the charter of the CWG. 5.1 ? Review the motion: *Motion 2 *5.2 ? Discussion 5.3 ? Vote *Item 6: UPDATE ? A GNSO liaison to the GAC (10 mins)* The council voted to appoint Mason Cole as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC with immediate effect such that he can be well informed and up to speed in order to participate effectively as soon as possible and, in particular, at ICANN 51. Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear from Mason Cole with any initial input and feedback derived from the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. 6.1 ? Update (Mason Cole) 6.2 ? Discussion *Item 7: UPDATE ? A letter to the ICANN NGPC regarding the proposed modification of GNSO consensus recommendations relating to IGO acronyms and Red Cross identifiers (10 mins)* On 10 November 2013 the PDP Working Group (IGO-INGO PDP WG) delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council that included twenty-five consensus recommendations. On 20 November 2013 the GNSO Council unanimously adopted all twenty-five consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP WG and forwarded them to the ICANN Board in January 2014 with a recommendation for their adoption. On 30 April 2014 the Board resolved to adopt those of the GNSO's recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice, and to facilitate dialogue between the affected parties in order to reconcile the remaining differences, as further detailed in Annex A and Annex B of the Board's resolution. The GNSO's recommendations and GAC advice are largely consistent except in relation to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and the full names and acronyms of 189 Red Cross national societies and the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, for which the GNSO had recommended a 90-day period of protection by way of a claim notification service utilising the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). On 16 June 2014 the NGPC sent a letter to the GNSO Council requesting that the GNSO consider modifying its recommendations relating to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and national society names of the Red Cross. This modification to be in accordance with and as envisaged by Section 16 of the GNSO's PDP Manual . On 24 July 2014, the Chair of the NGPC followed up with a note to the Chair of the GNSO Council and offered to provide a written or oral briefing to provide greater clarity on the GAC?s advice and expectations with respect to protections of IGO-INGO Identifiers. As a result of the briefing it was agreed to send a follow-up *letter* to the NGPC which has now been done (see http://gnso .icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-chalaby-disspain-07oct14-en.pdf) . Here the Council will have the opportunity to receive an update and discuss any next steps. 7.1 ? Update (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 7.2 ? Next steps *Item 8: ? UPDATE - Name Collision* On the 30 July 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board directed staff to "provide information to, and work with the GNSO to consider whether policy work on developing a long-term plan to manage gTLD name collision issues should be undertaken." ICANN Staff submitted this paper to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2014 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-gnso -policy-07oct14-en.pdf). This is an opportunity for the Council to discuss which steps, if any, it would like to take in relation to this topic. 8.1 Discussion 8.2 Next steps *Item 9: UPDATE ? **A cross community working group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (10 mins)* A drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. Following adoption of the charter at the previous meeting, this is an opportunity for the Council to receive a brief update on the next steps. 9.1 ? Update (Jonathan Robinson) 9.2 ? Next steps *Item 10: **Thanks to outgoing councillors and ALAC Liaison (5 mins)* - Jennifer Wolfe (NCA) - Ching Chiao (RySG) - John Berard (CSG / BC) - Magaly Pazello (NCSG) - Klaus Stoll (NCSG) - Alan Greenberg (ALAC Liaison) - Maria Farrell (NCSG) - Petter Rindforth (IPC) *Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins) * *Item 12: Open microphone* > > Logistical details that Maryam sent out already are repeated below: > > Please find below details of the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting on Sunday > 12th October, 16:30 local time. > > *Who should attend*: Mandatory for NCSG Policy Committee Members. All > members are welcome to participate as observers. > > *Adobe Connect Link*: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/ > > *Dial in numbers: Below* > > *Pass code: **NCSG PC* > > > *Country* > > > *Toll Numbers* > > > *Freephone/ Toll Free Number* > > > > > > ARGENTINA > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > ADELAIDE: > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > BRISBANE: > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > CANBERRA: > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > MELBOURNE: > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > PERTH: > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > SYDNEY: > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > CHINA A: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > CHINA B: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > 45-7014-0284 > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > Land Line: > > 106-33-203 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FINLAND > > Mobile: > > 09-106-33-203 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > LYON: > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > MARSEILLE: > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > PARIS: > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > 852-3001-3863 > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > INDIA A: > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > INDIA B: > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > INDIA C: > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > OSAKA: > > 81-6-7739-4799 > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > TOKYO: > > 81-3-5539-5191 > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > MALAYSIA > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > 47-21-590-062 > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > POLAND > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > 8008-14052 > > RUSSIA > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > 65-6883-9230 > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > BIRMINGHAM: > > 44-121-210-9025 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > GLASGOW: > > 44-141-202-3225 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LEEDS: > > 44-113-301-2125 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LONDON: > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > MANCHESTER: > > 44-161-601-1425 > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Sun Oct 12 20:07:46 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 10:07:46 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee meeting later today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet more apologies .... Agenda item no. 4 should be NCSG Policy Committee Leadership!!!! On 12 October 2014 10:01, Maria Farrell wrote: > Hi all, > > Below is the agenda for today's meeting of the NCSG's Policy Committee. > Everyone in the NCSG is welcome and encouraged to attend. > > > Location: Brentwood room > Time: 1630 - 1800 > > > AGENDA > > 1 Prepare for SO/AC High Interest Topic Session > > Tomorrow, Monday 13 Oct, Room: Los Angeles, 10:30 - 12:00 > > Topics: (1) The Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN Policy Development > > (2) Identifying and Prioritizing Matters of Interest for the > Second > > Round of New gTLDs. > > > Discuss and prepare for GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday - GNSO Agenda > copied below > > 2 > > *Item 4: MOTION - On the adoption of the IRTP Part D Final Report and > Recommendations (15 mins)* > > > > The final report > > of the policy work on the inter-registrar transfer process has been > published. The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) provides the policy > framework for domain name transfers between registrars. The IRTP also > provides standardized requirements for inter-registrar transfer disputes - > through the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP). The policy is an > existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and > has been revised numerous times since then. > > > > The IRTP Part D Policy Development Process (PDP) is the fourth and final > PDP of this series of revisions. The Generic Names Supporting Organization ( > GNSO) Council resolved at its meeting on 17 October 2012 to launch an > Issue Report on IRTP Part D, ?which should include all the remaining issues > identified by the original transfers Working Groups as well as the > additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG.? > > > > Here the Council will vote on whether or not to adopt the IRTP Part D > Final Report and Recommendations. > > > > 4.1 ? Review the motion: Motion 1 > > > 4.2 ? Discussion > > 4.3 ? Vote > > > > *Item 5: MOTION ? To adopt the Charter for a Cross Community Working > Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and > to make recommendations to the chartering organisation on these issues (15 > mins)* > > > > The Internet Governance Cross Community Working Group CWG has been > established by the participating SO?s and AC?s to coordinate, facilitate, > and increase the participation of the ICANN community in discussions and > processes pertaining to Internet Governance. > > All issues, processes and discussions regarding the Transition of NTIA?s > Stewardship of the IANA Functions, and/or current and future accountability > and accountability mechanisms related to the aforementioned Transition, are > deemed to be out of scope of the objective of the WG. > > The CWG has a charter > which > has previously been adopted by ICANN?s ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC. In this item > the GNSO Council will vote on whether or not to adopt the charter of the > CWG. > > > 5.1 ? Review the motion: > *Motion 2 > > *5.2 ? Discussion > 5.3 ? Vote > > *Item 6: UPDATE ? A GNSO liaison to the GAC (10 mins)* > > The council voted to appoint Mason Cole as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC > with immediate effect such that he can be well informed and up to speed in > order to participate effectively as soon as possible and, in particular, at > ICANN 51. > > Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear from Mason Cole with > any initial input and feedback derived from the ICANN meeting in Los > Angeles. > > 6.1 ? Update (Mason Cole) > 6.2 ? Discussion > > *Item 7: UPDATE ? A letter to the ICANN NGPC regarding the proposed > modification of GNSO consensus recommendations relating to IGO acronyms and > Red Cross identifiers (10 mins)* > > On 10 November 2013 the PDP Working Group (IGO-INGO PDP WG) delivered its Final > Report to > the GNSO Council that included twenty-five consensus recommendations. On > 20 November 2013 the GNSO Council unanimously adopted > all twenty-five > consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP WG and forwarded them to the > ICANN Board in January 2014 with a recommendation for their adoption. > > On 30 April 2014 the Board resolved > > to adopt those of the GNSO's recommendations that are not inconsistent > with GAC advice, and to facilitate dialogue between the affected parties in > order to reconcile the remaining differences, as further detailed in Annex > A > > and Annex B > > of the Board's resolution. The GNSO's recommendations and GAC advice are > largely consistent except in relation to the duration and mechanism of > protection for IGO acronyms and the full names and acronyms of 189 Red > Cross national societies and the international Red Cross and Red Crescent > movement, for which the GNSO had recommended > a 90-day period > of protection by way of a claim notification service utilising the > Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). > > On 16 June 2014 the NGPC sent > > a letter to the GNSO Council requesting that the GNSO consider modifying > its recommendations relating to the duration and mechanism of protection > for IGO acronyms and national society names of the Red Cross. This > modification to be in accordance with and as envisaged by Section 16 of the > GNSO's PDP Manual > . > > On 24 July 2014, the Chair of the NGPC followed up with a note to the > Chair of the GNSO Council and offered to provide a written or oral > briefing to provide greater clarity on the GAC?s advice and expectations > with respect to protections of IGO-INGO Identifiers. As a result of the > briefing it was agreed to send a follow-up *letter* to the NGPC which has > now been done (see http://gnso > .icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-chalaby-disspain-07oct14-en.pdf) > . > > Here the Council will have the opportunity to receive an update and > discuss any next steps. > > 7.1 ? Update (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) > 7.2 ? Next steps > > *Item 8: ? UPDATE - Name Collision* > > On the 30 July 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board > directed staff to "provide information to, and work with the GNSO to > consider whether policy work on developing a long-term plan to manage gTLD > name collision issues should be undertaken." ICANN Staff submitted this > paper to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2014 (see > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-gnso > -policy-07oct14-en.pdf). > > > > This is an opportunity for the Council to discuss which steps, if any, it > would like to take in relation to this topic. > > > > 8.1 Discussion > > 8.2 Next steps > > *Item 9: UPDATE ? **A cross community working group to develop a > transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (10 > mins)* > > A drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, > SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to > Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. > > Following adoption of the charter > > at the previous meeting, this is an opportunity for the Council to > receive a brief update on the next steps. > > 9.1 ? Update (Jonathan Robinson) > 9.2 ? Next steps > > *Item 10: **Thanks to outgoing councillors and ALAC Liaison (5 mins)* > > > > - Jennifer Wolfe (NCA) > - Ching Chiao (RySG) > - John Berard (CSG / BC) > - Magaly Pazello (NCSG) > - Klaus Stoll (NCSG) > - Alan Greenberg (ALAC Liaison) > - Maria Farrell (NCSG) > - Petter Rindforth (IPC) > > > > *Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins) * > *Item 12: Open microphone* > > > > Logistical details that Maryam sent out already are repeated below: > > Please find below details of the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting on Sunday > 12th October, 16:30 local time. > > *Who should attend*: Mandatory for NCSG Policy Committee Members. All > members are welcome to participate as observers. > > *Adobe Connect Link*: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/ > > *Dial in numbers: Below* > > *Pass code: **NCSG PC* > > > *Country* > > > *Toll Numbers* > > > *Freephone/ Toll Free Number* > > > > > > ARGENTINA > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > ADELAIDE: > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > BRISBANE: > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > CANBERRA: > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > MELBOURNE: > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > PERTH: > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > SYDNEY: > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > CHINA A: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > CHINA B: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > 45-7014-0284 > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > Land Line: > > 106-33-203 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FINLAND > > Mobile: > > 09-106-33-203 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > LYON: > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > MARSEILLE: > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > PARIS: > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > 852-3001-3863 > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > INDIA A: > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > INDIA B: > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > INDIA C: > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > OSAKA: > > 81-6-7739-4799 > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > TOKYO: > > 81-3-5539-5191 > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > MALAYSIA > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > 47-21-590-062 > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > POLAND > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > 8008-14052 > > RUSSIA > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > 65-6883-9230 > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > BIRMINGHAM: > > 44-121-210-9025 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > GLASGOW: > > 44-141-202-3225 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LEEDS: > > 44-113-301-2125 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LONDON: > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > MANCHESTER: > > 44-161-601-1425 > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Mon Oct 13 02:09:36 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:09:36 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services] ICANN51 Meeting in LA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <543B0A30.20907@mail.utoronto.ca> we had better have a big crew show up at this thing. Now it is Susan K doing the presentation. I am crushed, noone asked me.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services] ICANN51 Meeting in LA Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:57:34 +0000 From: To: expertworkinggroup at icann.org Dear EWG Members: The ICANN51 meeting in LA is getting underway and we wanted to call your attention to a couple of items amid the myriad of sessions, meetings and postings occurring throughout the week. A public session entitled "All Things WHOIS " is scheduled for Monday morning and will be of interest to EWG members. It will include updates and conversations on a range of activities relating to the existing WHOIS system, as well as a reminder of the EWG report and next steps. Susan will give a brief version of our set presentation on behalf of the EWG. The full meeting schedule (including directions for remote participation for those who are not in LA) is posted here . A small group of Board and GNSO members will meet in LA this week to identify an appropriate path forward for conducting the GNSO policy development process (PDP) and maximizing potential for success. This closed meeting is expected to be the first of a few conversations focused on the process (not the substance) of the EWG recommendations and how to move forward on a new global policy for a next-generation system. We'll keep you posted. Carlton has posted a blog on Circle ID that gives an "individual registrants" take on the WHOIS and the EWG report. You can read it here . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Expertworkinggroup mailing list Expertworkinggroup at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/expertworkinggroup From maria.farrell Mon Oct 13 17:47:18 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:47:18 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Notes of 12 Oct NCSG PC meeting Message-ID: Hi all, Many thanks for the great turnout and discussion yesterday. As the GNSO Council agenda was pretty light, we had a useful and informative discussion on some broader topics, which I personally found very helpful - so thanks to everyone. All the best, Maria NCSG PC 12 Oct 2014 Participants: Joy Liddicoat Amr El Sadr Olevie Kouami Carolos Affonso Wendy Seltzer Carlos Guttierez Niels ten Oever Lori Schulman Sam LanFranco Stephanie Perrin Maria Farrell Avri Doria Bill Drake David Cake Robin Gross Milton Mueller Magaly Pazello Klaus Stoll 1 Prep for High Interest Topic SO/AC meeting a. Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN policy-making i. Keep the GAC role in the discussion, even though the agenda has been changed to focus less on the GAC ii. Provide input to the bylaw change public comment period on changing Board voting threshold for rejecting GAC advice iii. Remind people that GAC advice has a much shallower process than GNSO policy iv. Find an opportunity to mention the accepted need for the Human Rights Advisory Committee b. New gTLDs, 2nd round i. Evaluate the first round before the second one begins (need clarity on where that point is) ii. Developing country support and outreach to developing countries ? we can say diplomatically ?we told you so? as we were not listened to on these topics and the consequences are clear iii. What are the criteria for success or failure of the round (and programme does not equal success or failure of individual TLDs)? NCSG believes narrowly economic criteria are far too narrow and we will push to develop evaluation criteria that go wider, including the non-commercial and often positive economic implications of commercial TLDs iv. Evaluation should not just focus on who got names or what TLDs there are, and also look at who did NOT apply and why not v. The programme was overly concerned to avoid gaming, which happened anyway, and not concerned with many non-commercial issues vi. The role of the Independent Experts needs to be looked at sharply in the review ? they brought little useful or new to the evaluation of specific TLDs vii. We should start evaluating the issues right now, i.e. the problems that have arisen, rather than wait to the end of the process to start looking at them viii. We should propose a Programme Evaluation Framework, i.e. a logic model that looks at what the objectives of the programme were (or should have been) and measuring it up against them. 2 GNSO Council agenda prep a. Voting on resolutions on IRTP(D) and to adopt the charter of the Cross Community Working Group are expected to be largely positive. i. Avri took part in the various IRTP working groups and endorsed the work. ii. Bill, Avri and David gave background of the CCWG charter process and what it might be expected to achieve, and encouraged Council members to vote in favour of it. 3 Maria said as she is finishing her term as a Council member, she will shortly be stepping down as Chair of the NCSG PC and so we will need to start a process to elect a new chair. More on that anon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Mon Oct 13 17:57:56 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:57:56 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Notes of 12 Oct NCSG PC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8B78EDE0-8B33-41C2-AF79-4F406725E68B@isoc.be> Just a small first remark, I, Rudi Vansnick, was also present at the NCSG PC meeting, not that this is the most important issue. And Rafik?s name is also missing. Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 Op 13-okt.-2014, om 07:47 heeft Maria Farrell het volgende geschreven: > Hi all, > > Many thanks for the great turnout and discussion yesterday. As the GNSO Council agenda was pretty light, we had a useful and informative discussion on some broader topics, which I personally found very helpful - so thanks to everyone. > > All the best, Maria > > NCSG PC > > 12 Oct 2014 > > > Participants: > > Joy Liddicoat > > Amr El Sadr > > Olevie Kouami > > Carolos Affonso > > Wendy Seltzer > > Carlos Guttierez > > Niels ten Oever > > Lori Schulman > > Sam LanFranco > > Stephanie Perrin > > Maria Farrell > > Avri Doria > > Bill Drake > > David Cake > > Robin Gross > > Milton Mueller > > Magaly Pazello > > Klaus Stoll > > > 1 Prep for High Interest Topic SO/AC meeting > > a. Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN policy-making > > i. Keep the GAC role in the discussion, even though the agenda has been changed to focus less on the GAC > > ii. Provide input to the bylaw change public comment period on changing Board voting threshold for rejecting GAC advice > > iii. Remind people that GAC advice has a much shallower process than GNSO policy > > iv. Find an opportunity to mention the accepted need for the Human Rights Advisory Committee > > b. New gTLDs, 2nd round > > i. Evaluate the first round before the second one begins (need clarity on where that point is) > > ii. Developing country support and outreach to developing countries ? we can say diplomatically ?we told you so? as we were not listened to on these topics and the consequences are clear > > iii. What are the criteria for success or failure of the round (and programme does not equal success or failure of individual TLDs)? NCSG believes narrowly economic criteria are far too narrow and we will push to develop evaluation criteria that go wider, including the non-commercial and often positive economic implications of commercial TLDs > > iv. Evaluation should not just focus on who got names or what TLDs there are, and also look at who did NOT apply and why not > > v. The programme was overly concerned to avoid gaming, which happened anyway, and not concerned with many non-commercial issues > > vi. The role of the Independent Experts needs to be looked at sharply in the review ? they brought little useful or new to the evaluation of specific TLDs > > vii. We should start evaluating the issues right now, i.e. the problems that have arisen, rather than wait to the end of the process to start looking at them > > viii. We should propose a Programme Evaluation Framework, i.e. a logic model that looks at what the objectives of the programme were (or should have been) and measuring it up against them. > > 2 GNSO Council agenda prep > > a. Voting on resolutions on IRTP(D) and to adopt the charter of the Cross Community Working Group are expected to be largely positive. > > i. Avri took part in the various IRTP working groups and endorsed the work. > > ii. Bill, Avri and David gave background of the CCWG charter process and what it might be expected to achieve, and encouraged Council members to vote in favour of it. > > 3 Maria said as she is finishing her term as a Council member, she will shortly be stepping down as Chair of the NCSG PC and so we will need to start a process to elect a new chair. More on that anon. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Mon Oct 13 18:00:31 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:00:31 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Notes of 12 Oct NCSG PC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Maria, small first remark as well. Could you please add me to the list of attendees? Thanks Mar?lia On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Maria Farrell wrote: > Hi all, > > Many thanks for the great turnout and discussion yesterday. As the GNSO > Council agenda was pretty light, we had a useful and informative discussion > on some broader topics, which I personally found very helpful - so thanks > to everyone. > > All the best, Maria > > NCSG PC > > 12 Oct 2014 > > > > Participants: > > Joy Liddicoat > > Amr El Sadr > > Olevie Kouami > > Carolos Affonso > > Wendy Seltzer > > Carlos Guttierez > > Niels ten Oever > > Lori Schulman > > Sam LanFranco > > Stephanie Perrin > > Maria Farrell > > Avri Doria > > Bill Drake > > David Cake > > Robin Gross > > Milton Mueller > > Magaly Pazello > > Klaus Stoll > > > > 1 Prep for High Interest Topic SO/AC meeting > > a. Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN policy-making > > i. Keep > the GAC role in the discussion, even though the agenda has been changed to > focus less on the GAC > > ii. Provide > input to the bylaw change public comment period on changing Board voting > threshold for rejecting GAC advice > > iii. Remind > people that GAC advice has a much shallower process than GNSO policy > > iv. Find > an opportunity to mention the accepted need for the Human Rights Advisory > Committee > > b. New gTLDs, 2nd round > > i. Evaluate > the first round before the second one begins (need clarity on where that > point is) > > ii. Developing > country support and outreach to developing countries ? we can say > diplomatically ?we told you so? as we were not listened to on these topics > and the consequences are clear > > iii. What > are the criteria for success or failure of the round (and programme does > not equal success or failure of individual TLDs)? NCSG believes narrowly > economic criteria are far too narrow and we will push to develop evaluation > criteria that go wider, including the non-commercial and often positive > economic implications of commercial TLDs > > iv. Evaluation > should not just focus on who got names or what TLDs there are, and also > look at who did NOT apply and why not > > v. The > programme was overly concerned to avoid gaming, which happened anyway, and > not concerned with many non-commercial issues > > vi. The > role of the Independent Experts needs to be looked at sharply in the review > ? they brought little useful or new to the evaluation of specific TLDs > > vii. We > should start evaluating the issues right now, i.e. the problems that have > arisen, rather than wait to the end of the process to start looking at them > > viii. We > should propose a Programme Evaluation Framework, i.e. a logic model that > looks at what the objectives of the programme were (or should have been) > and measuring it up against them. > > 2 GNSO Council agenda prep > > a. Voting on resolutions on IRTP(D) and to adopt the charter of the > Cross Community Working Group are expected to be largely positive. > > i. Avri > took part in the various IRTP working groups and endorsed the work. > > ii. Bill, > Avri and David gave background of the CCWG charter process and what it > might be expected to achieve, and encouraged Council members to vote in > favour of it. > > 3 Maria said as she is finishing her term as a Council > member, she will shortly be stepping down as Chair of the NCSG PC and so we > will need to start a process to elect a new chair. More on that anon. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Mon Oct 13 18:22:10 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:22:10 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Notes of 12 Oct NCSG PC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi guys, with apologies. Consider yourselves added. On 13 October 2014 08:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Maria, small first remark as well. Could you please add me to the list > of attendees? > Thanks > Mar?lia > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Maria Farrell > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Many thanks for the great turnout and discussion yesterday. As the GNSO >> Council agenda was pretty light, we had a useful and informative discussion >> on some broader topics, which I personally found very helpful - so thanks >> to everyone. >> >> All the best, Maria >> >> NCSG PC >> >> 12 Oct 2014 >> >> >> >> Participants: >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> Amr El Sadr >> >> Olevie Kouami >> >> Carolos Affonso >> >> Wendy Seltzer >> >> Carlos Guttierez >> >> Niels ten Oever >> >> Lori Schulman >> >> Sam LanFranco >> >> Stephanie Perrin >> >> Maria Farrell >> >> Avri Doria >> >> Bill Drake >> >> David Cake >> >> Robin Gross >> >> Milton Mueller >> >> Magaly Pazello >> >> Klaus Stoll >> >> >> >> 1 Prep for High Interest Topic SO/AC meeting >> >> a. Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN policy-making >> >> i. Keep >> the GAC role in the discussion, even though the agenda has been changed to >> focus less on the GAC >> >> ii. Provide >> input to the bylaw change public comment period on changing Board voting >> threshold for rejecting GAC advice >> >> iii. Remind >> people that GAC advice has a much shallower process than GNSO policy >> >> iv. Find >> an opportunity to mention the accepted need for the Human Rights Advisory >> Committee >> >> b. New gTLDs, 2nd round >> >> i. Evaluate >> the first round before the second one begins (need clarity on where that >> point is) >> >> ii. Developing >> country support and outreach to developing countries ? we can say >> diplomatically ?we told you so? as we were not listened to on these topics >> and the consequences are clear >> >> iii. What >> are the criteria for success or failure of the round (and programme does >> not equal success or failure of individual TLDs)? NCSG believes narrowly >> economic criteria are far too narrow and we will push to develop evaluation >> criteria that go wider, including the non-commercial and often positive >> economic implications of commercial TLDs >> >> iv. Evaluation >> should not just focus on who got names or what TLDs there are, and also >> look at who did NOT apply and why not >> >> v. The >> programme was overly concerned to avoid gaming, which happened anyway, and >> not concerned with many non-commercial issues >> >> vi. The >> role of the Independent Experts needs to be looked at sharply in the review >> ? they brought little useful or new to the evaluation of specific TLDs >> >> vii. We >> should start evaluating the issues right now, i.e. the problems that have >> arisen, rather than wait to the end of the process to start looking at them >> >> viii. We >> should propose a Programme Evaluation Framework, i.e. a logic model that >> looks at what the objectives of the programme were (or should have been) >> and measuring it up against them. >> >> 2 GNSO Council agenda prep >> >> a. Voting on resolutions on IRTP(D) and to adopt the charter of >> the Cross Community Working Group are expected to be largely positive. >> >> i. Avri >> took part in the various IRTP working groups and endorsed the work. >> >> ii. Bill, >> Avri and David gave background of the CCWG charter process and what it >> might be expected to achieve, and encouraged Council members to vote in >> favour of it. >> >> 3 Maria said as she is finishing her term as a Council >> member, she will shortly be stepping down as Chair of the NCSG PC and so we >> will need to start a process to elect a new chair. More on that anon. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Mon Oct 13 19:31:05 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:31:05 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Chair selection results References: Message-ID: <1C139E2B-7A20-4B3A-884D-4F2F743C13CE@isoc.be> Dear all, As we discussed yesterday, at the end of the meeting, Maria is going to leave, the question of elections of new members/seats in NCSG PC was raised. However, the election of the mandates in NCSG PC took place early this year, having the chair and alternate chair taking seats in Februari, I think there is actually no need to redo elections. When the chair is not available, the alternate chair fills in the position and replaces the chair. Perhaps we need to have a look for a new alternate chair to complete the mandate. I would like we could resolve the issue during this ICANN meeting so there is no confusion on who is doing what and when. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick > > Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > >> Van: Avri Doria >> Onderwerp: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results >> Datum: 10 februari 2014 06:30:47 GMT-8 >> Aan: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >> >> >> To Maria as Chair and >> to Rudi as Alternate-chair >> >> I have closed the poll. >> >> 11 people voted. 10 of them put their names in. One did not, but the vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote. Actually this happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in. >> >> One person voted no preference. >> >> Counting all 11 votes: >> >> Most popular option: Maria Farrell >> >> Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell >> 4 6 >> >> Counting just 10 named votes: >> >> Most popular option: Maria Farrell >> >> Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell >> 4 5 >> >> >> With this note of record and congratulations >> I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char. >> >> avri >> alt-chair 2013 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Oct 13 20:06:13 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:06:13 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Chair selection results In-Reply-To: <1C139E2B-7A20-4B3A-884D-4F2F743C13CE@isoc.be> References: <1C139E2B-7A20-4B3A-884D-4F2F743C13CE@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hi Rudi, some clarification here: - the PC will have some changes with new representatives : departing councillors become non-voting observers and new GNSO councillors joining. this also means changes in representation from NCUC too. - the NCSG charter doesn't include the role of alternate chair, we have this as an ad-hoc way to have backup for chair when s/he cannot do his duties. I don't want to comment if it worked or not concretely as solution, I will leave that to members within PC to assess that. I do think we need election to give any new chair the needed legitimacy Best, Rafik 2014-10-14 1:31 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > > Dear all, > > As we discussed yesterday, at the end of the meeting, Maria is going to > leave, the question of elections of new members/seats in NCSG PC was > raised. However, the election of the mandates in NCSG PC took place early > this year, having the chair and alternate chair taking seats in Februari, I > think there is actually no need to redo elections. When the chair is not > available, the alternate chair fills in the position and replaces the > chair. Perhaps we need to have a look for a new alternate chair to complete > the mandate. > > I would like we could resolve the issue during this ICANN meeting so there > is no confusion on who is doing what and when. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > > > Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > > *Van: *Avri Doria > *Onderwerp: **[PC-NCSG] Chair selection results* > *Datum: *10 februari 2014 06:30:47 GMT-8 > *Aan: *"pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > > > To Maria as Chair and > to Rudi as Alternate-chair > > I have closed the poll. > > 11 people voted. 10 of them put their names in. One did not, but the > vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote. Actually this > happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in. > > One person voted no preference. > > Counting all 11 votes: > > Most popular option: Maria Farrell > > Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell > 4 6 > > Counting just 10 named votes: > > Most popular option: Maria Farrell > > Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell > 4 5 > > > With this note of record and congratulations > I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char. > > avri > alt-chair 2013 > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Mon Oct 13 20:43:14 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:43:14 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results In-Reply-To: References: <1C139E2B-7A20-4B3A-884D-4F2F743C13CE@isoc.be> Message-ID: <53096FED-535A-40F5-AA10-4382E4CA450E@gmail.com> +1 Follow the charter, and new group = election On Oct 13, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Rudi, > > some clarification here: > - the PC will have some changes with new representatives : departing councillors become non-voting observers and new GNSO councillors joining. this also means changes in representation from NCUC too. > - the NCSG charter doesn't include the role of alternate chair, we have this as an ad-hoc way to have backup for chair when s/he cannot do his duties. I don't want to comment if it worked or not concretely as solution, I will leave that to members within PC to assess that. > > I do think we need election to give any new chair the needed legitimacy > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-10-14 1:31 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > > Dear all, > > As we discussed yesterday, at the end of the meeting, Maria is going to leave, the question of elections of new members/seats in NCSG PC was raised. However, the election of the mandates in NCSG PC took place early this year, having the chair and alternate chair taking seats in Februari, I think there is actually no need to redo elections. When the chair is not available, the alternate chair fills in the position and replaces the chair. Perhaps we need to have a look for a new alternate chair to complete the mandate. > > I would like we could resolve the issue during this ICANN meeting so there is no confusion on who is doing what and when. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > >> >> Begin doorgestuurd bericht: >> >>> Van: Avri Doria >>> Onderwerp: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results >>> Datum: 10 februari 2014 06:30:47 GMT-8 >>> Aan: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >>> >>> >>> To Maria as Chair and >>> to Rudi as Alternate-chair >>> >>> I have closed the poll. >>> >>> 11 people voted. 10 of them put their names in. One did not, but the vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote. Actually this happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in. >>> >>> One person voted no preference. >>> >>> Counting all 11 votes: >>> >>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell >>> 4 6 >>> >>> Counting just 10 named votes: >>> >>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell >>> 4 5 >>> >>> >>> With this note of record and congratulations >>> I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char. >>> >>> avri >>> alt-chair 2013 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Oct 14 00:41:15 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:41:15 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results In-Reply-To: <53096FED-535A-40F5-AA10-4382E4CA450E@gmail.com> References: <1C139E2B-7A20-4B3A-884D-4F2F743C13CE@isoc.be> <53096FED-535A-40F5-AA10-4382E4CA450E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes we need to follow the charter and be fair to our new incoming councilors and other Policy Committee appointments, and allow them to elect the chair and alt chair that works for the incoming group. Best, Robin On Oct 13, 2014, at 10:43 AM, William Drake wrote: > +1 Follow the charter, and new group = election > > On Oct 13, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Rudi, >> >> some clarification here: >> - the PC will have some changes with new representatives : departing councillors become non-voting observers and new GNSO councillors joining. this also means changes in representation from NCUC too. >> - the NCSG charter doesn't include the role of alternate chair, we have this as an ad-hoc way to have backup for chair when s/he cannot do his duties. I don't want to comment if it worked or not concretely as solution, I will leave that to members within PC to assess that. >> >> I do think we need election to give any new chair the needed legitimacy >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-10-14 1:31 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : >> >> Dear all, >> >> As we discussed yesterday, at the end of the meeting, Maria is going to leave, the question of elections of new members/seats in NCSG PC was raised. However, the election of the mandates in NCSG PC took place early this year, having the chair and alternate chair taking seats in Februari, I think there is actually no need to redo elections. When the chair is not available, the alternate chair fills in the position and replaces the chair. Perhaps we need to have a look for a new alternate chair to complete the mandate. >> >> I would like we could resolve the issue during this ICANN meeting so there is no confusion on who is doing what and when. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> >>> >>> Begin doorgestuurd bericht: >>> >>>> Van: Avri Doria >>>> Onderwerp: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results >>>> Datum: 10 februari 2014 06:30:47 GMT-8 >>>> Aan: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >>>> >>>> >>>> To Maria as Chair and >>>> to Rudi as Alternate-chair >>>> >>>> I have closed the poll. >>>> >>>> 11 people voted. 10 of them put their names in. One did not, but the vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote. Actually this happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in. >>>> >>>> One person voted no preference. >>>> >>>> Counting all 11 votes: >>>> >>>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell >>>> >>>> Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell >>>> 4 6 >>>> >>>> Counting just 10 named votes: >>>> >>>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell >>>> >>>> Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell >>>> 4 5 >>>> >>>> >>>> With this note of record and congratulations >>>> I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> alt-chair 2013 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From avri Tue Oct 14 03:48:32 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:48:32 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results In-Reply-To: References: <1C139E2B-7A20-4B3A-884D-4F2F743C13CE@isoc.be> <53096FED-535A-40F5-AA10-4382E4CA450E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <543C72E0.1040002@acm.org> Hi, I do believe that we need to schedule another election sometime after the new concil members take their seats and NCUC and NPOc announce their new PC memebrber for 2015 (thohg I guess they might start sooner that 2015) I am not sure where NPOC is at with naming its new council PC members, but I know that NCUC is still working on it. I think that election can be as soon as we have the full compliment of new members or once the calendar changes the year As for Chair, alt-chair, the charter only obligates us to have a chair. We have added a alt-chair for conveninece, but it is not a chartered position. There is also no charter rule that the alt chair becomes chair, but i suppose that make sense. Or the alt-chair can just conitnue to function as alt-chair without needing a new title. That is what I did last year. In any case, Maria is on Council until the end of the meeting on Wednesday, and I would prefer not to replace her until she is actually gone. Seems a bit unseemly to rush while the seat is still occupied. avri On 13-Oct-14 14:41, Robin Gross wrote: > Yes we need to follow the charter and be fair to our new incoming councilors and other Policy Committee appointments, and allow them to elect the chair and alt chair that works for the incoming group. > > Best, > Robin > > On Oct 13, 2014, at 10:43 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> +1 Follow the charter, and new group = election >> >> On Oct 13, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Rudi, >>> >>> some clarification here: >>> - the PC will have some changes with new representatives : departing councillors become non-voting observers and new GNSO councillors joining. this also means changes in representation from NCUC too. >>> - the NCSG charter doesn't include the role of alternate chair, we have this as an ad-hoc way to have backup for chair when s/he cannot do his duties. I don't want to comment if it worked or not concretely as solution, I will leave that to members within PC to assess that. >>> >>> I do think we need election to give any new chair the needed legitimacy >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-10-14 1:31 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As we discussed yesterday, at the end of the meeting, Maria is going to leave, the question of elections of new members/seats in NCSG PC was raised. However, the election of the mandates in NCSG PC took place early this year, having the chair and alternate chair taking seats in Februari, I think there is actually no need to redo elections. When the chair is not available, the alternate chair fills in the position and replaces the chair. Perhaps we need to have a look for a new alternate chair to complete the mandate. >>> >>> I would like we could resolve the issue during this ICANN meeting so there is no confusion on who is doing what and when. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> >>>> Begin doorgestuurd bericht: >>>> >>>>> Van: Avri Doria >>>>> Onderwerp: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results >>>>> Datum: 10 februari 2014 06:30:47 GMT-8 >>>>> Aan: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To Maria as Chair and >>>>> to Rudi as Alternate-chair >>>>> >>>>> I have closed the poll. >>>>> >>>>> 11 people voted. 10 of them put their names in. One did not, but the vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote. Actually this happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in. >>>>> >>>>> One person voted no preference. >>>>> >>>>> Counting all 11 votes: >>>>> >>>>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell >>>>> >>>>> Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell >>>>> 4 6 >>>>> >>>>> Counting just 10 named votes: >>>>> >>>>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell >>>>> >>>>> Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell >>>>> 4 5 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With this note of record and congratulations >>>>> I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> alt-chair 2013 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From magaly.pazello Tue Oct 14 20:22:52 2014 From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:22:52 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Chair selection results In-Reply-To: <543C72E0.1040002@acm.org> References: <1C139E2B-7A20-4B3A-884D-4F2F743C13CE@isoc.be> <53096FED-535A-40F5-AA10-4382E4CA450E@gmail.com> <543C72E0.1040002@acm.org> Message-ID: +1 Magaly On Monday, October 13, 2014, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I do believe that we need to schedule another election sometime after the new concil members take their seats and NCUC and NPOc announce their new PC memebrber for 2015 (thohg I guess they might start sooner that 2015) > > I am not sure where NPOC is at with naming its new council PC members, but I know that NCUC is still working on it. > > I think that election can be as soon as we have the full compliment of new members or once the calendar changes the year > > As for Chair, alt-chair, the charter only obligates us to have a chair. We have added a alt-chair for conveninece, but it is not a chartered position. There is also no charter rule that the alt chair becomes chair, but i suppose that make sense. Or the alt-chair can just conitnue to function as alt-chair without needing a new title. That is what I did last year. > > In any case, Maria is on Council until the end of the meeting on Wednesday, and I would prefer not to replace her until she is actually gone. Seems a bit unseemly to rush while the seat is still occupied. > > avri > > On 13-Oct-14 14:41, Robin Gross wrote: > > Yes we need to follow the charter and be fair to our new incoming councilors and other Policy Committee appointments, and allow them to elect the chair and alt chair that works for the incoming group. > > Best, > Robin > > On Oct 13, 2014, at 10:43 AM, William Drake wrote: > > +1 Follow the charter, and new group = election > > On Oct 13, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Rudi, > > some clarification here: > - the PC will have some changes with new representatives : departing councillors become non-voting observers and new GNSO councillors joining. this also means changes in representation from NCUC too. > - the NCSG charter doesn't include the role of alternate chair, we have this as an ad-hoc way to have backup for chair when s/he cannot do his duties. I don't want to comment if it worked or not concretely as solution, I will leave that to members within PC to assess that. > > I do think we need election to give any new chair the needed legitimacy > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-10-14 1:31 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > > Dear all, > > As we discussed yesterday, at the end of the meeting, Maria is going to leave, the question of elections of new members/seats in NCSG PC was raised. However, the election of the mandates in NCSG PC took place early this year, having the chair and alternate chair taking seats in Februari, I think there is actually no need to redo elections. When the chair is not available, the alternate chair fills in the position and replaces the chair. Perhaps we need to have a look for a new alternate chair to complete the mandate. > > I would like we could resolve the issue during this ICANN meeting so there is no confusion on who is doing what and when. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > > Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > > Van: Avri Doria > Onderwerp: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results > Datum: 10 februari 2014 06:30:47 GMT-8 > Aan: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > > > To Maria as Chair and > to Rudi as Alternate-chair > > I have closed the poll. > > 11 people voted. 10 of them put their names in. One did not, but the vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote. Actually this happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in. > > One person voted no preference. > > Counting all 11 votes: > > Most popular option: Maria Farrell > > Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell > 4 6 > > Counting just 10 named votes: > > Most popular option: Maria Farrell > > Rudi Vansnick Maria Farrell > 4 5 > > > With this note of record and congratulations > I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char. > > avri > alt-chair 2013 > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Sent from my Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Oct 15 10:12:03 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:12:03 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Call for Volunteers for Implementation Advisory Group to Review Existing ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <543E1E43.8040101@mail.utoronto.ca> why is this coming out prior to the decision re EWG PDPs??? just asking....and yes, I have to volunteer... Stephanie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Call for Volunteers for Implementation Advisory Group to Review Existing ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Laws Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:20:41 -0500 From: Carlton Samuels To: Stephanie Perrin , "Michael.Niebel at ec.europa.eu" , Michele Neylon Maybe we should volunteer as a group? CAS ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ ============================= ICANN News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-10-14-en ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Call for Volunteers for Implementation Advisory Group to Review Existing ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Laws 14 October 2014 In Brief ICANN seeks volunteers to serve on an Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) to review and suggest potential changes to the implementation of the ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Laws (the Procedure.) What This Team Will Do The IAG will work with ICANN staff on reviewing the current steps of the Procedure and identifying possible changes to the procedure to facilitate resolution of issues where WHOIS requirements conflict with applicable laws. The IAG is expected to explore whether any of the Procedure's elements ought to be amended in order to strike this balance. Any recommended changes made will need to be in line with the Procedure's underlying policy, which was adopted by the GNSO Council in 2005 . As a result, recommended changes to the implementation of the procedure, if any, will be shared with the GNSO Council to ensure that these do not conflict with the intent of the original policy recommendations. How This Team Will Work Like other ICANN working groups, the Implementation Advisory Group will use transparent, open processes. The meetings of the IAG are expected to take place via conference calls which will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. Initially, it is expected the group will meet once every two weeks, but the IAG will then determine its preferred schedule and methodology. The mailing list for the IAG will be archived publicly. Observers are welcome to join the mailing list to monitor the discussions. These observers will receive emails from the group, but will not be able to post messages or attend meetings. IAG members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI ). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. How To Join ICANN invites interested parties to join the IAG, which will be open to anyone interested to join. ICANN urges interested community members willing to work on this initiative and with a range of views to join and contribute to the group's work. As noted above, you can join the IAG either as a member or an observer. Please contact whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org if you wish to join the IAG. Background In November 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) concluded a policy development process (PDP) on WHOIS conflicts with privacy law which recommended that "In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should: 1. Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via WHOIS. 2. Create goals for the procedure which include: 1. Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; 2. Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values, and the stability and uniformity of the WHOIS system; 3. Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via WHOIS; and 4. Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise". The ICANN Board adopted the recommendations in May 2006 and the final Procedure was made effective in January 2008. Although to date no registrar or registry operator has formally invoked the Procedure, concerns have been expressed both by public authorities as well as registrars and registry operators concerning potential conflicts between WHOIS contractual obligations and local law. Given that the WHOIS Procedure has not been invoked and yet numerous concerns have arisen from contracted parties and the wider community, ICANN launched a review as part of the Procedure. The review was launched with the publication of a paper for public comment on 22 May 2014 . The paper outlined the Procedure's steps and invited public comments on a series of questions. The body of public comment was analyzed by ICANN staff, and the proposed next step is the formation of an IAG to consider changes to how the Procedure is enacted and used. ICANN staff found common themes among some of the suggestions in the public comments, which may allow for changes to implementation of the Procedure in line with the underlying policy. On 22 September 2014, the GAC noted [PDF, 55 KB] that the issues around the WHOIS Conflicts with National Law Procedure warrant further time and attention, as they touch on significant public policy matters associated with national laws and the legitimate uses of WHOIS data. The IAG is open to participation and GAC members and other government stakeholders are encouraged to take part in the group to contribute to advancement of the work in this area. The IAG's recommendation will then be shared with the GNSO Council to determine the next steps. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Oct 15 19:50:25 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:50:25 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New UN SR report on surveillance In-Reply-To: <162BB9D2-45F8-4159-A3A7-8504CE841807@article19.org> References: <162BB9D2-45F8-4159-A3A7-8504CE841807@article19.org> Message-ID: <543EA5D1.6010605@mail.utoronto.ca> courtesy of Dave Banisar.... SP fyi. some quite strong language on privacy on the internet. http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1312939/un-report-on-human-rights-and-terrorism.pdf Dave From joy Thu Oct 16 04:24:21 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:24:21 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New UN SR report on surveillance In-Reply-To: <543EA5D1.6010605@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <162BB9D2-45F8-4159-A3A7-8504CE841807@article19.org> <543EA5D1.6010605@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <543F1E45.9080800@apc.org> Hi fwiw, my take on this which i have shared on another list: Good points: + says States must justify mass surveillance and there is a lack of evidence on which he can assess whether current practices are justified and calls on States to provide this evidence (para 63) + calls for a new general comment on the right to privacy (para 64) - that's great, but not a new demand. + recommends that in the case of mass surveillance, any internet user have standing to challenge legality, necessity and proportionality - (I quite like that) Bad points: + Says mass surveillance can be justified - in other words, does not say mass surveillance as a violation of the right to privacy that can never be justified. instead says: "The prevention and suppression of terrorism is thus a public interest imperative of the highest importance and may in principle form the basis of an arguable justification for mass surveillance of the Internet" + long recitation of US and UK law reviews without application of OHCHR standards to them + not much new analysis - seems to just apply the OHCHR report within his mandate (eg says non-discrimination principle applies re extraterritoriality of surveillance) + no mention of the 13 principles So, it is a mixed bag. Joy On 16/10/2014 5:50 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > courtesy of Dave Banisar.... > > SP > > > fyi. some quite strong language on privacy on the internet. > > http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1312939/un-report-on-human-rights-and-terrorism.pdf > > > Dave > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Thu Oct 16 17:35:02 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:35:02 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting with Bruce&Markus at senators1 mezzanine Message-ID: Meeting at senators1 mezzanine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Sun Oct 19 18:48:55 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:48:55 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Resolution on Adoption of a Charter for a Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance Message-ID: <7CDF7DDD-5215-4B8C-AB96-048B4DC659CF@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, This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then; The group has developed the charter found at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC. Resolved: The GNSO Council approves the Charter http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf 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. 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. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Mon Oct 20 21:34:57 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:34:57 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] on the accountability dt Message-ID: <544555D1.3050506@acm.org> Hi, As anyone at the council knows, I had not volunteered for this and actually hadn't planned on it. but somehow it dropped on me, so I am doing it. but if the PC wants someone else to do it, we should decide who and send a note to the council to have me replaced. As I also mentioned there is aa n ongoing discussion of whether the GNSO has 4 seats or 2 seats. So at some point there may be a decision to hold a choosing between the two volunteers for the house. But if we decide on someone else, we need to do so soon and it needs to be passed on to the council list. thanks avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Oct 21 13:23:17 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:23:17 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] on the accountability dt In-Reply-To: <544555D1.3050506@acm.org> References: <544555D1.3050506@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, thanks, I think that you have the knowledge and experience dealing with the chartering process so I will be really glad if you continue involved there. Rafik 2014-10-21 3:34 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > As anyone at the council knows, I had not volunteered for this and > actually hadn't planned on it. but somehow it dropped on me, so I am doing > it. > > but if the PC wants someone else to do it, we should decide who and send a > note to the council to have me replaced. > > As I also mentioned there is aa n ongoing discussion of whether the GNSO > has 4 seats or 2 seats. So at some point there may be a decision to hold a > choosing between the two volunteers for the house. > > But if we decide on someone else, we need to do so soon and it needs to be > passed on to the council list. > > thanks > > avri > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue Oct 21 14:13:38 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:13:38 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] on the accountability dt In-Reply-To: References: <544555D1.3050506@acm.org> Message-ID: <21CFFA37-CEA9-40ED-B5C4-2414F4598815@egyptig.org> Hi, I agree with Rafik. If I recall correctly, Avri?s nomination was made by an IPC councillor who had complimented her on her work on the transition/stewardship CWG charter drafting. So if Avri is willing, I?d be very glad if she joined this drafting team. Of course if anyone else is interested, there should be an opportunity to volunteer. Although there was a little discussion on the NCSG list on this topic, there wasn?t a frank announcement with a call for volunteers. I actually found the call for volunteers and self-nominations made at the LA meeting to be a little too fast-tracked. As far as I can tell though, they were not finalised. Still?, as far as Avri?s nomination is concerned, I?m happy to +1 it. Thanks. Amr On Oct 21, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Avri, > > thanks, I think that you have the knowledge and experience dealing with the chartering process so I will be really glad if you continue involved there. > > Rafik > > 2014-10-21 3:34 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > As anyone at the council knows, I had not volunteered for this and actually hadn't planned on it. but somehow it dropped on me, so I am doing it. > > but if the PC wants someone else to do it, we should decide who and send a note to the council to have me replaced. > > As I also mentioned there is aa n ongoing discussion of whether the GNSO has 4 seats or 2 seats. So at some point there may be a decision to hold a choosing between the two volunteers for the house. > > But if we decide on someone else, we need to do so soon and it needs to be passed on to the council list. > > thanks > > avri > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Oct 21 21:13:43 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:13:43 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5446A257.9050808@mail.utoronto.ca> I believe I mentioned this earlier. Thoughts? Stephanie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Outreach Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:53:52 +0000 From: Don Blumenthal To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org Hello, The chairs group met this morning while sparing the rest of you. We will send more about we talked about and thoughts about how we'll move from here later in the week after some drafting. In the meantime, some WG members have suggested SME style briefings from the law enforcement community and data protection authorities, and it's time to schedule them. The idea is for individuals or groups to look at what we have produced and comment based on their perspectives. General discussions of p/p won't be neary has helpful. We have a good set of contacts in LE because it has a presence at ICANN and Dick Leaming from Interpol told me a few times in LA that he will join. Suggestions still are welcome for because the ICANN regulars are self-selected, and partly on the basis of who can afford to come. That's not necessarily the best way to get a cross section of the community. On the other hand, we are starting almost from zero on DPA. I have a friend and long ago FTC colleague who works on privacy and security matters at the OECD as a possible starting point but we need more thoughts. Thanks, Don -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg From rafik.dammak Sun Oct 26 12:15:37 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:15:37 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Resolution on Adoption of a Charter for a Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <7CDF7DDD-5215-4B8C-AB96-048B4DC659CF@egyptig.org> References: <7CDF7DDD-5215-4B8C-AB96-048B4DC659CF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: 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 : > 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 > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From magaly.pazello Mon Oct 27 00:00:09 2014 From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:00:09 -0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Council Resolution on Adoption of a Charter for a Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <7CDF7DDD-5215-4B8C-AB96-048B4DC659CF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Magaly Pazello Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Resolution on Adoption of a Charter for a Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance To: Rafik Dammak I support Bill as well :-) Magaly On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, 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 : > >> 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 >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Mon Oct 27 02:00:30 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:00:30 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Resolution on Adoption of a Charter for a Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <7CDF7DDD-5215-4B8C-AB96-048B4DC659CF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <544D8B1E.7040707@acm.org> 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 : > >> 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 >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Mon Oct 27 13:47:15 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:47:15 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Confirming F2F Details References: Message-ID: <97B6078E-28C3-4618-BF62-D92C2A7B39A0@egyptig.org> Hi, Was wondering if NCSG is planning on sending someone to the CWG-Stewardship F2F. Avri, have you figured out if you?ll be able to make it, or not? Thanks. Amr Begin forwarded message: > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Confirming F2F Details > Date: October 24, 2014 at 5:22:08 PM GMT+2 > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" > > Dear all, > > As requested, I'm following up with the venue confirmation for the face-to-face meeting: > > Dates: 19-20 November 2014 (two full working days) > Venue: Le Meridien Parkhotel in Frankfurt, Germany > > Since the meeting will start early on 19 November, the suggested arrival date is 18 November. Accordingly, since the meeting will end in the afternoon on 20 November, some may need to depart on 21 November pending flight availability. > > Attendance: > > Only the 19 members of the CWG are eligible for travel funding from ICANN. Alternates are eligible for travel funding if and only if they are a current participant of the CWG and they are approved by their SO/AC to serve as an alternate. So far, I have received confirmation from about half of the members. If you are a member, please contact me (off-list) to confirm your attendance. Since arrangements need to be made quickly, please let me know by Tuesday, 28 October at the latest. If you cannot attend but are working with your SO/AC to confirm an alternate, please let me know as well. > > Participants are welcome to attend the F2F meeting at the own expense. To prepare the meeting space, all participants who wish to attend the meeting in person must confirm their attendance to me (off-list) by Friday, 7 November at the latest. > > Remote Participation: The meeting will be webcast live through Adobe Connect and include remote participation capabilities consistent with the CWG meetings to date. The meeting will also be recorded and transcribed. > > > Please contact me if you have any questions, > Grace > > Grace Abuhamad > Public Policy Manager > > ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 > Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Mon Oct 27 13:16:20 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:16:20 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Resolution on Adoption of a Charter for a Cross-Community Working Group of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <544D8B1E.7040707@acm.org> References: <7CDF7DDD-5215-4B8C-AB96-048B4DC659CF@egyptig.org> <544D8B1E.7040707@acm.org> Message-ID: <65C45760-F6C3-4ADF-B085-781F4FA75234@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 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 : >> >>> 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 >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue Oct 28 23:09:30 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:09:30 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> Hi, I cannot make this meeting. I need a substitute. We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. We probably should do this soon. avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad To: avri at acm.org Hi Avri, Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. Please let me know how I can assist, Grace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Oct 29 07:39:56 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:39:56 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly active in the group . the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list here https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) Best, Rafik 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > > Hi, > > I cannot make this meeting. > > I need a substitute. > We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who > is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a > contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. > > We probably should do this soon. > > avri > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in > Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad > To: avri at acm.org > > > Hi Avri, > > Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted > that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. > > If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a > reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the > CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. > > Please let me know how I can assist, > Grace > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Oct 29 07:52:01 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:52:01 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> Message-ID: <54508081.3080907@acm.org> hi, If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. avri On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Avri, > > thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly > active in the group . > the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie > perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list here > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > >> Hi, >> >> I cannot make this meeting. >> >> I need a substitute. >> We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who >> is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a >> contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. >> >> We probably should do this soon. >> >> avri >> >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in >> Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad >> To: avri at acm.org >> >> >> Hi Avri, >> >> Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted >> that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. >> >> If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a >> reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the >> CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. >> >> Please let me know how I can assist, >> Grace >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Oct 29 13:03:22 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:03:22 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: <54508081.3080907@acm.org> References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He?s been following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. If I understand correctly, they won?t have the time to handle logistical preparations after that date. Thanks. Amr On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. > > avri > > On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly >> active in the group . >> the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie >> perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list here >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I cannot make this meeting. >>> >>> I need a substitute. >>> We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who >>> is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a >>> contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. >>> >>> We probably should do this soon. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in >>> Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad >>> To: avri at acm.org >>> >>> >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted >>> that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. >>> >>> If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a >>> reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the >>> CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. >>> >>> Please let me know how I can assist, >>> Grace >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Oct 29 13:15:12 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:15:12 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> Message-ID: <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> Hi, I would prefer to pass my proxy to you. If I have anything to say about it. avri On 29-Oct-14 20:03, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He's been following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. > > Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. If I understand correctly, they won't have the time to handle logistical preparations after that date. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> hi, >> >> If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. >> >> avri >> >> On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly >>> active in the group . >>> the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie >>> perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list here >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I cannot make this meeting. >>>> >>>> I need a substitute. >>>> We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who >>>> is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a >>>> contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. >>>> >>>> We probably should do this soon. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in >>>> Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad >>>> To: avri at acm.org >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Avri, >>>> >>>> Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted >>>> that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. >>>> >>>> If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a >>>> reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the >>>> CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. >>>> >>>> Please let me know how I can assist, >>>> Grace >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis Wed Oct 29 15:59:59 2014 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:59:59 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> Message-ID: --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He?s been > following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. > > Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. > If I understand correctly, they won?t have the time to handle logistical > preparations after that date. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > hi, > > If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. > > avri > > On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Avri, > > thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly > active in the group . > the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie > perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list herehttps://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > > > Hi, > > I cannot make this meeting. > > I need a substitute. > We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who > is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a > contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. > > We probably should do this soon. > > avri > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in > Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad To: avri at acm.org > > Hi Avri, > > Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted > that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. > > If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a > reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the > CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. > > Please let me know how I can assist, > Grace > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis Wed Oct 29 22:03:41 2014 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:03:41 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> Message-ID: I'll note that the CWG-IANA is not creating policy per se, so I'm not certain that it's the PC's specific remit to select an alternate. But it does seem the most expeditious way given the circumstances. Anyway, I'd be happy to have Amr at the meeting representing NCSG. Thanks Amr for volunteering and for soliciting further opinions. I plan to remotely attend as many of the sessions as I can. In the interim, I think our energies would be best spent developing some general positions which you can advocate while there. -- B On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I would prefer to pass my proxy to you. > If I have anything to say about it. > > avri > > > On 29-Oct-14 20:03, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He?s been following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. > > Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. If I understand correctly, they won?t have the time to handle logistical preparations after that date. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > hi, > > If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. > > avri > > On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Avri, > > thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly > active in the group . > the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie > perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list herehttps://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > > > Hi, > > I cannot make this meeting. > > I need a substitute. > We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who > is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a > contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. > > We probably should do this soon. > > avri > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in > Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad To: avri at acm.org > > Hi Avri, > > Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted > that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. > > If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a > reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the > CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. > > Please let me know how I can assist, > Grace > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From aelsadr Thu Oct 30 10:49:49 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:49:49 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> Message-ID: <25D2AE70-F2C2-4CC3-BB58-04FC9C99E3AF@egyptig.org> Hi, On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > I'll note that the CWG-IANA is not creating policy per se, so I'm not certain that it's the PC's specific remit to select an alternate. But it does seem the most expeditious way given the circumstances. As far as I can tell, the PC is responsible to appointing NCSG representation in both GNSO and non-GNSO working groups. I think it may be helpful to have a discussion on this list about the functions, duties and processes involved with this committee when it?s fully staffed again. We had a brief discussion about this last year. > Anyway, I'd be happy to have Amr at the meeting representing NCSG. Thanks Amr for volunteering and for soliciting further opinions. I plan to remotely attend as many of the sessions as I can. > > In the interim, I think our energies would be best spent developing some general positions which you can advocate while there. +1. That?d be fantastic. It?d be helpful for us to know what the detailed agenda of the F2F will be asap, which still hasn?t been determined. Perhaps something to bring up on today?s call. Thanks. Amr > > > -- B > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I would prefer to pass my proxy to you. > If I have anything to say about it. > > avri > > > On 29-Oct-14 20:03, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He?s been following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. >> >> Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. If I understand correctly, they won?t have the time to handle logistical preparations after that date. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> hi, >>> >>> If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi Avri, >>>> >>>> thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly >>>> active in the group . >>>> the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie >>>> perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list here >>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I cannot make this meeting. >>>>> >>>>> I need a substitute. >>>>> We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who >>>>> is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a >>>>> contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. >>>>> >>>>> We probably should do this soon. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in >>>>> Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad >>>>> To: avri at acm.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>> >>>>> Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted >>>>> that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. >>>>> >>>>> If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a >>>>> reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the >>>>> CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know how I can assist, >>>>> Grace >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Oct 30 12:23:30 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:23:30 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: <25D2AE70-F2C2-4CC3-BB58-04FC9C99E3AF@egyptig.org> References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> <25D2AE70-F2C2-4CC3-BB58-04FC9C99E3AF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <545211A2.9070805@acm.org> so, any objection to my informing Grace that Amr will be the traveler? avri On 30-Oct-14 17:49, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > >> I'll note that the CWG-IANA is not creating policy per se, so I'm not certain that it's the PC's specific remit to select an alternate. But it does seem the most expeditious way given the circumstances. > As far as I can tell, the PC is responsible to appointing NCSG representation in both GNSO and non-GNSO working groups. I think it may be helpful to have a discussion on this list about the functions, duties and processes involved with this committee when it's fully staffed again. We had a brief discussion about this last year. > >> Anyway, I'd be happy to have Amr at the meeting representing NCSG. Thanks Amr for volunteering and for soliciting further opinions. I plan to remotely attend as many of the sessions as I can. >> >> In the interim, I think our energies would be best spent developing some general positions which you can advocate while there. > +1. That'd be fantastic. It'd be helpful for us to know what the detailed agenda of the F2F will be asap, which still hasn't been determined. Perhaps something to bring up on today's call. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> >> -- B >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would prefer to pass my proxy to you. >> If I have anything to say about it. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 29-Oct-14 20:03, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He's been following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. >>> >>> Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. If I understand correctly, they won't have the time to handle logistical preparations after that date. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> hi, >>>> >>>> If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly >>>>> active in the group . >>>>> the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie >>>>> perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list here >>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot make this meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> I need a substitute. >>>>>> We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who >>>>>> is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a >>>>>> contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. >>>>>> >>>>>> We probably should do this soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in >>>>>> Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad >>>>>> To: avri at acm.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted >>>>>> that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a >>>>>> reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the >>>>>> CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me know how I can assist, >>>>>> Grace >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 31 04:04:17 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:04:17 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: <545211A2.9070805@acm.org> References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> <25D2AE70-F2C2-4CC3-BB58-04FC9C99E3AF@egyptig.org> <545211A2.9070805@acm.org> Message-ID: <5452EE21.7020202@mail.utoronto.ca> Works for me. Stephanie On 2014-10-30, 6:23, Avri Doria wrote: > > so, any objection to my informing Grace that Amr will be the traveler? > > avri > > > On 30-Oct-14 17:49, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: >> >>> I'll note that the CWG-IANA is not creating policy per se, so I'm not certain that it's the PC's specific remit to select an alternate. But it does seem the most expeditious way given the circumstances. >> As far as I can tell, the PC is responsible to appointing NCSG representation in both GNSO and non-GNSO working groups. I think it may be helpful to have a discussion on this list about the functions, duties and processes involved with this committee when it's fully staffed again. We had a brief discussion about this last year. >> >>> Anyway, I'd be happy to have Amr at the meeting representing NCSG. Thanks Amr for volunteering and for soliciting further opinions. I plan to remotely attend as many of the sessions as I can. >>> >>> In the interim, I think our energies would be best spent developing some general positions which you can advocate while there. >> +1. That'd be fantastic. It'd be helpful for us to know what the detailed agenda of the F2F will be asap, which still hasn't been determined. Perhaps something to bring up on today's call. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> -- B >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would prefer to pass my proxy to you. >>> If I have anything to say about it. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 29-Oct-14 20:03, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He's been following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. >>>> >>>> Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. If I understand correctly, they won't have the time to handle logistical preparations after that date. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>> >>>>> If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly >>>>>> active in the group . >>>>>> the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie >>>>>> perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list here >>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I cannot make this meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I need a substitute. >>>>>>> We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who >>>>>>> is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a >>>>>>> contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We probably should do this soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in >>>>>>> Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad >>>>>>> To:avri at acm.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted >>>>>>> that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a >>>>>>> reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the >>>>>>> CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let me know how I can assist, >>>>>>> Grace >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Oct 31 04:07:23 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:07:23 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: <545211A2.9070805@acm.org> References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> <25D2AE70-F2C2-4CC3-BB58-04FC9C99E3AF@egyptig.org> <545211A2.9070805@acm.org> Message-ID: hi Avri, I think so, no objection and we should move ahead. Rafik 2014-10-30 19:23 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > > so, any objection to my informing Grace that Amr will be the traveler? > > avri > > > > On 30-Oct-14 17:49, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > > > I'll note that the CWG-IANA is not creating policy per se, so I'm not certain that it's the PC's specific remit to select an alternate. But it does seem the most expeditious way given the circumstances. > > As far as I can tell, the PC is responsible to appointing NCSG representation in both GNSO and non-GNSO working groups. I think it may be helpful to have a discussion on this list about the functions, duties and processes involved with this committee when it?s fully staffed again. We had a brief discussion about this last year. > > > Anyway, I'd be happy to have Amr at the meeting representing NCSG. Thanks Amr for volunteering and for soliciting further opinions. I plan to remotely attend as many of the sessions as I can. > > In the interim, I think our energies would be best spent developing some general positions which you can advocate while there. > > +1. That?d be fantastic. It?d be helpful for us to know what the detailed agenda of the F2F will be asap, which still hasn?t been determined. Perhaps something to bring up on today?s call. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > -- B > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I would prefer to pass my proxy to you. > If I have anything to say about it. > > avri > > > On 29-Oct-14 20:03, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He?s been following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. > > Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. If I understand correctly, they won?t have the time to handle logistical preparations after that date. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > hi, > > If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. > > avri > > On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Avri, > > thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly > active in the group . > the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie > perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list herehttps://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > > > Hi, > > I cannot make this meeting. > > I need a substitute. > We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who > is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a > contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. > > We probably should do this soon. > > avri > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in > Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad To: avri at acm.org > > Hi Avri, > > Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted > that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. > > If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a > reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the > CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. > > Please let me know how I can assist, > Grace > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Fri Oct 31 04:09:43 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:09:43 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> <25D2AE70-F2C2-4CC3-BB58-04FC9C99E3AF@egyptig.org> <545211A2.9070805@acm.org> Message-ID: <5452EF67.5050906@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Fri Oct 31 10:49:08 2014 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:49:08 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: <545211A2.9070805@acm.org> References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> <25D2AE70-F2C2-4CC3-BB58-04FC9C99E3AF@egyptig.org> <545211A2.9070805@acm.org> Message-ID: <66D77090-EA1D-44F4-BF55-E4095107FCA4@difference.com.au> I support. On 30 Oct 2014, at 6:23 pm, Avri Doria wrote: > > so, any objection to my informing Grace that Amr will be the traveler? > > avri > > > On 30-Oct-14 17:49, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: >> >>> I'll note that the CWG-IANA is not creating policy per se, so I'm not certain that it's the PC's specific remit to select an alternate. But it does seem the most expeditious way given the circumstances. >> As far as I can tell, the PC is responsible to appointing NCSG representation in both GNSO and non-GNSO working groups. I think it may be helpful to have a discussion on this list about the functions, duties and processes involved with this committee when it?s fully staffed again. We had a brief discussion about this last year. >> >>> Anyway, I'd be happy to have Amr at the meeting representing NCSG. Thanks Amr for volunteering and for soliciting further opinions. I plan to remotely attend as many of the sessions as I can. >>> >>> In the interim, I think our energies would be best spent developing some general positions which you can advocate while there. >> +1. That?d be fantastic. It?d be helpful for us to know what the detailed agenda of the F2F will be asap, which still hasn?t been determined. Perhaps something to bring up on today?s call. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> >>> -- B >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would prefer to pass my proxy to you. >>> If I have anything to say about it. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 29-Oct-14 20:03, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He?s been following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. >>>> >>>> Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. If I understand correctly, they won?t have the time to handle logistical preparations after that date. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>> >>>>> If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly >>>>>> active in the group . >>>>>> the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie >>>>>> perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list here >>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381) >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I cannot make this meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I need a substitute. >>>>>>> We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who >>>>>>> is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a >>>>>>> contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We probably should do this soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in >>>>>>> Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad >>>>>>> To: avri at acm.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted >>>>>>> that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a >>>>>>> reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the >>>>>>> CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let me know how I can assist, >>>>>>> Grace >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From wjdrake Fri Oct 31 11:10:10 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:10:10 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Do you plan to attend F2F in Frankfurt? In-Reply-To: <66D77090-EA1D-44F4-BF55-E4095107FCA4@difference.com.au> References: <5450060A.3080904@acm.org> <54508081.3080907@acm.org> <5450CC40.4030702@acm.org> <25D2AE70-F2C2-4CC3-BB58-04FC9C99E3AF@egyptig.org> <545211A2.9070805@acm.org> <66D77090-EA1D-44F4-BF55-E4095107FCA4@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <80F3C0D8-73F8-4F04-B109-BF98A97B9D07@gmail.com> Me too from the peanut gallery, hope decisions can begin to be made here. BD > On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:49 AM, David Cake wrote: > > I support. > > On 30 Oct 2014, at 6:23 pm, Avri Doria > wrote: > >> >> so, any objection to my informing Grace that Amr will be the traveler? >> >> avri >> >> >> On 30-Oct-14 17:49, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: >>> >>>> I'll note that the CWG-IANA is not creating policy per se, so I'm not certain that it's the PC's specific remit to select an alternate. But it does seem the most expeditious way given the circumstances. >>> As far as I can tell, the PC is responsible to appointing NCSG representation in both GNSO and non-GNSO working groups. I think it may be helpful to have a discussion on this list about the functions, duties and processes involved with this committee when it?s fully staffed again. We had a brief discussion about this last year. >>> >>>> Anyway, I'd be happy to have Amr at the meeting representing NCSG. Thanks Amr for volunteering and for soliciting further opinions. I plan to remotely attend as many of the sessions as I can. >>>> >>>> In the interim, I think our energies would be best spent developing some general positions which you can advocate while there. >>> +1. That?d be fantastic. It?d be helpful for us to know what the detailed agenda of the F2F will be asap, which still hasn?t been determined. Perhaps something to bring up on today?s call. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> -- B >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I would prefer to pass my proxy to you. >>>> If I have anything to say about it. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29-Oct-14 20:03, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am willing, but believe we should also hear from Brenden. He?s been following the mailing list and CWG calls closely too. >>>>> >>>>> Deadline to notify ICANN staff on in-person participation is November 7th. If I understand correctly, they won?t have the time to handle logistical preparations after that date. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> If Amr is willing, personally, I think that would be best. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> On 29-Oct-14 14:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for the notice, I think we have only you, Amr and Milton regularly >>>>>>> active in the group . >>>>>>> the other NCSG members are :Kris Seeburn, stefania milan, stephanie >>>>>>> perrin, marilia maciel, brenden kuerbis (list here >>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49351381 ) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2014-10-29 6:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I cannot make this meeting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I need a substitute. >>>>>>>> We need someone who is a participant in the group who we approve and who >>>>>>>> is free to go. I looked into bailing on my other obligaction, but I have a >>>>>>>> contract on it and really can't get out of it at this point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We probably should do this soon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Do you plan to attend F2F in >>>>>>>> Frankfurt? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:58:30 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad >>>>>>>> To: avri at acm.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you plan on attending the F2F meeting in Frankfurt on 19-20 Nov? I noted >>>>>>>> that you had mentioned another prior commitment, but I wanted to confirm. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you will not attend, would you like to suggest a NCSG alternate? As a >>>>>>>> reminder, alternates are accepted if they are current participants of the >>>>>>>> CWG and if they are approved by their SO/AC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please let me know how I can assist, >>>>>>>> Grace >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: