From avri Thu Sep 4 07:23:33 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 07:23:33 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: SCI Proposals on Waiver & Voting Outside a Council Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5407E945.3070109@acm.org> I am planning to support these. Are there any objections? Apologies for not sending then out sooner. avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: SCI Proposals on Waiver & Voting Outside a Council Meeting Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 21:12:45 +0000 From: Mary Wong To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Dear SCI members, As agreed on the last SCI call, the following documents are being circulated for a formal Consensus Call: (1) the SCI?s proposal to add language to the existing Section 3.3 of the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding waiver of the 10-day motion deadline rule; and (2) the SCI?s proposal for a new Section 4.10 to be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures, to deal with voting outside a GNSO Council meeting. Please note that per the SCI Charter, "Unless otherwise determined by the SCI members, committee decisions will be made by ?full consensus? process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6).? As such, please review the attached documents with your Stakeholder Group or Constituency (as applicable) if you have not already done so. If the language is approved the next step will be for staff to prepare a redlined version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that will be put out for public comment; following which the SCI will review any relevant public comments received. The final step will be submission of the finalized language and proposals to the GNSO Council for its review and adoption. If there are no objections or changes received by Friday 5 September 2014, the language will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus. For the attached documents, please note the following minor changes that were made after the last SCI call on 5 August: * The format and introductory paragraph to the proposal for the Waiver of the 10-day Motion Rule was amended to conform with the format approved by the SCI for Voting Outside a Council Meeting. * The proposed Section number for Voting Outside a Council Meeting was changed to Section 4.10 as there already is a Section 4.5 in the current GNSO Operating Procedures. By numbering this proposal Section 4.10, it will (if adopted) be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures to follow the last current section in the Voting chapter (Section 4.9, regarding a Consent Agenda), without the need to renumber any of the existing Sections in this chapter. Best regards, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Waiver of 10 Day Motion Deadline - DRAFT FOR CONSENSUS 18 August.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Voting Outside a Council Meeting - DRAFT FOR CONSENSUS 18 August.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 21013 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Sep 4 16:25:52 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:25:52 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Here is the draft email we propose to send to stakeholders re the IGF renewal letter In-Reply-To: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on or before November 1. We will be creating a neutral website for this project at www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. Examples of how you will be listed appear below: 1. Jane Smith Individual 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets 3. State of [x] Country Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF renewal7.1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 135115 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Sep 4 17:08:43 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:08:43 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> Just an update: we already have over a dozen signatories. I will send an update on signatories at 9am tomorrow, and at 1pm tomorrow, UTC+2. Qualified statements of support are also most welcome; please indicate how you would prefer this support to be expressed. The proper title for the attached document is listed in the Subject line. Stephanie Perrin > Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: > > At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various > stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate > extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the > organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for > projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not > just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended > re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We > request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on > or before November 1. > > We will be creating a neutral website for this project at > www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, > countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will > collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are > able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF > 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair > will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. > Examples of how you will be listed appear below: > 1. Jane Smith Individual > 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 manuacturers of widgets > 3. State of [x] Country > > Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. > > Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu > Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF renewal7.1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 135115 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dave Thu Sep 4 19:25:15 2014 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:25:15 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Council Liaison to GAC References: <0D4D2709-2EBD-4999-8EA5-C4E3259C26F2@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <84D82BC5-0BA9-41C0-976C-C53691B25B3C@difference.com.au> The CSG asked me to justify why I supported a CPH candidate for the GNSO-GAC Liaison position 'over qualified NCPH' candidates. I felt it was a reasonable thing to ask, and the process was not secret, so I replied to them. But then I felt that it if was going to share my position on this with them, I should really also share it with you. I would have shared this verbally during our tuesday night call, if connectivity here had held up. While obviously I was acting in vice-chair, and I feel that when acting as vice-chair specifically I should not be directed by the NCSG, I welcome feedback on the process etc. David Begin forwarded message: From: David Cake Subject: Re: Council Liaison to GAC Date: 4 September 2014 7:08:06 pm GMT+3 To: "Rosette, Kristina" Cc: "Adams, Michael D. (michaeladams at mayerbrown.com)" , "Brian Winterfeldt (brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com)" , "Claudio Di Gangi (ipcdigangi at gmail.com)" , "Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu)" , "Steven Metalitz (met at msk.com)" Thank you for asking me to discuss this issue. I would like to make it very clear that I welcome discussion on any action that I take as chair from any member of the NCPH. I apologise for the delay in getting back to you, I can plead only the chaos of travel and the IGF. You ask why did I support a CPH candidate over qualified NCPH candidates for the GNSO-GAC Liaison. Of course, the decision was not an individual decision, but a decision of the collective council leadership, and so does not does not represent my individual choice. And, of course, if all three members of the leadership team had made their decision based on house affiliation, that would likely have led to a CPH candidate. But I do not believe that that the leadership did make the decision based on house (and obviously, if I felt the process would encourage us to vote on house/SG basis, I would have strongly objected to that process given the CPH majority), and we created a process designed, as much as possible, to assess candidates as individuals. I believe So, as an initial response, I would never have supported a process that encouraged each of the leadership team to vote on house/SG affiliation, as they would clearly have been to the disadvantage of the NCPH, and once the decision was made to have a selection process that was not biased towards a particular house, I supported the outcome of that process. I want to be very clear on that - I support Mason as a choice, but I support that choice because I feel the decision making process was not biased towards either house (specifically, not the CPH majority), and we were very clear about that point on the call. That said, I should explain the process we used. Of course, the leadership team also created this process, so I certainly accept partial responsibility for that process. We used a process where we individually numerically rated candidates against several criteria designed to measure how well we felt they met the advertised criteria for the position, in a simple spreadsheet. That is, we completed this rating exercise individually, and then they were averaged for collective score. Mason rated the highest on that process (not by a huge margin, but a definite one). We then discussed whether there were any other factors that we felt were significant enough that they justified overriding the outcome of that collective rating, including whether we felt there were signifiant factors that were not well represented in the process. We did not find any that we felt were significant enough, but it should be noted that we did not feel that the GNSO leadership should second guess the GAC responses to various candidates. I can say that I did not feel the process was biased towards the CPH either. For example, the second best rated candidate was an NCPH member, and the margin was not huge. There were certainly well qualified NCPH candidates, but Mason was also a qualified candidate. Both houses had at least one candidate that rated relatively well, and at least one that was rated relatively low. The process we envisage is that once Mason is approved by the council, we will wait for the GAC to accept our choice of liaison - while I feel the GAC is likely to accept our choice, they will have to vote to allow them to attend GAC meetings and have speaking rights. It is entirely possible that the GAC may decide that they feel Mason is inappropriate. We made a deliberate decision not to determine what the process would be after that point, as that would be impossible to do well without understanding why. It is likely, though, that if for some reason Mason is unable to perform the role, we will return to the existing list of candidates and rating process, taking into account council feedback. Regards David On 4 Sep 2014, at 5:49 pm, Rosette, Kristina wrote: Hello David, I look forward to hearing from you soon. Many thanks! Sincerely yours, Kristina Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette at cov.com www.cov.com/krosette This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:10 PM To: 'dave at difference.com.au' Cc: Adams, Michael D. (michaeladams at mayerbrown.com); Brian Winterfeldt (brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com); Kristina Rosette; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu); Steven Metalitz (met at msk.com) Subject: Council Liaison to GAC Hello David, I hope all is well with you. I?m writing in my capacity as IPC President to ask that you help us understand why you supported a CPH candidate for this position over qualified candidates from the NCPH. I?d be happy to set up a call with IPC leadership if you would prefer. Or, an email is fine. Many thanks. Sincerely yours, Kristina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From avri Fri Sep 5 07:11:53 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:11:53 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Recommendation to the UN General Assembly for an Open Ended Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) In-Reply-To: <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54085F56.2020702@mail.utoronto.ca> <54086860.4050607@mail.utoronto.ca> <5408726B.6050201@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <54093809.10701@acm.org> Hi, I am in favor of the document being endorsed by NCSG. avri On 04-Sep-14 17:08, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Just an update: we already have over a dozen signatories. I will send > an update on signatories at 9am tomorrow, and at 1pm tomorrow, UTC+2. > Qualified statements of support are also most welcome; please indicate > how you would prefer this support to be expressed. > The proper title for the attached document is listed in the Subject line. > Stephanie Perrin >> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum: >> >> At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various >> stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate >> extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the >> organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking funding for >> projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the UN, to request not >> just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate, but rather an open-ended >> re-authorization of the IGF as a voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We >> request that other participants in the IGF also support this message on >> or before November 1. >> >> We will be creating a neutral website for this project at >> www.IGFcontinuity.org very shortly, to accept sign-ons of organizations, >> countries, and individuals. In the meantime, the undersigned will >> collect your signatures and description of your organization if you are >> able to endorse this letter by the time of the closing ceremony at IGF >> 2014. The deadline to be included in the letter presented via the Chair >> will be 11am UTC, Friday September 5. >> Examples of how you will be listed appear below: >> 1. Jane Smith Individual >> 2. Acme Industry Association Association representing 150 >> manuacturers of widgets >> 3. State of [x] Country >> >> Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. >> >> Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center,jeanette at wzb.eu >> Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, >> ICANN,stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From avri Fri Sep 5 07:37:55 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:37:55 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54093E23.3020106@acm.org> Hi, The charter was approved. I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. I also encourage others to participate in this group. Thanks avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 From: Marika Konings To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org Dear All, For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during its meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 September at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as the interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to select its leadership. In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the attached draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of the chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand that the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to share. As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, please provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the mailing list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the CWG in early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to meet in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials should be prepared, if any. As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the ICG has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted by 31 December 2014. We hope this is helpful. Best regards, Marika ==================== Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions Made by: Avri Doria Seconded by: Amr Elsadr Whereas, 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. 2. 3. 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions.? 5. 6. 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions related the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components. 8. 9. 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. 11. 12. 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. 2. 3. 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. * * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the interim co-chairs of the CWG. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for Observers - 4 September 2014.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 120276 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship From aelsadr Mon Sep 8 12:42:46 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 11:42:46 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: <54093E23.3020106@acm.org> References: <54093E23.3020106@acm.org> Message-ID: <5F5424AC-ECCD-4F5B-B629-2D78296F9F4C@egyptig.org> Hi, Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as many NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. Thanks. Amr On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > The charter was approved. > > I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the > Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. > > I also encourage others to participate in this group. > > Thanks > > avri > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for > observers for your review > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 > From: Marika Konings > To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org > > Dear All, > > For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during its > meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO > Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 September > at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as the > interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to select > its leadership. > > In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the attached > draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of the > chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand that > the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing > tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to > share. > > As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, please > provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the mailing > list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the CWG in > early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to meet > in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials > should be prepared, if any. > > As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the ICG > has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted by 31 > December 2014. > > We hope this is helpful. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > ==================== > > Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions > > Made by: Avri Doria > Seconded by: Amr Elsadr > > Whereas, > 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has > requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan > to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the IANA > Functions and related root zone management. > 2. > 3. > 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship > Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a transition > proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of > the IANA functions.? > 5. > 6. > 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within > the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of > standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs > for functions related the management and distribution of numbering > resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name > System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose > responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal > from these autonomously developed components. > 8. > 9. > 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. > 11. > 12. > 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, > GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). > Resolved, > 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints > Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. > 2. > 3. > 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 > September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. > * > * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council > recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the > interim co-chairs of the CWG. > > > > > > From rafik.dammak Wed Sep 10 09:03:24 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:03:24 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review Message-ID: Hi , Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG representative in the cross-community working group. for procedure matter, shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for representation, I would like to ask the NCSG policy committee to proceed and respond quickly to this. I do think that Avri would make a good representative and liaison there. indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being observer doesn't mean having a lower status regarding participation). I am joining myself the CCWG. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Hi, > > Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as many > NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The charter was approved. > > > > I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the > > Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. > > > > I also encourage others to participate in this group. > > > > Thanks > > > > avri > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for > > observers for your review > > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 > > From: Marika Konings > > To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org > > > > Dear All, > > > > For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during its > > meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO > > Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 > September > > at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as the > > interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to select > > its leadership. > > > > In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the > attached > > draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of > the > > chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand that > > the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing > > tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to > > share. > > > > As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, > please > > provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the mailing > > list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the CWG > in > > early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to > meet > > in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials > > should be prepared, if any. > > > > As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the > ICG > > has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted by > 31 > > December 2014. > > > > We hope this is helpful. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > ==================== > > > > Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an > IANA > > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions > > > > Made by: Avri Doria > > Seconded by: Amr Elsadr > > > > Whereas, > > 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) > has > > requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a > plan > > to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the > IANA > > Functions and related root zone management. > > 2. > > 3. > > 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship > > Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a > transition > > proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties > of > > the IANA functions.? > > 5. > > 6. > > 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed > within > > the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of > > standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the > RIRs > > for functions related the management and distribution of numbering > > resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain > Name > > System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose > > responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition > proposal > > from these autonomously developed components. > > 8. > > 9. > > 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. > > 11. > > 12. > > 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, > > GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). > > Resolved, > > 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints > > Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. > > 2. > > 3. > > 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 > > September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. > > * > > * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council > > recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the > > interim co-chairs of the CWG. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 10 09:58:47 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:58:47 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02515E6B-92C5-4685-A423-C7D45CEC645A@gmail.com> On Sep 10, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi , > > Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG representative in the cross-community working group. for procedure matter, shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for representation, I would like to ask the NCSG policy committee to proceed and respond quickly to this. I do think that Avri would make a good representative and liaison there. > > indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being observer doesn't mean having a lower status regarding participation). I am joining myself the CCWG. +1 the more the merrier, I am signed on as an observer as well Bill > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Hi, > > Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as many NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The charter was approved. > > > > I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the > > Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. > > > > I also encourage others to participate in this group. > > > > Thanks > > > > avri > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for > > observers for your review > > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 > > From: Marika Konings > > To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org > > > > Dear All, > > > > For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during its > > meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO > > Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 September > > at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as the > > interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to select > > its leadership. > > > > In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the attached > > draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of the > > chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand that > > the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing > > tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to > > share. > > > > As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, please > > provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the mailing > > list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the CWG in > > early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to meet > > in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials > > should be prepared, if any. > > > > As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the ICG > > has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted by 31 > > December 2014. > > > > We hope this is helpful. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > ==================== > > > > Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA > > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions > > > > Made by: Avri Doria > > Seconded by: Amr Elsadr > > > > Whereas, > > 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has > > requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan > > to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the IANA > > Functions and related root zone management. > > 2. > > 3. > > 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship > > Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a transition > > proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of > > the IANA functions.? > > 5. > > 6. > > 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within > > the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of > > standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs > > for functions related the management and distribution of numbering > > resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name > > System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose > > responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal > > from these autonomously developed components. > > 8. > > 9. > > 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. > > 11. > > 12. > > 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, > > GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). > > Resolved, > > 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints > > Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. > > 2. > > 3. > > 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 > > September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. > > * > > * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council > > recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the > > interim co-chairs of the CWG. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Sep 10 13:26:44 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:26:44 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BB71C6.2020108@apc.org> <28BD6CA3-881D-4550-9B70-3913A850D455@gmail.com> <53BBA0A1.2040404@apc.org> <53C8DB48.6050401@apc.org> <53CED19F.8000209@apc.org> <53D16DDA.5000108@apc.org> <53D80A7A.2040203@apc.org> <5410205E.3010408@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: Hi Niels, thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and comments and I think that is partly done. since were are late for submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so we can submit the comment. the comment link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? Best, Rafik 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Rafik, > > Has this been submitted? > > Best, > > Niels > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Gabrielle, > > > > thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at perfect time > > just before IGF and the session there organized by council of > > europe about the report (Details shared by Bill few days ago) > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin > > : > > > >> Hi all > >> > >> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a go at > >> summarising the various comments that have been made by various > >> NCSG members about the COE report on human rights. Here is a > >> draft: > >> > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > >> > >> > >> > Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is anything else I > >> can do to help. > >> > >> All the best, > >> > >> Gabrielle > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- From: joy [mailto:joy at apc.org] Sent: > >> 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; > >> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE Doc open to > >> comments > >> > >> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee Hibbard at > >> Council of Europe on the deadline for comments. He's noted they > >> are aiming for a compilation of comments by 8 September. We > >> should try to finalise sooner if we can, though, and I'll aim to > >> take another look at the shared document later this week. Cheers > >> Joy On 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: > >>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when the > >>> comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On 23/07/2014 > >>> 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: > >>>> Hi all > >>>> > >>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the comments on > >>>> the COE > >> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too but I > >> won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. > >>>> > >>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us going if > >>>> we have a > >> document that others can start working on based on comments > >> already received, so here is a link to a googledoc where I have > >> just reproduced Ed, Joy and Milton's contributions. > >>>> > >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa > >>>> > >>>> > ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing > >>>> > >>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems with the > >>>> document. > >>>> > >>>> Hope that helps. > >>>> > >>>> All best, > >>>> > >>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ From: > >>>> NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of > >>>> joy [joy at APC.ORG] Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 To: > >>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE Doc open to > >>>> comments > >>>> > >>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work through of > >>>> the document in detail - that is extremely helpful! Shall we > >>>> start a shared document and begin building the submission > >>>> based on these and > >> other inputs? > >>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and develop > >>>> a response soon .. also, i am still mulling over your points, > >>>> Ed, but a few responses below .... thanks again! Joy > >>>> > >>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: > >>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and erudite > >>>>> analysis. A few things I?d like to offer for consideration, > >>>>> in response both to Joy?s post and to the CoE document > >>>>> itself: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of Joy?s > >>>>> recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join the Global > >>>>> Network Initiative (GNI). I probably still am. However, I?m > >>>>> a bit concerned about the resignation of the Electronic > >>>>> Frontiers Foundation (EFF) > >> from the GNI in October of last year. > >>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN join the > >>>>> GNI, I?d suggest that we reach out to our EFF members and > >>>>> determine their views on the matter, given the action of > >>>>> their parent organization. > >>>>> > >>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I can also > >>>> ask Katitza Rodriguez > >>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both for their > >>>>> work on this report and for the overall effort of the CoE > >>>>> in promoting the inclusion of human rights considerations > >>>>> within internet governance generally, and within ICANN > >>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this report. I want > >>>>> to particularly commend the authors on recognizing that > >>>>> domain names such as .sucks ?ordinarily come within the > >>>>> scope of protection offered by the right of freedom of > >> expression?(?117). > >>>>> > >>>> +1 > >>>>> 3. I agree with the author?s suggestion that a human rights > >>>>> advisory panel be created within ICANN (?134). NCSG member > >>>>> Roy Balleste has done some excellent work in this area and > >>>>> I?d suggest he be consulted as to whether the specific > >>>>> composition of the panel suggested in this report is an > >>>>> optimal one. > >>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC submission > >>>> about 18months ago on human rights and ICANN - it's still > >>>> relevant imho. > >>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is the > >>>>> ?sole voice of human rights? within ICANN (?125). We should > >>>>> politely remind the Council of Europe that the leading > >>>>> voice for human rights within ICANN has never been GAC but > >>>>> rather has been the NCSG, it?s predecessor, and it?s member > >>>>> constituencies. > >>>>> > >>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for governments, > >>>> but certainly not for human rights! > >>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating the > >>>>> American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN (?9). As a > >>>>> corporation, it is likely that ICANN is not obligated to > >>>>> follow the precepts of the Bill of Rights in it?s > >>>>> relationships with others. I say likely, because if ICANN > >>>>> were construed by the courts to be a U.S. government > >>>>> contractor, which in some ways it currently is, ICANN could > >>>>> be construed as participating in state action and then > >>>>> would be obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a > >>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights would > >>>>> apply to ICANN in its > >> relationship with others. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think it is also important to note that under American > >>>>> law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a non-natural > >>>>> person, and does benefit from the protections offered by > >>>>> Bill of Rights. It is bound to the Bill of Rights in this > >>>>> way. Further, ICANN is also protected from government > >>>>> interference through the Declaration of Rights of the > >>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article 1), one of > >>>>> the most comprehensive statutory grants of rights that > >>>>> exist in the world. These are important considerations as > >>>>> we debate the future > >> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. > >>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law dragons, i > >>>> think a key question is also how the international > >>>> obligations of the US goverment relate to a corporation such > >>>> as ICANN > >>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than trademark > >>>>> law be considered to ?address speech rights? (?117) is > >>>>> welcome, with the caveat that any such model must expand > >>>>> freedom of expression and not further restrict it. As bad > >>>>> as the trademark maximalist model we now have is, there are > >>>>> many legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to adhere > >>>>> to, and open-ended recommendations in this regard should > >>>>> best be avoided lest they be used by those favoring a more > >>>>> restrictive > >> speech model. > >>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas here ... > >>>> via the shared doc? > >>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining and > >>>>> actualizing in policy the term ?public interest? (?115). As > >>>>> they acknowledge, it is a vague term ?providing neither > >>>>> guidance nor constraint on ICANN?s > >> actions? > >>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to ?flesh out the > >>>>> concept? of global public interest to strengthen > >>>>> accountability and transparency within ICANN (?115). > >>>>> > >>>>> I?d suggest we move away from use of the term ?public > >>>>> interest? in all regards, as it?s imprecise definition > >>>>> leads to more problems than it solves. I?m particularly > >>>>> nonplused by the positioning of the concepts of > >>>>> accountability and transparency as a seeming subset of > >> ?public interest? > >>>>> (115). > >>>>> > >>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN needs > >>>>> to embrace regardless of the ?public interest?, whatever it > >>>>> is. These twin concepts strengthen both the ICANN community > >>>>> and ICANN corporate. An attitude that transparency and > >>>>> accountability are something that must be done to > >>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public interest) > >>>>> should be rejected in favor of an acknowledgement that such > >>>>> processes strengthen ICANN internally. > >>>>> > >>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous ?public interest? is welcome, > >>>>> but the principle reason for ICANN to conduct it?s affairs > >>>>> in a transparent and accountable manner is that it > >>>>> strengthens both ICANN the institution and ICANN the > >>>>> community. It is self-interest, not public interest, which > >>>>> should drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent > >>>>> and accountable as possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that accountability and > >>>>> transparency are dependent variables subject to whatever it > >>>>> is that ?public interest? is determined to be. They stand > >>>>> on their own. > >>>>> > >>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and accountable as > >>>> possible and I agree that transparency and accountability > >>>> should not be dependent variables, but I don't have the same > >>>> negative reaction to "public interest" - on the contrary, I > >>>> find it a useful concept, especially in administrative law as > >>>> a way to counter the power imbalances between private > >>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which States > >>>> have obligations to protect - also because the notion of > >>>> public law and State obligations in the public arena is a > >>>> core component of the international human rights framework > >>>> (which distinguishes between public and private law for > >>>> example). So I would not want to negate it in the context of > >>>> responding to the CoE paper nor in thinking through how this > >>>> is relevant to ICANN. > >>>> > >>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors to > >>>>> position ?hate speech? as an accepted derogation from free > >>>>> expression norms. This is not something that is generally > >>>>> accepted in the human rights community, but rather is a > >>>>> controversial notion that provokes rather heated and > >>>>> emotional argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. > >>>>> > >>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the guise of > >>>>> obeying human rights norms, should police speech or in any > >>>>> way deny domain name applications because they may run > >>>>> afoul of ?hate speech? > >> principles. > >>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition of this > >>>>> SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate content or > >>>>> speech. > >>>>> > >>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not > >>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any sort of > >>>>> serious commitment to the principles of free speech. I know > >>>>> that there are many within our SG supportive of my views in > >>>>> this regard; I suspect there may be members that differ. > >>>>> Regardless of specific views on the issue, I hope we can > >>>>> all agree that ICANN is not the institution that should be > >>>>> determining what ?hate speech? is and then enforcing its > >> determination. > >>>>> > >>>>> The authors acknowledge that ?despite its frequent use, > >>>>> there is no clear or unique understanding of what is ?hate > >>>>> speech?, and the definitions and conceptions vary in > >>>>> different countries? (?45). They then recognize that the > >>>>> European Court of Human Rights has not defined the term in > >>>>> order that it?s reasoning, ?is not confined within > >>>>> definitions that could limit its action in future > >>>>> cases?(?46). Given the complexity of the issues, the > >>>>> authors suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with > >>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I?d suggest that ICANN should > >>>>> only do so if the same opportunity is given to > >>>>> intergovernmental organizations from all the > >> world?s regions. Europe should not receive special > >> consideration. > >>>>> > >>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to create > >>>>> unity out of the plurality of opinions and views relating > >>>>> to the proposed hate speech derogation from the universally > >>>>> recognized right of free expression. Upon close scrutiny, > >>>>> though, they cannot be said to have > >> accomplished their goal. > >>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two of the > >>>>> Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on > >>>>> Cybercrime, as they attempted to define some portion of > >>>>> ?hate crime?. > >>>>> > >>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part of the > >>>>> universal human rights acquis. The numbers are pretty > >>>>> stark: Of the seventeen non Council of Europe signatories > >>>>> to the Cybercrime Convention only two have ratified the > >>>>> Additional Protocol. Of even greater significance, of the > >>>>> forty-seven members of the Council of Europe only twenty > >>>>> have signed the Additional Protocol (?45). > >>>>> > >>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the ?hate speech? > >>>>> derogation, the lack of ratification of the Additional > >>>>> Protocol suggests severe reservations about the concept. > >>>>> Certainly the proposed definition is suspect. This is true > >>>>> even in Europe, the area of the world where the hate speech > >>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, and > >>>>> within the Council of Europe itself. > >>>>> > >>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a > >>>>> ?balancing? test, the authors recommend that ICANN ?should > >>>>> ensure that ?hate speech? is not tolerated in the > >>>>> applied-for gTlds? (?60). > >>>>> > >>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this recommendation. > >>>>> > >>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating speech. > >>>>> It certainly should not be in the business of deciding what > >>>>> is or is not hate speech, a concept with limited > >>>>> international acceptance and a variable definition, and > >>>>> then prohibiting it. > >>>>> > >>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that puts > >>>>> ICANN in the position of being a censor. This particular > >>>>> recommendation within this Council Of Europe report does > >>>>> just that and needs to be rejected. > >>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist > >>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some of > >>>> which does not - we could talk more offlist about it. I agree > >>>> on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, but this begs the > >>>> question of how should human rights, ALL rights, be balanced > >>>> in the decision-making - on this I would point back to the > >>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting the rights > >>>> arguments looked at there and getting GAC members involved > >>>> in that process, which is one of our longstanding SG > >>>> positions). maybe there are other ideas here as well ... > >>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any suggestion > >>>>> of giving ICANN ?international or quasi-international > >>>>> status? (?136) and I hope others will join me, as an SG and > >>>>> individually, in this > >> opposition. > >>>>> > >>>>> Joy ?shudders?? at the authors suggestion that the > >>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red Crescent > >>>>> societies should serve as a ?source of inspiration? for > >>>>> ICANN?s future organizational legal position (?137). I > >>>>> shudder with her. Joy then suggests that the ILO might ?be > >>>>> a better model?. It might be, but if ICANN received a > >>>>> status similar to that of the ILO I respectfully suggest > >>>>> that shudder rather than support would still be an > >>>>> appropriate response. > >>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was simply > >>>> surprised that the CoE paper did not even mention it - I know > >>>> some governments are looking at the ILO becuase it is > >>>> tri-partite (government, employers and worker representation) > >>>> - and therefore using it to try and persuade other > >>>> governments that other multi-stakeholder options do exist > >>>> internationally > >>>>> With international legal status come a set of privileges > >>>>> and legal immunities. The ILO is actually a pretty good > >>>>> place to see what these entail. As a specialized agency of > >>>>> the United Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 > >>>>> Convention on Privileges and Immunities which grants, > >>>>> amongst other benefits: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization and for > >>>>> its officials in its official acts, with even greater > >>>>> immunity for executive officials, > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical > >>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special protection > >>>>> for its communications, > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, > >>>>> > >>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and its > >>>>> employees, > >>>>> > >>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given diplomats for > >>>>> those attending organizational meetings. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The agreement > >>>>> between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal Council mandates > >>>>> that the Red Cross receives, amongst other benefits: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. This > >>>>> immunity extends to both the organization and to officials > >>>>> and continues with respect to officials even after they > >>>>> leave office, > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, > >>>>> > >>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, > >>>>> > >>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited about > >>>>> proposals to give it international status. It is less easy > >>>>> to understand why anyone who is not a member of the ICANN > >>>>> staff thinks that this is a > >> good idea. > >>>>> > >>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN international > >>>>> legal status the authors write, ?ICANN should be free from > >>>>> risk of dominance by states, other stakeholders, or even > >>>>> its own staff? (?136). I agree with the principle but fail > >>>>> to see how granting ICANN international legal status does > >>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony of ICANN > >>>>> staff, making their actions less > >> transparent and less accountable. > >>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) > >>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of definite > >>>>> external accountability for ICANN are 1) the NTIA, 2) the > >>>>> attorney general of the State of California (AG) and the 3) > >>>>> courts, principally those located in California. As the > >>>>> NTIA withdraws from oversight the two remaining sources of > >>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the courts. > >>>>> Should this CoE proposal for international status be > >>>>> accepted, in lieu of other changes, there will be no > >>>>> external control over ICANN. We cannot support this > >>>>> proposition. > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as a > >>>>> private, not for profit corporation. The authors > >>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to this > >>>>> structure. In stating that ICANN has ?flexibly? met the > >>>>> ?changing needs of the internet?(?1) the authors > >>>>> implicitly recognize a value associated more with private > >>>>> corporations than with those institutions accorded > >>>>> international status. In using the .XXX decision as an > >>>>> example where the values of free expression trumped > >>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should be > >>>>> noted that some observers, myself included, believe the > >>>>> Board?s decision in this matter was caused by fear of > >>>>> losing a lawsuit threatened by ICM Registry. Immunity from > >>>>> legal process eliminates this control > >> mechanism. > >>>>> > >>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily mean > >>>>> supporting ICANN?s continued corporate residence in > >>>>> California. I reject the notion, though, that leaving > >>>>> California necessarily would make things better from the > >>>>> perspective of civil society or of the individual user. It > >>>>> would depend upon the legal structure of the > >> receiving jurisdiction. > >>>>> > >>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is a > >>>>> corporate reorganization that would better help ICANN meet > >>>>> the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: the cration of > >>>>> membership within ICANN. > >>>>> > >>>>> Changing ICANN?s corporate structure from that of a > >>>>> California public benefit corporation without members to > >>>>> that of a California public benefits corporation with > >>>>> members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the California Corporations > >>>>> Code, would do a far better job of creating a truly > >>>>> responsive and democratic ICANN than granting ICANN > >>>>> international status would. A more comprehensive discussion > >>>>> of this concept can be found in my 27 June post on > >>>>> Accountability elsewhere on > >> this list. > >>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look > >>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special international > >>>>> legal status for ICANN would somewhat entrench the > >>>>> organization, and not in a good way. None of us know what > >>>>> the communications landscape will > >> look like in a decade. > >>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block chain > >>>>> technology, or technologies not yet dreamt of, will obviate > >>>>> the need for a central naming and addressing authority. It > >>>>> is reasonable to think that an entity with international > >>>>> legal status would be more likely to try to cling to it?s > >>>>> ossified technology than would a private corporation > >>>>> responsive to its members. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they will > >>>>> provide a further basis for discussion. > >>>>> > >>>> Indeed ! > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Ed ? > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy To: > >>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 > >>>>> 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary thoughts > >>>>> after some discussion in APC > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically saying > >>>>> that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling human rights > >>>>> obligations and that private sector, intellectual property > >>>>> and and law enforcement interests have been weighed too > >>>>> heavily in the balance of decision-making to the detriment > >>>>> of human rights and other stakeholders, including > >>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not entirely > >>>>> new) points - some reflections for working up to a possible > >>>>> submission: + I think this paper is evidence that discourse > >>>>> is moving beyond > >> "whether" > >>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making (the > >>>>> previous paper I contributed to) and more specifically into > >>>>> "how" in a very practical way - that is excellent and > >>>>> should be welcomed - the clear link to human rights in > >>>>> NETMundial and related documents seems to be tipping the > >>>>> human rights discussion - that is also really positive + > >>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in specific > >>>>> ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up deficiencies in > >>>>> both the standards and processes ICANN is using - The paper > >>>>> does mention social and cultural rights but only in passing > >>>>> in relation to the community application dotgay, so I think > >>>>> this makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights timely > >>>>> and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + several parts > >>>>> of the analysis and of the recommendations were + already > >>>>> made by the Non Commercial Users Constituency in a > >>>>> submission developed in 2013 (one > >>>>> > >>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN on > >>>>> human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see that paper > >>>>> cited - we should point out this connection in making > >>>>> comments + clearly governments are reaching for the human > >>>>> rights framework to challenge the behaviour of other > >>>>> governments (as in relation the law enforcement and the > >>>>> registrar accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is > >>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed between > >>>>> and among governments - it suggests there is a lot of > >>>>> discussion going on behind GAC's closed doors on this.... I > >>>>> really like the references to the UN resolutions internet > >>>>> rights - it is good to see this jurisprudence emerging. + > >>>>> there is inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies > >>>>> to + business - not just business interests in ICANN > >>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such as > >>>>> registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - Anriette > >>>>> raised these points and I think we need to think through > >>>>> how to respond on this - especially on the human rights and > >>>>> business rules that were developed in the UN + the analysis > >>>>> and recommendations on community applications is very + > >>>>> useful and I strongly support this aspect + the paper > >>>>> recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal basis to + > >>>>> include human rights in its bylaws - that is good - but > >>>>> they should also become a member of the GNI: Rafik Dammak > >>>>> and others have been calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN > >>>>> board has actively opposed that step. so we can raise that > >>>>> + also recommends looking at the Red Cross as possible > >>>>> inspiration + for a model - that made me shudder give how > >>>>> the RC has behaved in policy making in > >> ICANN. > >>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must respond on > >>>>> that specific > >> point. > >>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and challenging > >>>>> issues is + trying to define the public interest aspects of > >>>>> ICANN's role and also GAC's responsibilities - i think it's > >>>>> useful to raise this again and try to squarely address it > >>>>> and there are some options (the paper recommends an expert > >>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights impact > >>>>> assessment of policy proposals - i think we could also > >>>>> revive that idea..... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Joy > >>>>> > >>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi all, > >>>>> Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few others > >>>>> volunteered to work on a draft contribution with comments > >>>>> and suggestions about CoE document. Joy, your involvement > >>>>> is super important. Shall we start to get it going? Best, > >>>>> Mar?lia > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment period- and > >>>>> great that they took it up. And a follow up event in LA > >>>>> would be excellent - I am sure APC would want to support > >>>>> it. I do hope it hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! > >>>>> Joy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi Joy > >>>>> > >>>>> I?m glad Lee did this, as it?s not COE?s normal procedure > >>>>> at all. We suggested they try it at our meeting with them > >>>>> in London. We also agreed to propose a follow up event for > >>>>> LA. It?d be good to have our own position on paper prior. > >>>>> Since the paper may have screwed Thomas? campaign for GAC > >>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers > >>>>> > >>>>> Bill > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - sorry it > >>>>> has taken me a while to get back on this, I've been away > >>>>> from the office a while and it's taken a while to catch up > >>>>> .... Thanks also Milton for your blog post about the paper > >>>>> - I agree with most of your comments. There are quite a few > >>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any discussion at > >>>>> the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG response? I note that > >>>>> some of the points and recommendations in the paper were > >>>>> previously covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in > >>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work in any > >>>>> follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to help with). > >>>>> Cheers Joy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human Rights > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Is on line and open to comments. > >>>>> > >>>>> avri > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> *********************************************** 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 > >>>>> *********************************************** > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUECBeAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpXNcH/RmrMuQsheRB/sVHgCzNseKp > Jarc5tEpwHpB6DmX/JGkpcJX02i0etWuGLYzrWdA8d2bfQCorUdIVN9UFjZWEeGl > qZ76JH6Q8iwYVBS+e2Bdj+8o0SJGgOer+111OwLVgET+GzvuS+n+w941DYB/2IBV > zm4rNvCXzjNAGJS7p/+OFA/1ilMxMAyKez/LS8Nh6ITR6ynm8JT4//39c8TADFkL > gVMxlH6DVN9RT4sGD7P09RvFBPoZjMajwylOEknKgUjSHQtzeMXFv8YT8u7A+1DU > CIY6x58YOUv2fHZ1yre4EOSb60WQeiy/6sa3AiEeP0DODqje55GUMaAGXYJ9VVE= > =rD0H > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Sep 10 13:45:52 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:45:52 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Fri Sep 12 15:50:43 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:50:43 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 rafik.dammak Fri Sep 12 18:06:47 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 00:06:47 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: <5402B421.3070309@acm.org> References: <5402B421.3070309@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, any other proposal for this process? we are late and we should make some progress. Rafik 2014-08-31 14:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > How about call for nominations on the discussion list > - with a requirements that they have signed up for the community group > > And then the PC picks - with any PC members who may have been nominated > abstaining from the process. > > avri > > On 31-Aug-14 08:04, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > With regard to the announcement about the accountability process. > > the policy committee should start the process of appointment of > > representative from NCSG to the coordination coordination group, > preferably > > before the 15th September. > > > > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#10 > > > > "*10. How can I participate in the Coordination Group?* > > The SO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their respective > > communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, who will then be > > confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These names should be provided to > > the Cross Community Group and be public. Names selected by the SO/AC/SGs > > for the Coordination Group are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross > > Community Group prior to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to > be > > a member of the Cross Community Group to be selected by the > respectiveSO/AC/SGs > > to the Coordination Group. SO/AC/SGs may identify their own processes for > > selecting experts. All participants on the Coordination Group are > expected > > to conduct the work on a consensus basis, consistent with community > > processes, including open, transparent, and meeting with the community at > > respectiveICANN meetings." > > > > so we should setup quickly a process (timeline, list of criteria) and > call > > for candidature, hopefully within this week. > > @Maria can you please initiate and lead this? > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran Fri Sep 12 19:08:33 2014 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:08:33 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: References: <5402B421.3070309@acm.org> Message-ID: <54131A81.9040907@yorku.ca> An alternative process with rationale: The four people of the Public Experts Group will be responsible for the selection of up to seven advisors to the Coordination Group from the list of candidates. They seek regional representation and there is a long list of areas they would like to cover with advisor expertise. It is impossible to assess the range of expertise and geographic representation that will come with other candidates. NCSG selecting one or two candidates is probably not the best strategy. In order to maximize the chances of NCSG candidates being selected, I (with NPOC excom support) would like to propose that we simply forward a slate of names with regional representation and let the Public Experts mix-and-match to achieve a well representative and balanced set of advisors. Sam L., Chair, NPOC Policy Committee On 12/09/2014 11:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > any other proposal for this process? we are late and we should make > some progress. > > Rafik > > 2014-08-31 14:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >: > > Hi, > > How about call for nominations on the discussion list > - with a requirements that they have signed up for the community group > > And then the PC picks - with any PC members who may have been > nominated > abstaining from the process. > > avri > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Sep 12 19:27:39 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:27:39 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: <54131A81.9040907@yorku.ca> References: <5402B421.3070309@acm.org> <54131A81.9040907@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <54131EFB.90506@acm.org> Hi, I think we are talking about tow things. a. we should be suggesting experts if we know of experts who we think would be good as experts. b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative on the AGC (assumming there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) I thought Rafik was talking about b. This is a case where the PC picks one person. Any nominees yet? avri On 12-Sep-14 12:08, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > An alternative process with rationale: > > The four people of the Public Experts Group will be responsible for the > selection of up to seven advisors to the Coordination Group from the > list of candidates. They seek regional representation and there is a > long list of areas they would like to cover with advisor expertise. It > is impossible to assess the range of expertise and geographic > representation that will come with other candidates. NCSG selecting one > or two candidates is probably not the best strategy. > > In order to maximize the chances of NCSG candidates being selected, I > (with NPOC excom support) would like to propose that we simply forward a > slate of names with regional representation and let the Public Experts > mix-and-match to achieve a well representative and balanced set of > advisors. > > Sam L., Chair, > NPOC Policy Committee > > > On 12/09/2014 11:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> any other proposal for this process? we are late and we should make >> some progress. >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-08-31 14:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria > >: >> >> Hi, >> >> How about call for nominations on the discussion list >> - with a requirements that they have signed up for the community >> group >> >> And then the PC picks - with any PC members who may have been >> nominated >> abstaining from the process. >> >> avri >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Sat Sep 13 06:13:55 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:13:55 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: <54131EFB.90506@acm.org> References: <5402B421.3070309@acm.org> <54131A81.9040907@yorku.ca> <54131EFB.90506@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, yes I am talking about b. Rafik 2014-09-13 1:27 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I think we are talking about tow things. > > a. we should be suggesting experts if we know of experts who we think > would be good as experts. > > b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative on the AGC (assumming > there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) > > I thought Rafik was talking about b. > This is a case where the PC picks one person. > > Any nominees yet? > > avri > > > On 12-Sep-14 12:08, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > An alternative process with rationale: > > > > The four people of the Public Experts Group will be responsible for the > > selection of up to seven advisors to the Coordination Group from the > > list of candidates. They seek regional representation and there is a > > long list of areas they would like to cover with advisor expertise. It > > is impossible to assess the range of expertise and geographic > > representation that will come with other candidates. NCSG selecting one > > or two candidates is probably not the best strategy. > > > > In order to maximize the chances of NCSG candidates being selected, I > > (with NPOC excom support) would like to propose that we simply forward a > > slate of names with regional representation and let the Public Experts > > mix-and-match to achieve a well representative and balanced set of > > advisors. > > > > Sam L., Chair, > > NPOC Policy Committee > > > > > > On 12/09/2014 11:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> any other proposal for this process? we are late and we should make > >> some progress. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-08-31 14:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >> >: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> How about call for nominations on the discussion list > >> - with a requirements that they have signed up for the community > >> group > >> > >> And then the PC picks - with any PC members who may have been > >> nominated > >> abstaining from the process. > >> > >> 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 aelsadr Mon Sep 15 17:58:36 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:58:36 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> 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 rafik.dammak Wed Sep 17 10:37:05 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:37:05 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, as a reminder we need to appoint someone for the the CCWG on IANA transition Best, Rafik 2014-09-10 15:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi , > > Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG > representative in the cross-community working group. for procedure matter, > shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for representation, I would like to > ask the NCSG policy committee to proceed and respond quickly to this. I do > think that Avri would make a good representative and liaison there. > > indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being observer doesn't > mean having a lower status regarding participation). I am joining myself > the CCWG. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > >> Hi, >> >> Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as many >> NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > The charter was approved. >> > >> > I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the >> > Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. >> > >> > I also encourage others to participate in this group. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for >> > observers for your review >> > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 >> > From: Marika Konings >> > To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during >> its >> > meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO >> > Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 >> September >> > at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as the >> > interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to >> select >> > its leadership. >> > >> > In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the >> attached >> > draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of >> the >> > chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand >> that >> > the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing >> > tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to >> > share. >> > >> > As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, >> please >> > provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the >> mailing >> > list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the >> CWG in >> > early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to >> meet >> > in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials >> > should be prepared, if any. >> > >> > As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the >> ICG >> > has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted by >> 31 >> > December 2014. >> > >> > We hope this is helpful. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Marika >> > >> > ==================== >> > >> > Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an >> IANA >> > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >> > >> > Made by: Avri Doria >> > Seconded by: Amr Elsadr >> > >> > Whereas, >> > 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration >> (NTIA) has >> > requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a >> plan >> > to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the >> IANA >> > Functions and related root zone management. >> > 2. >> > 3. >> > 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship >> > Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a >> transition >> > proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties >> of >> > the IANA functions.? >> > 5. >> > 6. >> > 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed >> within >> > the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of >> > standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the >> RIRs >> > for functions related the management and distribution of numbering >> > resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain >> Name >> > System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose >> > responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition >> proposal >> > from these autonomously developed components. >> > 8. >> > 9. >> > 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. >> > 11. >> > 12. >> > 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the >> ccNSO, >> > GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). >> > Resolved, >> > 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints >> > Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. >> > 2. >> > 3. >> > 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by >> 15 >> > September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. >> > * >> > * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council >> > recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the >> > interim co-chairs of the CWG. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sep 17 10:42:29 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:42:29 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: References: <5402B421.3070309@acm.org> <54131A81.9040907@yorku.ca> <54131EFB.90506@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, till now we got a proposal from process from Avri, any comment , amendments or objections with that? we need really to move more quickly and getting responses from other PC members. we need to have the process, getting nominees and make selection. I am thinking that maybe NCSG PC need to have its own monthly confcall if it can help to handle stuff in more timely manner. Best, Rafik 2014-09-13 12:13 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Avri, > > yes I am talking about b. > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-13 1:27 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > >> Hi, >> >> I think we are talking about tow things. >> >> a. we should be suggesting experts if we know of experts who we think >> would be good as experts. >> >> b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative on the AGC (assumming >> there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) >> >> I thought Rafik was talking about b. >> This is a case where the PC picks one person. >> >> Any nominees yet? >> >> avri >> >> >> On 12-Sep-14 12:08, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> > An alternative process with rationale: >> > >> > The four people of the Public Experts Group will be responsible for the >> > selection of up to seven advisors to the Coordination Group from the >> > list of candidates. They seek regional representation and there is a >> > long list of areas they would like to cover with advisor expertise. It >> > is impossible to assess the range of expertise and geographic >> > representation that will come with other candidates. NCSG selecting one >> > or two candidates is probably not the best strategy. >> > >> > In order to maximize the chances of NCSG candidates being selected, I >> > (with NPOC excom support) would like to propose that we simply forward a >> > slate of names with regional representation and let the Public Experts >> > mix-and-match to achieve a well representative and balanced set of >> > advisors. >> > >> > Sam L., Chair, >> > NPOC Policy Committee >> > >> > >> > On 12/09/2014 11:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> any other proposal for this process? we are late and we should make >> >> some progress. >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-08-31 14:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria > >> >: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> How about call for nominations on the discussion list >> >> - with a requirements that they have signed up for the community >> >> group >> >> >> >> And then the PC picks - with any PC members who may have been >> >> nominated >> >> abstaining from the process. >> >> >> >> 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 aelsadr Wed Sep 17 13:40:31 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:40:31 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4811B4AA-D091-4D26-97A5-BB360BA3CAB5@egyptig.org> Hi, Avri volunteered and seemed to get support from several members on the NCSG list. Nobody else stepped up, and we?re already past the deadline for submitting the name of our representative. I would set a quick deadline for a PC consensus call of Avri?s appointment. Thanks. Amr On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > as a reminder we need to appoint someone for the the CCWG on IANA transition > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-09-10 15:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi , > > Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG representative in the cross-community working group. for procedure matter, shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for representation, I would like to ask the NCSG policy committee to proceed and respond quickly to this. I do think that Avri would make a good representative and liaison there. > > indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being observer doesn't mean having a lower status regarding participation). I am joining myself the CCWG. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Hi, > > Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as many NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The charter was approved. > > > > I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the > > Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. > > > > I also encourage others to participate in this group. > > > > Thanks > > > > avri > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for > > observers for your review > > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 > > From: Marika Konings > > To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org > > > > Dear All, > > > > For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during its > > meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO > > Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 September > > at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as the > > interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to select > > its leadership. > > > > In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the attached > > draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of the > > chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand that > > the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing > > tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to > > share. > > > > As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, please > > provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the mailing > > list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the CWG in > > early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to meet > > in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials > > should be prepared, if any. > > > > As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the ICG > > has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted by 31 > > December 2014. > > > > We hope this is helpful. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > ==================== > > > > Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA > > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions > > > > Made by: Avri Doria > > Seconded by: Amr Elsadr > > > > Whereas, > > 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has > > requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan > > to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the IANA > > Functions and related root zone management. > > 2. > > 3. > > 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship > > Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a transition > > proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of > > the IANA functions.? > > 5. > > 6. > > 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within > > the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of > > standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs > > for functions related the management and distribution of numbering > > resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name > > System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose > > responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal > > from these autonomously developed components. > > 8. > > 9. > > 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. > > 11. > > 12. > > 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, > > GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). > > Resolved, > > 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints > > Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. > > 2. > > 3. > > 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 > > September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. > > * > > * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council > > recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the > > interim co-chairs of the CWG. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Sep 17 13:47:38 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:47:38 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: References: <5402B421.3070309@acm.org> <54131A81.9040907@yorku.ca> <54131EFB.90506@acm.org> Message-ID: <131C7E85-8AB6-4023-93E5-956BCA2772D3@egyptig.org> Hi, The process Avri suggested sounds good to me. We haven?t had a call for nominations on the NCSG list for this yet, have we? Thanks. Amr On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > till now we got a proposal from process from Avri, any comment , amendments or objections with that? we need really to move more quickly and getting responses from other PC members. we need to have the process, getting nominees and make selection. > > I am thinking that maybe NCSG PC need to have its own monthly confcall if it can help to handle stuff in more timely manner. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-09-13 12:13 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Avri, > > yes I am talking about b. > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-13 1:27 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I think we are talking about tow things. > > a. we should be suggesting experts if we know of experts who we think > would be good as experts. > > b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative on the AGC (assumming > there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) > > I thought Rafik was talking about b. > This is a case where the PC picks one person. > > Any nominees yet? > > avri > > > On 12-Sep-14 12:08, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > An alternative process with rationale: > > > > The four people of the Public Experts Group will be responsible for the > > selection of up to seven advisors to the Coordination Group from the > > list of candidates. They seek regional representation and there is a > > long list of areas they would like to cover with advisor expertise. It > > is impossible to assess the range of expertise and geographic > > representation that will come with other candidates. NCSG selecting one > > or two candidates is probably not the best strategy. > > > > In order to maximize the chances of NCSG candidates being selected, I > > (with NPOC excom support) would like to propose that we simply forward a > > slate of names with regional representation and let the Public Experts > > mix-and-match to achieve a well representative and balanced set of > > advisors. > > > > Sam L., Chair, > > NPOC Policy Committee > > > > > > On 12/09/2014 11:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> any other proposal for this process? we are late and we should make > >> some progress. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-08-31 14:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >> >: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> How about call for nominations on the discussion list > >> - with a requirements that they have signed up for the community > >> group > >> > >> And then the PC picks - with any PC members who may have been > >> nominated > >> abstaining from the process. > >> > >> 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 Wed Sep 17 14:53:06 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:53:06 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: References: <5402B421.3070309@acm.org> <54131A81.9040907@yorku.ca> <54131EFB.90506@acm.org> Message-ID: <54197622.5010702@mail.utoronto.ca> I agree On 2014-09-17, 3:42, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > till now we got a proposal from process from Avri, any comment , > amendments or objections with that? we need really to move more > quickly and getting responses from other PC members. we need to have > the process, getting nominees and make selection. > > I am thinking that maybe NCSG PC need to have its own monthly confcall > if it can help to handle stuff in more timely manner. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-09-13 12:13 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi Avri, > > yes I am talking about b. > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-13 1:27 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >: > > Hi, > > I think we are talking about tow things. > > a. we should be suggesting experts if we know of experts who > we think > would be good as experts. > > b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative on the AGC > (assumming > there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) > > I thought Rafik was talking about b. > This is a case where the PC picks one person. > > Any nominees yet? > > avri > > > On 12-Sep-14 12:08, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > An alternative process with rationale: > > > > The four people of the Public Experts Group will be > responsible for the > > selection of up to seven advisors to the Coordination Group > from the > > list of candidates. They seek regional representation and > there is a > > long list of areas they would like to cover with advisor > expertise. It > > is impossible to assess the range of expertise and geographic > > representation that will come with other candidates. NCSG > selecting one > > or two candidates is probably not the best strategy. > > > > In order to maximize the chances of NCSG candidates being > selected, I > > (with NPOC excom support) would like to propose that we > simply forward a > > slate of names with regional representation and let the > Public Experts > > mix-and-match to achieve a well representative and balanced > set of > > advisors. > > > > Sam L., Chair, > > NPOC Policy Committee > > > > > > On 12/09/2014 11:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> any other proposal for this process? we are late and we > should make > >> some progress. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-08-31 14:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria > >> >>: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> How about call for nominations on the discussion list > >> - with a requirements that they have signed up for the > community > >> group > >> > >> And then the PC picks - with any PC members who may > have been > >> nominated > >> abstaining from the process. > >> > >> 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 Wed Sep 17 14:56:58 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:56:58 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: <4811B4AA-D091-4D26-97A5-BB360BA3CAB5@egyptig.org> References: <4811B4AA-D091-4D26-97A5-BB360BA3CAB5@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <5419770A.7080807@mail.utoronto.ca> Let us just endorse Avri, folks, if there are no objections. No time no time. Plus I am sure she is going to be terrific and several of us are going as observers. Steph On 2014-09-17, 6:40, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Avri volunteered and seemed to get support from several members on the > NCSG list. Nobody else stepped up, and we're already past the deadline > for submitting the name of our representative. I would set a quick > deadline for a PC consensus call of Avri's appointment. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> as a reminder we need to appoint someone for the the CCWG on IANA >> transition >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-09-10 15:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi , >> >> Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG >> representative in the cross-community working group. for >> procedure matter, shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for >> representation, I would like to ask the NCSG policy committee to >> proceed and respond quickly to this. I do think that Avri would >> make a good representative and liaison there. >> >> indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being >> observer doesn't mean having a lower status regarding >> participation). I am joining myself the CCWG. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr > >: >> >> Hi, >> >> Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it'd be good to >> have as many NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > The charter was approved. >> > >> > I request that I be designated to continue the role I held >> in the >> > Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. >> > >> > I also encourage others to participate in this group. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and >> draft call for >> > observers for your review >> > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 >> > From: Marika Konings > > >> > To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org >> >> > > >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG >> charter during its >> > meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has >> requested that GNSO >> > Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG >> by 15 September >> > at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT >> serve as the >> > interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the >> opportunity to select >> > its leadership. >> > >> > In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've >> prepared the attached >> > draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated >> once most of the >> > chartering organisations have appointed their members (we >> understand that >> > the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote >> is finishing >> > tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please >> feel free to >> > share. >> > >> > As your respective organisations identify their members for >> the CWG, please >> > provide the information to Grace so that they can be added >> to the mailing >> > list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first >> meeting of the CWG in >> > early October so the group can discuss whether or not it >> would like to meet >> > in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and >> what materials >> > should be prepared, if any. >> > >> > As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just >> shared, the ICG >> > has requested that all formal responses are expected to be >> submitted by 31 >> > December 2014. >> > >> > We hope this is helpful. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Marika >> > >> > ==================== >> > >> > Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group >> to Develop an IANA >> > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >> > >> > Made by: Avri Doria >> > Seconded by: Amr Elsadr >> > >> > Whereas, >> > 1. The National Telecommunications and Information >> Administration (NTIA) has >> > requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to >> develop a plan >> > to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with >> regard to the IANA >> > Functions and related root zone management. >> > 2. >> > 3. >> > 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA >> Stewardship >> > Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for >> preparing a transition >> > proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various >> affected parties of >> > the IANA functions.? >> > 5. >> > 6. >> > 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be >> developed within >> > the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for >> development of >> > standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the >> ASO, and the RIRs >> > for functions related the management and distribution of >> numbering >> > resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to >> the Domain Name >> > System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose >> > responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated >> transition proposal >> > from these autonomously developed components. >> > 8. >> > 9. >> > 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, >> 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. >> > 11. >> > 12. >> > 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration >> to the ccNSO, >> > GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). >> > Resolved, >> > 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and >> appoints >> > Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to >> the CWG. >> > 2. >> > 3. >> > 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for >> the CWG by 15 >> > September 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 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, each in accordance with its >> own rules. >> > * >> > * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the >> GNSO Council >> > recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall >> serve as the >> > interim co-chairs of the CWG. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Message Part.txt> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 director-general Wed Sep 17 15:30:18 2014 From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:30:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: <5419770A.7080807@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <4886414.15991410957018105.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> Total support for Avri, her knowledge benefits us in so many ways. best Dorothy K. Gordon Director-General Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT Mobile: 233 265005712 Direct Line: 233 302 683579 Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephanie Perrin" To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Sent: Wednesday, 17 September, 2014 11:56:58 AM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review Let us just endorse Avri, folks, if there are no objections. No time no time. Plus I am sure she is going to be terrific and several of us are going as observers. Steph On 2014-09-17, 6:40, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, Avri volunteered and seemed to get support from several members on the NCSG list. Nobody else stepped up, and we?re already past the deadline for submitting the name of our representative. I would set a quick deadline for a PC consensus call of Avri?s appointment. Thanks. Amr On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > wrote: Hi everyone, as a reminder we need to appoint someone for the the CCWG on IANA transition Best, Rafik 2014-09-10 15:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > : Hi , Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG representative in the cross-community working group. for procedure matter, shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for representation, I would like to ask the NCSG policy committee to proceed and respond quickly to this. I do think that Avri would make a good representative and liaison there. indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being observer doesn't mean having a lower status regarding participation). I am joining myself the CCWG. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > : Hi, Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as many NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. Thanks. Amr On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria < avri at ACM.ORG > wrote: > Hi, > > The charter was approved. > > I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the > Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. > > I also encourage others to participate in this group. > > Thanks > > avri > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for > observers for your review > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 > From: Marika Konings < marika.konings at icann.org > > To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org < CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org > > > Dear All, > > For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during its > meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO > Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 September > at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as the > interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to select > its leadership. > > In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the attached > draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of the > chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand that > the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing > tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to > share. > > As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, please > provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the mailing > list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the CWG in > early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to meet > in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials > should be prepared, if any. > > As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the ICG > has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted by 31 > December 2014. > > We hope this is helpful. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > ==================== > > Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions > > Made by: Avri Doria > Seconded by: Amr Elsadr > > Whereas, > 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has > requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan > to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the IANA > Functions and related root zone management. > 2. > 3. > 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship > Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a transition > proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of > the IANA functions.? > 5. > 6. > 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within > the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of > standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs > for functions related the management and distribution of numbering > resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name > System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose > responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal > from these autonomously developed components. > 8. > 9. > 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. > 11. > 12. > 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, > GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). > Resolved, > 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints > Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. > 2. > 3. > 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 > September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. > * > * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council > recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the > interim co-chairs of the CWG. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Wed Sep 17 16:48:17 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:48:17 +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: <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> Hi, Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There have only been a couple of minor changes; mostly just language. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit Thanks. 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 avri Wed Sep 17 18:40:09 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:40:09 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@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> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> hi, I approve. We may want to include in the cover note that this is sent in response and support of previous comments and then enumerate any we agree with. That we have followed the response rule. I recommend leaving the stmt as is. avri On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There have only > been a couple of minor changes; mostly just language. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > Thanks. > > 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 > From aelsadr Wed Sep 17 18:51:53 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:51:53 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> Message-ID: Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we might want to approve of? Or would that be too big a reading assignment? Thanks. Amr On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > I approve. > > We may want to include in the cover note that this is sent in response > and support of previous comments and then enumerate any we agree with. > > That we have followed the response rule. I recommend leaving the stmt > as is. > > avri > > > On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There have only >> been a couple of minor changes; mostly just language. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> Thanks. >> >> 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 avri Wed Sep 17 19:39:03 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:39:03 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> Message-ID: <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> Hi, I think we would need to read and agree. avri On 17-Sep-14 11:51, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we might want to approve of? Or would that be too big a reading assignment? > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> hi, >> >> I approve. >> >> We may want to include in the cover note that this is sent in response >> and support of previous comments and then enumerate any we agree with. >> >> That we have followed the response rule. I recommend leaving the stmt >> as is. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There have only >>> been a couple of minor changes; mostly just language. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> 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 > > From stephanie.perrin Wed Sep 17 21:12:28 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:12:28 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@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> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <5419CF0C.4070806@mail.utoronto.ca> It looks fine to me. I am afraid I cannot help you with a reference where it is requested, I have no clue. Thanks for doing this! Stephanie On 14-09-17 9:48 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There have only > been a couple of minor changes; mostly just language. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > Thanks. > > 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 mariliamaciel Wed Sep 17 21:53:11 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:53:11 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <5419CF0C.4070806@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419CF0C.4070806@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, I have made two comments, but I have no problem to support the text as it current stands. Best Mar?lia On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > It looks fine to me. I am afraid I cannot help you with a reference > where it is requested, I have no clue. > Thanks for doing this! > Stephanie > > On 14-09-17 9:48 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There have only > been a couple of minor changes; mostly just language. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > Thanks. > > 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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Sep 17 23:07:36 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:07:36 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [Contribution] Working on NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419CF0C.4070806@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Marilia. Your points are good ones as far as I?m concerned. I put in responses and don?t mind making changes if anyone feels strongly about them. @Stephanie: I think we agreed that it would be better not to put in the reference anyway, so thanks. :) I?ll remove my comment. Thanks again. Amr On Sep 17, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi, I have made two comments, but I have no problem to support the text as it current stands. > Best > Mar?lia > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > It looks fine to me. I am afraid I cannot help you with a reference where it is requested, I have no clue. > Thanks for doing this! > Stephanie > > On 14-09-17 9:48 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There have only been a couple of minor changes; mostly just language. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> Thanks. >> >> 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 > > > > > -- > Mar?lia Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Sep 17 23:33:31 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:33:31 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> Message-ID: <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@egyptig.org> Hi, The ones I liked that weren?t by NCSG members were the ones by: The Internet Commerce Association submitted by Phil Corwin (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00012.html) Blacknight submitted by Michele Neylon (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00036.html) and Tucows submitted by Graeme Bunton (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) Thanks. Amr On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think we would need to read and agree. > > avri > > > On 17-Sep-14 11:51, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we might want to approve of? Or would that be too big a reading assignment? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> hi, >>> >>> I approve. >>> >>> We may want to include in the cover note that this is sent in response >>> and support of previous comments and then enumerate any we agree with. >>> >>> That we have followed the response rule. I recommend leaving the stmt >>> as is. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There have only >>>> been a couple of minor changes; mostly just language. >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> 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 From avri Thu Sep 18 00:05:41 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:05:41 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@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> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <5419F7A5.1090809@acm.org> Hi, My inclination On 17-Sep-14 16:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > The ones I liked that weren?t by NCSG members were the ones by: > > The Internet Commerce Association submitted by Phil Corwin > (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00012.html) > i do not support this one. Has an implication that paying money is relevant. also seems to deny that governments are stakeholders like everyone wwesle (I know we don't all agree wtih this) > Blacknight submitted by Michele Neylon > (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00036.html) > not this one either. he refers to Corwin whose comment i dont endorse. but we might want to endorse thee Internet Infrastructure he refers to. http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html > and > > Tucows submitted by Graeme Bunton > (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) > i agree with this one. avri > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think we would need to read and agree. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 17-Sep-14 11:51, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we might want >>> to approve of? Or would that be too big a reading assignment? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> hi, >>>> >>>> I approve. >>>> >>>> We may want to include in the cover note that this is sent in >>>> response and support of previous comments and then enumerate >>>> any we agree with. >>>> >>>> That we have followed the response rule. I recommend leaving >>>> the stmt as is. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There >>>>> have only been a couple of minor changes; mostly just >>>>> language. >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> 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 > > From aelsadr Thu Sep 18 01:01:11 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:01:11 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <5419F7A5.1090809@acm.org> References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@egyptig.org> <5419F7A5.1090809@acm.org> Message-ID: Great. I?m fine with those two. Thanks. Amr On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > My inclination > > On 17-Sep-14 16:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The ones I liked that weren?t by NCSG members were the ones by: >> >> The Internet Commerce Association submitted by Phil Corwin >> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00012.html) >> > > i do not support this one. Has an implication that paying money is > relevant. also seems to deny that governments are stakeholders like > everyone wwesle (I know we don't all agree wtih this) > >> Blacknight submitted by Michele Neylon >> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00036.html) >> > > not this one either. > he refers to Corwin whose comment i dont endorse. > > but we might want to endorse thee Internet Infrastructure he refers to. > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html > >> and >> >> Tucows submitted by Graeme Bunton >> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) >> > > i agree with this one. > > avri > > >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think we would need to read and agree. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 17-Sep-14 11:51, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we might want >>>> to approve of? Or would that be too big a reading assignment? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>> >>>>> I approve. >>>>> >>>>> We may want to include in the cover note that this is sent in >>>>> response and support of previous comments and then enumerate >>>>> any we agree with. >>>>> >>>>> That we have followed the response rule. I recommend leaving >>>>> the stmt as is. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There >>>>>> have only been a couple of minor changes; mostly just >>>>>> language. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 18 01:12:02 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:12:02 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@egyptig.org> <5419F7A5.1090809@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi again, Made some changes to the document based on feedback. I exchanged ?less private sector-led? to ?less community-driven? in the first paragraph (although not completely convinced with this). Also took the part about some of the GAC members representing authoritarian regimes out of the fourth paragraph. Some rationale provided in comments on the document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit Thanks. Amr On Sep 18, 2014, at 12:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Great. I?m fine with those two. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> My inclination >> >> On 17-Sep-14 16:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The ones I liked that weren?t by NCSG members were the ones by: >>> >>> The Internet Commerce Association submitted by Phil Corwin >>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00012.html) >>> >> >> i do not support this one. Has an implication that paying money is >> relevant. also seems to deny that governments are stakeholders like >> everyone wwesle (I know we don't all agree wtih this) >> >>> Blacknight submitted by Michele Neylon >>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00036.html) >>> >> >> not this one either. >> he refers to Corwin whose comment i dont endorse. >> >> but we might want to endorse thee Internet Infrastructure he refers to. >> >> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html >> >>> and >>> >>> Tucows submitted by Graeme Bunton >>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) >>> >> >> i agree with this one. >> >> avri >> >> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think we would need to read and agree. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17-Sep-14 11:51, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we might want >>>>> to approve of? Or would that be too big a reading assignment? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I approve. >>>>>> >>>>>> We may want to include in the cover note that this is sent in >>>>>> response and support of previous comments and then enumerate >>>>>> any we agree with. >>>>>> >>>>>> That we have followed the response rule. I recommend leaving >>>>>> the stmt as is. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There >>>>>>> have only been a couple of minor changes; mostly just >>>>>>> language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Sep 18 12:04:53 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:04:53 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BB71C6.2020108@apc.org> <28BD6CA3-881D-4550-9B70-3913A850D455@gmail.com> <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> Message-ID: Hi everyone, Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with review and endorsement? Thanks, Rafik On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin" wrote: > Hi all > > Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments on the COE > report for your consideration. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > > All best, > > Gabrielle > ________________________________________ > From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Avri > Doria [avri at ACM.ORG] > Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52 > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments > > Hi, > > I am currently doing a edit pass though the document. By and large I > agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments. > > There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal Status. > this reads like an America overall forever clause. I think that > becoming an international organization has been studied, is feasible > and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO. I think it needs > to be studied further especially once we have understood the > parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship. > > I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause. I think > that this also needs further discussion to deal with the tussle among > rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US > trade-off. I recommend leaving this this out too. > > I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection > concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the stmt > would be stronger standing alone without the debatable clauses being > included in the doc. > > As it stands now, the document does not have my support. > > avri > > > On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote: > > Thanks, folks. I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten up the > > lingo on the doc. The statement looks great to me and ready to go. > > And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors! Well > > done! > > > > Thank you, Robin > > > > > > On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > >> Hi Niels, > >> > >> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and comments > >> and I think that is partly done. since were are late for > >> submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so we can > >> submit the comment. the comment link > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > >> > >> > >> > >> > @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever > >> : > >> > > Dear Rafik, > > > > Has this been submitted? > > > > Best, > > > > Niels > > > > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital > > > > Article 19 www.article19.org > > > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > > 68E9 > > > > On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>>>> Hi Gabrielle, > >>>>> > >>>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at > >>>>> perfect time just before IGF and the session there > >>>>> organized by council of europe about the report (Details > >>>>> shared by Bill few days ago) > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Rafik > >>>>> > >>>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin > >>>>> : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a > >>>>>> go at summarising the various comments that have been > >>>>>> made by various NCSG members about the COE report on > >>>>>> human rights. Here is a draft: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > > > Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is anything else I > >>>>>> can do to help. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> All the best, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Gabrielle > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy [mailto:joy at apc.org] > >>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; > >>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE Doc open > >>>>>> to comments > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee > >>>>>> Hibbard at Council of Europe on the deadline for > >>>>>> comments. He's noted they are aiming for a compilation of > >>>>>> comments by 8 September. We should try to finalise sooner > >>>>>> if we can, though, and I'll aim to take another look at > >>>>>> the shared document later this week. Cheers Joy On > >>>>>> 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: > >>>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when > >>>>>>> the comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On > >>>>>>> 23/07/2014 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the > >>>>>>>> comments on the COE > >>>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too > >>>>>> but I won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us > >>>>>>>> going if we have a > >>>>>> document that others can start working on based on > >>>>>> comments already received, so here is a link to a > >>>>>> googledoc where I have just reproduced Ed, Joy and > >>>>>> Milton's contributions. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems > >>>>>>>> with the document. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hope that helps. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> All best, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on > >>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG] Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 > >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE > >>>>>>>> Doc open to comments > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work > >>>>>>>> through of the document in detail - that is extremely > >>>>>>>> helpful! Shall we start a shared document and begin > >>>>>>>> building the submission based on these and > >>>>>> other inputs? > >>>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and > >>>>>>>> develop a response soon .. also, i am still mulling > >>>>>>>> over your points, Ed, but a few responses below .... > >>>>>>>> thanks again! Joy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and > >>>>>>>>> erudite analysis. A few things I?d like to offer > >>>>>>>>> for consideration, in response both to Joy?s post > >>>>>>>>> and to the CoE document itself: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of > >>>>>>>>> Joy?s recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join > >>>>>>>>> the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I probably > >>>>>>>>> still am. However, I?m a bit concerned about the > >>>>>>>>> resignation of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation > >>>>>>>>> (EFF) > >>>>>> from the GNI in October of last year. > >>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN > >>>>>>>>> join the GNI, I?d suggest that we reach out to our > >>>>>>>>> EFF members and determine their views on the > >>>>>>>>> matter, given the action of their parent > >>>>>>>>> organization. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I > >>>>>>>> can also ask Katitza Rodriguez > >>>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both > >>>>>>>>> for their work on this report and for the overall > >>>>>>>>> effort of the CoE in promoting the inclusion of > >>>>>>>>> human rights considerations within internet > >>>>>>>>> governance generally, and within ICANN > >>>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this > >>>>>>>>> report. I want to particularly commend the authors > >>>>>>>>> on recognizing that domain names such as .sucks > >>>>>>>>> ?ordinarily come within the scope of protection > >>>>>>>>> offered by the right of freedom of > >>>>>> expression?(?117). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author?s suggestion that a > >>>>>>>>> human rights advisory panel be created within ICANN > >>>>>>>>> (?134). NCSG member Roy Balleste has done some > >>>>>>>>> excellent work in this area and I?d suggest he be > >>>>>>>>> consulted as to whether the specific composition of > >>>>>>>>> the panel suggested in this report is an optimal > >>>>>>>>> one. > >>>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC > >>>>>>>> submission about 18months ago on human rights and > >>>>>>>> ICANN - it's still relevant imho. > >>>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is > >>>>>>>>> the ?sole voice of human rights? within ICANN > >>>>>>>>> (?125). We should politely remind the Council of > >>>>>>>>> Europe that the leading voice for human rights > >>>>>>>>> within ICANN has never been GAC but rather has been > >>>>>>>>> the NCSG, it?s predecessor, and it?s member > >>>>>>>>> constituencies. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for > >>>>>>>> governments, but certainly not for human rights! > >>>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating > >>>>>>>>> the American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN > >>>>>>>>> (?9). As a corporation, it is likely that ICANN is > >>>>>>>>> not obligated to follow the precepts of the Bill of > >>>>>>>>> Rights in it?s relationships with others. I say > >>>>>>>>> likely, because if ICANN were construed by the > >>>>>>>>> courts to be a U.S. government contractor, which in > >>>>>>>>> some ways it currently is, ICANN could be construed > >>>>>>>>> as participating in state action and then would be > >>>>>>>>> obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a > >>>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights > >>>>>>>>> would apply to ICANN in its > >>>>>> relationship with others. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under > >>>>>>>>> American law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a > >>>>>>>>> non-natural person, and does benefit from the > >>>>>>>>> protections offered by Bill of Rights. It is bound > >>>>>>>>> to the Bill of Rights in this way. Further, ICANN > >>>>>>>>> is also protected from government interference > >>>>>>>>> through the Declaration of Rights of the > >>>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article > >>>>>>>>> 1), one of the most comprehensive statutory grants > >>>>>>>>> of rights that exist in the world. These are > >>>>>>>>> important considerations as we debate the future > >>>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. > >>>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law > >>>>>>>> dragons, i think a key question is also how the > >>>>>>>> international obligations of the US goverment relate > >>>>>>>> to a corporation such as ICANN > >>>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than > >>>>>>>>> trademark law be considered to ?address speech > >>>>>>>>> rights? (?117) is welcome, with the caveat that any > >>>>>>>>> such model must expand freedom of expression and > >>>>>>>>> not further restrict it. As bad as the trademark > >>>>>>>>> maximalist model we now have is, there are many > >>>>>>>>> legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to > >>>>>>>>> adhere to, and open-ended recommendations in this > >>>>>>>>> regard should best be avoided lest they be used by > >>>>>>>>> those favoring a more restrictive > >>>>>> speech model. > >>>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas > >>>>>>>> here ... via the shared doc? > >>>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining > >>>>>>>>> and actualizing in policy the term ?public > >>>>>>>>> interest? (?115). As they acknowledge, it is a > >>>>>>>>> vague term ?providing neither guidance nor > >>>>>>>>> constraint on ICANN?s > >>>>>> actions? > >>>>>>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to ?flesh out > >>>>>>>>> the concept? of global public interest to > >>>>>>>>> strengthen accountability and transparency within > >>>>>>>>> ICANN (?115). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I?d suggest we move away from use of the term > >>>>>>>>> ?public interest? in all regards, as it?s imprecise > >>>>>>>>> definition leads to more problems than it solves. > >>>>>>>>> I?m particularly nonplused by the positioning of > >>>>>>>>> the concepts of accountability and transparency as > >>>>>>>>> a seeming subset of > >>>>>> ?public interest? > >>>>>>>>> (115). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN > >>>>>>>>> needs to embrace regardless of the ?public > >>>>>>>>> interest?, whatever it is. These twin concepts > >>>>>>>>> strengthen both the ICANN community and ICANN > >>>>>>>>> corporate. An attitude that transparency and > >>>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to > >>>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public > >>>>>>>>> interest) should be rejected in favor of an > >>>>>>>>> acknowledgement that such processes strengthen > >>>>>>>>> ICANN internally. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous ?public interest? is > >>>>>>>>> welcome, but the principle reason for ICANN to > >>>>>>>>> conduct it?s affairs in a transparent and > >>>>>>>>> accountable manner is that it strengthens both > >>>>>>>>> ICANN the institution and ICANN the community. It > >>>>>>>>> is self-interest, not public interest, which should > >>>>>>>>> drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent > >>>>>>>>> and accountable as possible. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that > >>>>>>>>> accountability and transparency are dependent > >>>>>>>>> variables subject to whatever it is that ?public > >>>>>>>>> interest? is determined to be. They stand on their > >>>>>>>>> own. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and > >>>>>>>> accountable as possible and I agree that transparency > >>>>>>>> and accountability should not be dependent variables, > >>>>>>>> but I don't have the same negative reaction to > >>>>>>>> "public interest" - on the contrary, I find it a > >>>>>>>> useful concept, especially in administrative law as a > >>>>>>>> way to counter the power imbalances between private > >>>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which > >>>>>>>> States have obligations to protect - also because the > >>>>>>>> notion of public law and State obligations in the > >>>>>>>> public arena is a core component of the international > >>>>>>>> human rights framework (which distinguishes between > >>>>>>>> public and private law for example). So I would not > >>>>>>>> want to negate it in the context of responding to the > >>>>>>>> CoE paper nor in thinking through how this is > >>>>>>>> relevant to ICANN. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors > >>>>>>>>> to position ?hate speech? as an accepted derogation > >>>>>>>>> from free expression norms. This is not something > >>>>>>>>> that is generally accepted in the human rights > >>>>>>>>> community, but rather is a controversial notion > >>>>>>>>> that provokes rather heated and emotional > >>>>>>>>> argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the > >>>>>>>>> guise of obeying human rights norms, should police > >>>>>>>>> speech or in any way deny domain name applications > >>>>>>>>> because they may run afoul of ?hate speech? > >>>>>> principles. > >>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition > >>>>>>>>> of this SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate > >>>>>>>>> content or speech. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not > >>>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any > >>>>>>>>> sort of serious commitment to the principles of > >>>>>>>>> free speech. I know that there are many within our > >>>>>>>>> SG supportive of my views in this regard; I suspect > >>>>>>>>> there may be members that differ. Regardless of > >>>>>>>>> specific views on the issue, I hope we can all > >>>>>>>>> agree that ICANN is not the institution that should > >>>>>>>>> be determining what ?hate speech? is and then > >>>>>>>>> enforcing its > >>>>>> determination. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that ?despite its frequent > >>>>>>>>> use, there is no clear or unique understanding of > >>>>>>>>> what is ?hate speech?, and the definitions and > >>>>>>>>> conceptions vary in different countries? (?45). > >>>>>>>>> They then recognize that the European Court of > >>>>>>>>> Human Rights has not defined the term in order that > >>>>>>>>> it?s reasoning, ?is not confined within definitions > >>>>>>>>> that could limit its action in future cases?(?46). > >>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the issues, the authors > >>>>>>>>> suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with > >>>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I?d suggest that ICANN > >>>>>>>>> should only do so if the same opportunity is given > >>>>>>>>> to intergovernmental organizations from all the > >>>>>> world?s regions. Europe should not receive special > >>>>>> consideration. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to > >>>>>>>>> create unity out of the plurality of opinions and > >>>>>>>>> views relating to the proposed hate speech > >>>>>>>>> derogation from the universally recognized right of > >>>>>>>>> free expression. Upon close scrutiny, though, they > >>>>>>>>> cannot be said to have > >>>>>> accomplished their goal. > >>>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two > >>>>>>>>> of the Additional Protocol to the Budapest > >>>>>>>>> Convention on Cybercrime, as they attempted to > >>>>>>>>> define some portion of ?hate crime?. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part > >>>>>>>>> of the universal human rights acquis. The numbers > >>>>>>>>> are pretty stark: Of the seventeen non Council of > >>>>>>>>> Europe signatories to the Cybercrime Convention > >>>>>>>>> only two have ratified the Additional Protocol. Of > >>>>>>>>> even greater significance, of the forty-seven > >>>>>>>>> members of the Council of Europe only twenty have > >>>>>>>>> signed the Additional Protocol (?45). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the ?hate > >>>>>>>>> speech? derogation, the lack of ratification of the > >>>>>>>>> Additional Protocol suggests severe reservations > >>>>>>>>> about the concept. Certainly the proposed > >>>>>>>>> definition is suspect. This is true even in Europe, > >>>>>>>>> the area of the world where the hate speech > >>>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, > >>>>>>>>> and within the Council of Europe itself. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a > >>>>>>>>> ?balancing? test, the authors recommend that ICANN > >>>>>>>>> ?should ensure that ?hate speech? is not tolerated > >>>>>>>>> in the applied-for gTlds? (?60). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this > >>>>>>>>> recommendation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating > >>>>>>>>> speech. It certainly should not be in the business > >>>>>>>>> of deciding what is or is not hate speech, a > >>>>>>>>> concept with limited international acceptance and a > >>>>>>>>> variable definition, and then prohibiting it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that > >>>>>>>>> puts ICANN in the position of being a censor. This > >>>>>>>>> particular recommendation within this Council Of > >>>>>>>>> Europe report does just that and needs to be > >>>>>>>>> rejected. > >>>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist > >>>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some > >>>>>>>> of which does not - we could talk more offlist about > >>>>>>>> it. I agree on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, > >>>>>>>> but this begs the question of how should human > >>>>>>>> rights, ALL rights, be balanced in the > >>>>>>>> decision-making - on this I would point back to the > >>>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting > >>>>>>>> the rights arguments looked at there and getting GAC > >>>>>>>> members involved in that process, which is one of our > >>>>>>>> longstanding SG positions). maybe there are other > >>>>>>>> ideas here as well ... > >>>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any > >>>>>>>>> suggestion of giving ICANN ?international or > >>>>>>>>> quasi-international status? (?136) and I hope > >>>>>>>>> others will join me, as an SG and individually, in > >>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>> opposition. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joy ?shudders?? at the authors suggestion that the > >>>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red > >>>>>>>>> Crescent societies should serve as a ?source of > >>>>>>>>> inspiration? for ICANN?s future organizational > >>>>>>>>> legal position (?137). I shudder with her. Joy then > >>>>>>>>> suggests that the ILO might ?be a better model?. It > >>>>>>>>> might be, but if ICANN received a status similar to > >>>>>>>>> that of the ILO I respectfully suggest that shudder > >>>>>>>>> rather than support would still be an appropriate > >>>>>>>>> response. > >>>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was > >>>>>>>> simply surprised that the CoE paper did not even > >>>>>>>> mention it - I know some governments are looking at > >>>>>>>> the ILO becuase it is tri-partite (government, > >>>>>>>> employers and worker representation) - and therefore > >>>>>>>> using it to try and persuade other governments that > >>>>>>>> other multi-stakeholder options do exist > >>>>>>>> internationally > >>>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of > >>>>>>>>> privileges and legal immunities. The ILO is > >>>>>>>>> actually a pretty good place to see what these > >>>>>>>>> entail. As a specialized agency of the United > >>>>>>>>> Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 Convention > >>>>>>>>> on Privileges and Immunities which grants, amongst > >>>>>>>>> other benefits: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization > >>>>>>>>> and for its officials in its official acts, with > >>>>>>>>> even greater immunity for executive officials, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical > >>>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special > >>>>>>>>> protection for its communications, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and > >>>>>>>>> its employees, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given > >>>>>>>>> diplomats for those attending organizational > >>>>>>>>> meetings. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The > >>>>>>>>> agreement between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal > >>>>>>>>> Council mandates that the Red Cross receives, > >>>>>>>>> amongst other benefits: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. > >>>>>>>>> This immunity extends to both the organization and > >>>>>>>>> to officials and continues with respect to > >>>>>>>>> officials even after they leave office, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited > >>>>>>>>> about proposals to give it international status. It > >>>>>>>>> is less easy to understand why anyone who is not a > >>>>>>>>> member of the ICANN staff thinks that this is a > >>>>>> good idea. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN > >>>>>>>>> international legal status the authors write, > >>>>>>>>> ?ICANN should be free from risk of dominance by > >>>>>>>>> states, other stakeholders, or even its own staff? > >>>>>>>>> (?136). I agree with the principle but fail to see > >>>>>>>>> how granting ICANN international legal status does > >>>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony > >>>>>>>>> of ICANN staff, making their actions less > >>>>>> transparent and less accountable. > >>>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) > >>>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of > >>>>>>>>> definite external accountability for ICANN are 1) > >>>>>>>>> the NTIA, 2) the attorney general of the State of > >>>>>>>>> California (AG) and the 3) courts, principally > >>>>>>>>> those located in California. As the NTIA withdraws > >>>>>>>>> from oversight the two remaining sources of > >>>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the > >>>>>>>>> courts. Should this CoE proposal for international > >>>>>>>>> status be accepted, in lieu of other changes, there > >>>>>>>>> will be no external control over ICANN. We cannot > >>>>>>>>> support this proposition. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as > >>>>>>>>> a private, not for profit corporation. The authors > >>>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to > >>>>>>>>> this structure. In stating that ICANN has > >>>>>>>>> ?flexibly? met the ?changing needs of the > >>>>>>>>> internet?(?1) the authors implicitly recognize a > >>>>>>>>> value associated more with private corporations > >>>>>>>>> than with those institutions accorded international > >>>>>>>>> status. In using the .XXX decision as an example > >>>>>>>>> where the values of free expression trumped > >>>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should > >>>>>>>>> be noted that some observers, myself included, > >>>>>>>>> believe the Board?s decision in this matter was > >>>>>>>>> caused by fear of losing a lawsuit threatened by > >>>>>>>>> ICM Registry. Immunity from legal process > >>>>>>>>> eliminates this control > >>>>>> mechanism. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily > >>>>>>>>> mean supporting ICANN?s continued corporate > >>>>>>>>> residence in California. I reject the notion, > >>>>>>>>> though, that leaving California necessarily would > >>>>>>>>> make things better from the perspective of civil > >>>>>>>>> society or of the individual user. It would depend > >>>>>>>>> upon the legal structure of the > >>>>>> receiving jurisdiction. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is > >>>>>>>>> a corporate reorganization that would better help > >>>>>>>>> ICANN meet the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: > >>>>>>>>> the cration of membership within ICANN. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Changing ICANN?s corporate structure from that of > >>>>>>>>> a California public benefit corporation without > >>>>>>>>> members to that of a California public benefits > >>>>>>>>> corporation with members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the > >>>>>>>>> California Corporations Code, would do a far better > >>>>>>>>> job of creating a truly responsive and democratic > >>>>>>>>> ICANN than granting ICANN international status > >>>>>>>>> would. A more comprehensive discussion of this > >>>>>>>>> concept can be found in my 27 June post on > >>>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on > >>>>>> this list. > >>>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look > >>>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special > >>>>>>>>> international legal status for ICANN would somewhat > >>>>>>>>> entrench the organization, and not in a good way. > >>>>>>>>> None of us know what the communications landscape > >>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>> look like in a decade. > >>>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block > >>>>>>>>> chain technology, or technologies not yet dreamt > >>>>>>>>> of, will obviate the need for a central naming and > >>>>>>>>> addressing authority. It is reasonable to think > >>>>>>>>> that an entity with international legal status > >>>>>>>>> would be more likely to try to cling to it?s > >>>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private > >>>>>>>>> corporation responsive to its members. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they > >>>>>>>>> will provide a further basis for discussion. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Indeed ! > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ed ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy > >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 18 Jul > >>>>>>>>> 2014 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to > >>>>>>>>> comments > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary > >>>>>>>>> thoughts after some discussion in APC > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically > >>>>>>>>> saying that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling > >>>>>>>>> human rights obligations and that private sector, > >>>>>>>>> intellectual property and and law enforcement > >>>>>>>>> interests have been weighed too heavily in the > >>>>>>>>> balance of decision-making to the detriment of > >>>>>>>>> human rights and other stakeholders, including > >>>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not > >>>>>>>>> entirely new) points - some reflections for working > >>>>>>>>> up to a possible submission: + I think this paper > >>>>>>>>> is evidence that discourse is moving beyond > >>>>>> "whether" > >>>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making > >>>>>>>>> (the previous paper I contributed to) and more > >>>>>>>>> specifically into "how" in a very practical way - > >>>>>>>>> that is excellent and should be welcomed - the > >>>>>>>>> clear link to human rights in NETMundial and > >>>>>>>>> related documents seems to be tipping the human > >>>>>>>>> rights discussion - that is also really positive + > >>>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in > >>>>>>>>> specific ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up > >>>>>>>>> deficiencies in both the standards and processes > >>>>>>>>> ICANN is using - The paper does mention social and > >>>>>>>>> cultural rights but only in passing in relation to > >>>>>>>>> the community application dotgay, so I think this > >>>>>>>>> makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights > >>>>>>>>> timely and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + > >>>>>>>>> several parts of the analysis and of the > >>>>>>>>> recommendations were + already made by the Non > >>>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency in a submission > >>>>>>>>> developed in 2013 (one > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN > >>>>>>>>> on human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see > >>>>>>>>> that paper cited - we should point out this > >>>>>>>>> connection in making comments + clearly governments > >>>>>>>>> are reaching for the human rights framework to > >>>>>>>>> challenge the behaviour of other governments (as in > >>>>>>>>> relation the law enforcement and the registrar > >>>>>>>>> accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is > >>>>>>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed > >>>>>>>>> between and among governments - it suggests there > >>>>>>>>> is a lot of discussion going on behind GAC's closed > >>>>>>>>> doors on this.... I really like the references to > >>>>>>>>> the UN resolutions internet rights - it is good to > >>>>>>>>> see this jurisprudence emerging. + there is > >>>>>>>>> inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies to > >>>>>>>>> + business - not just business interests in ICANN > >>>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such > >>>>>>>>> as registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - > >>>>>>>>> Anriette raised these points and I think we need to > >>>>>>>>> think through how to respond on this - especially > >>>>>>>>> on the human rights and business rules that were > >>>>>>>>> developed in the UN + the analysis and > >>>>>>>>> recommendations on community applications is very > >>>>>>>>> + useful and I strongly support this aspect + the > >>>>>>>>> paper recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal > >>>>>>>>> basis to + include human rights in its bylaws - > >>>>>>>>> that is good - but they should also become a member > >>>>>>>>> of the GNI: Rafik Dammak and others have been > >>>>>>>>> calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN board has > >>>>>>>>> actively opposed that step. so we can raise that + > >>>>>>>>> also recommends looking at the Red Cross as > >>>>>>>>> possible inspiration + for a model - that made me > >>>>>>>>> shudder give how the RC has behaved in policy > >>>>>>>>> making in > >>>>>> ICANN. > >>>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must > >>>>>>>>> respond on that specific > >>>>>> point. > >>>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and > >>>>>>>>> challenging issues is + trying to define the public > >>>>>>>>> interest aspects of ICANN's role and also GAC's > >>>>>>>>> responsibilities - i think it's useful to raise > >>>>>>>>> this again and try to squarely address it and there > >>>>>>>>> are some options (the paper recommends an expert > >>>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights > >>>>>>>>> impact assessment of policy proposals - i think we > >>>>>>>>> could also revive that idea..... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi > >>>>>>>>> all, Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few > >>>>>>>>> others volunteered to work on a draft contribution > >>>>>>>>> with comments and suggestions about CoE document. > >>>>>>>>> Joy, your involvement is super important. Shall we > >>>>>>>>> start to get it going? Best, Mar?lia > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment > >>>>>>>>> period- and great that they took it up. And a > >>>>>>>>> follow up event in LA would be excellent - I am > >>>>>>>>> sure APC would want to support it. I do hope it > >>>>>>>>> hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi > >>>>>>>>> Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I?m glad Lee did this, as it?s not COE?s normal > >>>>>>>>> procedure at all. We suggested they try it at our > >>>>>>>>> meeting with them in London. We also agreed to > >>>>>>>>> propose a follow up event for LA. It?d be good to > >>>>>>>>> have our own position on paper prior. Since the > >>>>>>>>> paper may have screwed Thomas? campaign for GAC > >>>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Bill > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - > >>>>>>>>> sorry it has taken me a while to get back on this, > >>>>>>>>> I've been away from the office a while and it's > >>>>>>>>> taken a while to catch up .... Thanks also Milton > >>>>>>>>> for your blog post about the paper - I agree with > >>>>>>>>> most of your comments. There are quite a few > >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any > >>>>>>>>> discussion at the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG > >>>>>>>>> response? I note that some of the points and > >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper were previously > >>>>>>>>> covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in > >>>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work > >>>>>>>>> in any follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to > >>>>>>>>> help with). Cheers Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human > >>>>>>>>> Rights > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > Is on line and open to comments. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> avri > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** > >>>>>>>>> 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 Sep 18 14:39:59 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:39:59 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Same here. Thanks. Amr On Sep 18, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > As do I. > > Ed > > -----Original Message----- > From: avri doria > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:16:47 -0400 > Subject: Re: Fwd: [] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair > and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair > >> I support that. >> Avri >> >> >> avri >> >> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device >> >>
-------- Original message --------
From: David Cake >>
Date:09/17/2014 11:05 PM >> (GMT-05:00)
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] FW: CPH Nomination of >> Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH >> Vice Chair
>>
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.? >> From lanfran Thu Sep 18 15:16:33 2014 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:16:33 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Process Question: starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <541ACD21.8070505@yorku.ca> Seeking Information: NPOC has assembled a list of three candidates it will nominate for consideration for this position. *What is the time line for submitting nominations?* >> >> b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative on >> the AGC (assumming >> there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) >> Sam Lanfranco, Chair NPOC Policy Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Sep 18 15:41:02 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:41:02 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Process Question: starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: <541ACD21.8070505@yorku.ca> References: <541ACD21.8070505@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi Sam, As I explained to you previously, constituencies dont make nominations. When there will be the call for candidates any NCSG member can nominate or self-nominate e.g. the NCSG election . For the timeframe, if we get the process agreed we can start it next week for 7 days. That is my suggestion. Rafik On Sep 18, 2014 9:15 PM, "Sam Lanfranco" wrote: > Seeking Information: > > NPOC has assembled a list of three candidates it will nominate for > consideration for this position. > *What is the time line for submitting nominations?* > > >>>>> b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative on the AGC (assumming >>>>> there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) >>>>> >>>> > Sam Lanfranco, Chair > NPOC Policy Committee > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Sep 18 15:49:21 2014 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:49:21 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Process Question: starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group Message-ID: Hi, Not to be too contrarian, while we may not require constituencies to nominate, there is no chartered reason why they can't. I wonder at the wisdom of nominating 3 for one spot, but no rules against that either. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message --------
From: Rafik Dammak
Date:09/18/2014 8:41 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Sam Lanfranco
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Process Question: starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group
Hi Sam, As I explained to you previously, constituencies dont make nominations. When there will be the call for candidates any NCSG member can nominate or self-nominate e.g. the NCSG election . For the timeframe, if we get the process agreed we can start it next week for 7 days. That is my suggestion. Rafik On Sep 18, 2014 9:15 PM, "Sam Lanfranco" wrote: Seeking Information: NPOC has assembled a list of three candidates it will nominate for consideration for this position. What is the time line for submitting nominations? b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative on the AGC (assumming there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) Sam Lanfranco, Chair NPOC Policy Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Thu Sep 18 16:32:08 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:32:08 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BB71C6.2020108@apc.org> <28BD6CA3-881D-4550-9B70-3913A850D455@gmail.com> <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> Message-ID: Thank you Rafik and thank you very much Gabrielle and all who worked on the drafting. I endorse this document. I only made one minor suggestion regarding consistency. Best, Mar?lia On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with review and > endorsement? > Thanks, > > Rafik > On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin" > wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments on the COE >> report for your consideration. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >> >> All best, >> >> Gabrielle >> ________________________________________ >> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Avri >> Doria [avri at ACM.ORG] >> Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52 >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments >> >> Hi, >> >> I am currently doing a edit pass though the document. By and large I >> agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments. >> >> There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal Status. >> this reads like an America overall forever clause. I think that >> becoming an international organization has been studied, is feasible >> and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO. I think it needs >> to be studied further especially once we have understood the >> parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship. >> >> I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause. I think >> that this also needs further discussion to deal with the tussle among >> rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US >> trade-off. I recommend leaving this this out too. >> >> I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection >> concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the stmt >> would be stronger standing alone without the debatable clauses being >> included in the doc. >> >> As it stands now, the document does not have my support. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote: >> > Thanks, folks. I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten up the >> > lingo on the doc. The statement looks great to me and ready to go. >> > And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors! Well >> > done! >> > >> > Thank you, Robin >> > >> > >> > On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Niels, >> >> >> >> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and comments >> >> and I think that is partly done. since were are late for >> >> submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so we can >> >> submit the comment. the comment link >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever >> >> : >> >> >> > Dear Rafik, >> > >> > Has this been submitted? >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Niels >> > >> > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital >> > >> > Article 19 www.article19.org >> > >> > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> > 68E9 >> > >> > On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>>>> Hi Gabrielle, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at >> >>>>> perfect time just before IGF and the session there >> >>>>> organized by council of europe about the report (Details >> >>>>> shared by Bill few days ago) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Rafik >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin >> >>>>> : >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi all >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a >> >>>>>> go at summarising the various comments that have been >> >>>>>> made by various NCSG members about the COE report on >> >>>>>> human rights. Here is a draft: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > >> > >> Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is anything else I >> >>>>>> can do to help. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> All the best, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Gabrielle >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy [mailto:joy at apc.org] >> >>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; >> >>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE Doc open >> >>>>>> to comments >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee >> >>>>>> Hibbard at Council of Europe on the deadline for >> >>>>>> comments. He's noted they are aiming for a compilation of >> >>>>>> comments by 8 September. We should try to finalise sooner >> >>>>>> if we can, though, and I'll aim to take another look at >> >>>>>> the shared document later this week. Cheers Joy On >> >>>>>> 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: >> >>>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when >> >>>>>>> the comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On >> >>>>>>> 23/07/2014 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Hi all >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the >> >>>>>>>> comments on the COE >> >>>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too >> >>>>>> but I won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us >> >>>>>>>> going if we have a >> >>>>>> document that others can start working on based on >> >>>>>> comments already received, so here is a link to a >> >>>>>> googledoc where I have just reproduced Ed, Joy and >> >>>>>> Milton's contributions. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>> >> ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems >> >>>>>>>> with the document. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> All best, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ >> >>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on >> >>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG] Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 >> >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE >> >>>>>>>> Doc open to comments >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work >> >>>>>>>> through of the document in detail - that is extremely >> >>>>>>>> helpful! Shall we start a shared document and begin >> >>>>>>>> building the submission based on these and >> >>>>>> other inputs? >> >>>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and >> >>>>>>>> develop a response soon .. also, i am still mulling >> >>>>>>>> over your points, Ed, but a few responses below .... >> >>>>>>>> thanks again! Joy >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and >> >>>>>>>>> erudite analysis. A few things I?d like to offer >> >>>>>>>>> for consideration, in response both to Joy?s post >> >>>>>>>>> and to the CoE document itself: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of >> >>>>>>>>> Joy?s recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join >> >>>>>>>>> the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I probably >> >>>>>>>>> still am. However, I?m a bit concerned about the >> >>>>>>>>> resignation of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation >> >>>>>>>>> (EFF) >> >>>>>> from the GNI in October of last year. >> >>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> join the GNI, I?d suggest that we reach out to our >> >>>>>>>>> EFF members and determine their views on the >> >>>>>>>>> matter, given the action of their parent >> >>>>>>>>> organization. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I >> >>>>>>>> can also ask Katitza Rodriguez >> >>>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both >> >>>>>>>>> for their work on this report and for the overall >> >>>>>>>>> effort of the CoE in promoting the inclusion of >> >>>>>>>>> human rights considerations within internet >> >>>>>>>>> governance generally, and within ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this >> >>>>>>>>> report. I want to particularly commend the authors >> >>>>>>>>> on recognizing that domain names such as .sucks >> >>>>>>>>> ?ordinarily come within the scope of protection >> >>>>>>>>> offered by the right of freedom of >> >>>>>> expression?(?117). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> +1 >> >>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author?s suggestion that a >> >>>>>>>>> human rights advisory panel be created within ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> (?134). NCSG member Roy Balleste has done some >> >>>>>>>>> excellent work in this area and I?d suggest he be >> >>>>>>>>> consulted as to whether the specific composition of >> >>>>>>>>> the panel suggested in this report is an optimal >> >>>>>>>>> one. >> >>>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC >> >>>>>>>> submission about 18months ago on human rights and >> >>>>>>>> ICANN - it's still relevant imho. >> >>>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is >> >>>>>>>>> the ?sole voice of human rights? within ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> (?125). We should politely remind the Council of >> >>>>>>>>> Europe that the leading voice for human rights >> >>>>>>>>> within ICANN has never been GAC but rather has been >> >>>>>>>>> the NCSG, it?s predecessor, and it?s member >> >>>>>>>>> constituencies. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for >> >>>>>>>> governments, but certainly not for human rights! >> >>>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating >> >>>>>>>>> the American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> (?9). As a corporation, it is likely that ICANN is >> >>>>>>>>> not obligated to follow the precepts of the Bill of >> >>>>>>>>> Rights in it?s relationships with others. I say >> >>>>>>>>> likely, because if ICANN were construed by the >> >>>>>>>>> courts to be a U.S. government contractor, which in >> >>>>>>>>> some ways it currently is, ICANN could be construed >> >>>>>>>>> as participating in state action and then would be >> >>>>>>>>> obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a >> >>>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights >> >>>>>>>>> would apply to ICANN in its >> >>>>>> relationship with others. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under >> >>>>>>>>> American law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a >> >>>>>>>>> non-natural person, and does benefit from the >> >>>>>>>>> protections offered by Bill of Rights. It is bound >> >>>>>>>>> to the Bill of Rights in this way. Further, ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> is also protected from government interference >> >>>>>>>>> through the Declaration of Rights of the >> >>>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article >> >>>>>>>>> 1), one of the most comprehensive statutory grants >> >>>>>>>>> of rights that exist in the world. These are >> >>>>>>>>> important considerations as we debate the future >> >>>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. >> >>>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law >> >>>>>>>> dragons, i think a key question is also how the >> >>>>>>>> international obligations of the US goverment relate >> >>>>>>>> to a corporation such as ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than >> >>>>>>>>> trademark law be considered to ?address speech >> >>>>>>>>> rights? (?117) is welcome, with the caveat that any >> >>>>>>>>> such model must expand freedom of expression and >> >>>>>>>>> not further restrict it. As bad as the trademark >> >>>>>>>>> maximalist model we now have is, there are many >> >>>>>>>>> legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to >> >>>>>>>>> adhere to, and open-ended recommendations in this >> >>>>>>>>> regard should best be avoided lest they be used by >> >>>>>>>>> those favoring a more restrictive >> >>>>>> speech model. >> >>>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas >> >>>>>>>> here ... via the shared doc? >> >>>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining >> >>>>>>>>> and actualizing in policy the term ?public >> >>>>>>>>> interest? (?115). As they acknowledge, it is a >> >>>>>>>>> vague term ?providing neither guidance nor >> >>>>>>>>> constraint on ICANN?s >> >>>>>> actions? >> >>>>>>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to ?flesh out >> >>>>>>>>> the concept? of global public interest to >> >>>>>>>>> strengthen accountability and transparency within >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN (?115). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I?d suggest we move away from use of the term >> >>>>>>>>> ?public interest? in all regards, as it?s imprecise >> >>>>>>>>> definition leads to more problems than it solves. >> >>>>>>>>> I?m particularly nonplused by the positioning of >> >>>>>>>>> the concepts of accountability and transparency as >> >>>>>>>>> a seeming subset of >> >>>>>> ?public interest? >> >>>>>>>>> (115). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> needs to embrace regardless of the ?public >> >>>>>>>>> interest?, whatever it is. These twin concepts >> >>>>>>>>> strengthen both the ICANN community and ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> corporate. An attitude that transparency and >> >>>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to >> >>>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public >> >>>>>>>>> interest) should be rejected in favor of an >> >>>>>>>>> acknowledgement that such processes strengthen >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN internally. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous ?public interest? is >> >>>>>>>>> welcome, but the principle reason for ICANN to >> >>>>>>>>> conduct it?s affairs in a transparent and >> >>>>>>>>> accountable manner is that it strengthens both >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN the institution and ICANN the community. It >> >>>>>>>>> is self-interest, not public interest, which should >> >>>>>>>>> drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent >> >>>>>>>>> and accountable as possible. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that >> >>>>>>>>> accountability and transparency are dependent >> >>>>>>>>> variables subject to whatever it is that ?public >> >>>>>>>>> interest? is determined to be. They stand on their >> >>>>>>>>> own. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and >> >>>>>>>> accountable as possible and I agree that transparency >> >>>>>>>> and accountability should not be dependent variables, >> >>>>>>>> but I don't have the same negative reaction to >> >>>>>>>> "public interest" - on the contrary, I find it a >> >>>>>>>> useful concept, especially in administrative law as a >> >>>>>>>> way to counter the power imbalances between private >> >>>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which >> >>>>>>>> States have obligations to protect - also because the >> >>>>>>>> notion of public law and State obligations in the >> >>>>>>>> public arena is a core component of the international >> >>>>>>>> human rights framework (which distinguishes between >> >>>>>>>> public and private law for example). So I would not >> >>>>>>>> want to negate it in the context of responding to the >> >>>>>>>> CoE paper nor in thinking through how this is >> >>>>>>>> relevant to ICANN. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors >> >>>>>>>>> to position ?hate speech? as an accepted derogation >> >>>>>>>>> from free expression norms. This is not something >> >>>>>>>>> that is generally accepted in the human rights >> >>>>>>>>> community, but rather is a controversial notion >> >>>>>>>>> that provokes rather heated and emotional >> >>>>>>>>> argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the >> >>>>>>>>> guise of obeying human rights norms, should police >> >>>>>>>>> speech or in any way deny domain name applications >> >>>>>>>>> because they may run afoul of ?hate speech? >> >>>>>> principles. >> >>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition >> >>>>>>>>> of this SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate >> >>>>>>>>> content or speech. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not >> >>>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any >> >>>>>>>>> sort of serious commitment to the principles of >> >>>>>>>>> free speech. I know that there are many within our >> >>>>>>>>> SG supportive of my views in this regard; I suspect >> >>>>>>>>> there may be members that differ. Regardless of >> >>>>>>>>> specific views on the issue, I hope we can all >> >>>>>>>>> agree that ICANN is not the institution that should >> >>>>>>>>> be determining what ?hate speech? is and then >> >>>>>>>>> enforcing its >> >>>>>> determination. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that ?despite its frequent >> >>>>>>>>> use, there is no clear or unique understanding of >> >>>>>>>>> what is ?hate speech?, and the definitions and >> >>>>>>>>> conceptions vary in different countries? (?45). >> >>>>>>>>> They then recognize that the European Court of >> >>>>>>>>> Human Rights has not defined the term in order that >> >>>>>>>>> it?s reasoning, ?is not confined within definitions >> >>>>>>>>> that could limit its action in future cases?(?46). >> >>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the issues, the authors >> >>>>>>>>> suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with >> >>>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I?d suggest that ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> should only do so if the same opportunity is given >> >>>>>>>>> to intergovernmental organizations from all the >> >>>>>> world?s regions. Europe should not receive special >> >>>>>> consideration. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to >> >>>>>>>>> create unity out of the plurality of opinions and >> >>>>>>>>> views relating to the proposed hate speech >> >>>>>>>>> derogation from the universally recognized right of >> >>>>>>>>> free expression. Upon close scrutiny, though, they >> >>>>>>>>> cannot be said to have >> >>>>>> accomplished their goal. >> >>>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two >> >>>>>>>>> of the Additional Protocol to the Budapest >> >>>>>>>>> Convention on Cybercrime, as they attempted to >> >>>>>>>>> define some portion of ?hate crime?. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part >> >>>>>>>>> of the universal human rights acquis. The numbers >> >>>>>>>>> are pretty stark: Of the seventeen non Council of >> >>>>>>>>> Europe signatories to the Cybercrime Convention >> >>>>>>>>> only two have ratified the Additional Protocol. Of >> >>>>>>>>> even greater significance, of the forty-seven >> >>>>>>>>> members of the Council of Europe only twenty have >> >>>>>>>>> signed the Additional Protocol (?45). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the ?hate >> >>>>>>>>> speech? derogation, the lack of ratification of the >> >>>>>>>>> Additional Protocol suggests severe reservations >> >>>>>>>>> about the concept. Certainly the proposed >> >>>>>>>>> definition is suspect. This is true even in Europe, >> >>>>>>>>> the area of the world where the hate speech >> >>>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, >> >>>>>>>>> and within the Council of Europe itself. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a >> >>>>>>>>> ?balancing? test, the authors recommend that ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> ?should ensure that ?hate speech? is not tolerated >> >>>>>>>>> in the applied-for gTlds? (?60). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this >> >>>>>>>>> recommendation. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating >> >>>>>>>>> speech. It certainly should not be in the business >> >>>>>>>>> of deciding what is or is not hate speech, a >> >>>>>>>>> concept with limited international acceptance and a >> >>>>>>>>> variable definition, and then prohibiting it. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that >> >>>>>>>>> puts ICANN in the position of being a censor. This >> >>>>>>>>> particular recommendation within this Council Of >> >>>>>>>>> Europe report does just that and needs to be >> >>>>>>>>> rejected. >> >>>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist >> >>>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some >> >>>>>>>> of which does not - we could talk more offlist about >> >>>>>>>> it. I agree on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, >> >>>>>>>> but this begs the question of how should human >> >>>>>>>> rights, ALL rights, be balanced in the >> >>>>>>>> decision-making - on this I would point back to the >> >>>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting >> >>>>>>>> the rights arguments looked at there and getting GAC >> >>>>>>>> members involved in that process, which is one of our >> >>>>>>>> longstanding SG positions). maybe there are other >> >>>>>>>> ideas here as well ... >> >>>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any >> >>>>>>>>> suggestion of giving ICANN ?international or >> >>>>>>>>> quasi-international status? (?136) and I hope >> >>>>>>>>> others will join me, as an SG and individually, in >> >>>>>>>>> this >> >>>>>> opposition. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Joy ?shudders?? at the authors suggestion that the >> >>>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red >> >>>>>>>>> Crescent societies should serve as a ?source of >> >>>>>>>>> inspiration? for ICANN?s future organizational >> >>>>>>>>> legal position (?137). I shudder with her. Joy then >> >>>>>>>>> suggests that the ILO might ?be a better model?. It >> >>>>>>>>> might be, but if ICANN received a status similar to >> >>>>>>>>> that of the ILO I respectfully suggest that shudder >> >>>>>>>>> rather than support would still be an appropriate >> >>>>>>>>> response. >> >>>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was >> >>>>>>>> simply surprised that the CoE paper did not even >> >>>>>>>> mention it - I know some governments are looking at >> >>>>>>>> the ILO becuase it is tri-partite (government, >> >>>>>>>> employers and worker representation) - and therefore >> >>>>>>>> using it to try and persuade other governments that >> >>>>>>>> other multi-stakeholder options do exist >> >>>>>>>> internationally >> >>>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of >> >>>>>>>>> privileges and legal immunities. The ILO is >> >>>>>>>>> actually a pretty good place to see what these >> >>>>>>>>> entail. As a specialized agency of the United >> >>>>>>>>> Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 Convention >> >>>>>>>>> on Privileges and Immunities which grants, amongst >> >>>>>>>>> other benefits: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization >> >>>>>>>>> and for its officials in its official acts, with >> >>>>>>>>> even greater immunity for executive officials, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical >> >>>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special >> >>>>>>>>> protection for its communications, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and >> >>>>>>>>> its employees, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given >> >>>>>>>>> diplomats for those attending organizational >> >>>>>>>>> meetings. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The >> >>>>>>>>> agreement between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal >> >>>>>>>>> Council mandates that the Red Cross receives, >> >>>>>>>>> amongst other benefits: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. >> >>>>>>>>> This immunity extends to both the organization and >> >>>>>>>>> to officials and continues with respect to >> >>>>>>>>> officials even after they leave office, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited >> >>>>>>>>> about proposals to give it international status. It >> >>>>>>>>> is less easy to understand why anyone who is not a >> >>>>>>>>> member of the ICANN staff thinks that this is a >> >>>>>> good idea. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> international legal status the authors write, >> >>>>>>>>> ?ICANN should be free from risk of dominance by >> >>>>>>>>> states, other stakeholders, or even its own staff? >> >>>>>>>>> (?136). I agree with the principle but fail to see >> >>>>>>>>> how granting ICANN international legal status does >> >>>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony >> >>>>>>>>> of ICANN staff, making their actions less >> >>>>>> transparent and less accountable. >> >>>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) >> >>>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of >> >>>>>>>>> definite external accountability for ICANN are 1) >> >>>>>>>>> the NTIA, 2) the attorney general of the State of >> >>>>>>>>> California (AG) and the 3) courts, principally >> >>>>>>>>> those located in California. As the NTIA withdraws >> >>>>>>>>> from oversight the two remaining sources of >> >>>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the >> >>>>>>>>> courts. Should this CoE proposal for international >> >>>>>>>>> status be accepted, in lieu of other changes, there >> >>>>>>>>> will be no external control over ICANN. We cannot >> >>>>>>>>> support this proposition. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as >> >>>>>>>>> a private, not for profit corporation. The authors >> >>>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to >> >>>>>>>>> this structure. In stating that ICANN has >> >>>>>>>>> ?flexibly? met the ?changing needs of the >> >>>>>>>>> internet?(?1) the authors implicitly recognize a >> >>>>>>>>> value associated more with private corporations >> >>>>>>>>> than with those institutions accorded international >> >>>>>>>>> status. In using the .XXX decision as an example >> >>>>>>>>> where the values of free expression trumped >> >>>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should >> >>>>>>>>> be noted that some observers, myself included, >> >>>>>>>>> believe the Board?s decision in this matter was >> >>>>>>>>> caused by fear of losing a lawsuit threatened by >> >>>>>>>>> ICM Registry. Immunity from legal process >> >>>>>>>>> eliminates this control >> >>>>>> mechanism. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily >> >>>>>>>>> mean supporting ICANN?s continued corporate >> >>>>>>>>> residence in California. I reject the notion, >> >>>>>>>>> though, that leaving California necessarily would >> >>>>>>>>> make things better from the perspective of civil >> >>>>>>>>> society or of the individual user. It would depend >> >>>>>>>>> upon the legal structure of the >> >>>>>> receiving jurisdiction. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is >> >>>>>>>>> a corporate reorganization that would better help >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN meet the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: >> >>>>>>>>> the cration of membership within ICANN. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Changing ICANN?s corporate structure from that of >> >>>>>>>>> a California public benefit corporation without >> >>>>>>>>> members to that of a California public benefits >> >>>>>>>>> corporation with members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the >> >>>>>>>>> California Corporations Code, would do a far better >> >>>>>>>>> job of creating a truly responsive and democratic >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN than granting ICANN international status >> >>>>>>>>> would. A more comprehensive discussion of this >> >>>>>>>>> concept can be found in my 27 June post on >> >>>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on >> >>>>>> this list. >> >>>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look >> >>>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special >> >>>>>>>>> international legal status for ICANN would somewhat >> >>>>>>>>> entrench the organization, and not in a good way. >> >>>>>>>>> None of us know what the communications landscape >> >>>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>> look like in a decade. >> >>>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block >> >>>>>>>>> chain technology, or technologies not yet dreamt >> >>>>>>>>> of, will obviate the need for a central naming and >> >>>>>>>>> addressing authority. It is reasonable to think >> >>>>>>>>> that an entity with international legal status >> >>>>>>>>> would be more likely to try to cling to it?s >> >>>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private >> >>>>>>>>> corporation responsive to its members. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they >> >>>>>>>>> will provide a further basis for discussion. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Indeed ! >> >>>>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ed ? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy >> >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 18 Jul >> >>>>>>>>> 2014 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to >> >>>>>>>>> comments >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary >> >>>>>>>>> thoughts after some discussion in APC >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically >> >>>>>>>>> saying that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling >> >>>>>>>>> human rights obligations and that private sector, >> >>>>>>>>> intellectual property and and law enforcement >> >>>>>>>>> interests have been weighed too heavily in the >> >>>>>>>>> balance of decision-making to the detriment of >> >>>>>>>>> human rights and other stakeholders, including >> >>>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not >> >>>>>>>>> entirely new) points - some reflections for working >> >>>>>>>>> up to a possible submission: + I think this paper >> >>>>>>>>> is evidence that discourse is moving beyond >> >>>>>> "whether" >> >>>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making >> >>>>>>>>> (the previous paper I contributed to) and more >> >>>>>>>>> specifically into "how" in a very practical way - >> >>>>>>>>> that is excellent and should be welcomed - the >> >>>>>>>>> clear link to human rights in NETMundial and >> >>>>>>>>> related documents seems to be tipping the human >> >>>>>>>>> rights discussion - that is also really positive + >> >>>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in >> >>>>>>>>> specific ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up >> >>>>>>>>> deficiencies in both the standards and processes >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN is using - The paper does mention social and >> >>>>>>>>> cultural rights but only in passing in relation to >> >>>>>>>>> the community application dotgay, so I think this >> >>>>>>>>> makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights >> >>>>>>>>> timely and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + >> >>>>>>>>> several parts of the analysis and of the >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations were + already made by the Non >> >>>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency in a submission >> >>>>>>>>> developed in 2013 (one >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> on human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see >> >>>>>>>>> that paper cited - we should point out this >> >>>>>>>>> connection in making comments + clearly governments >> >>>>>>>>> are reaching for the human rights framework to >> >>>>>>>>> challenge the behaviour of other governments (as in >> >>>>>>>>> relation the law enforcement and the registrar >> >>>>>>>>> accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is >> >>>>>>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed >> >>>>>>>>> between and among governments - it suggests there >> >>>>>>>>> is a lot of discussion going on behind GAC's closed >> >>>>>>>>> doors on this.... I really like the references to >> >>>>>>>>> the UN resolutions internet rights - it is good to >> >>>>>>>>> see this jurisprudence emerging. + there is >> >>>>>>>>> inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies to >> >>>>>>>>> + business - not just business interests in ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such >> >>>>>>>>> as registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - >> >>>>>>>>> Anriette raised these points and I think we need to >> >>>>>>>>> think through how to respond on this - especially >> >>>>>>>>> on the human rights and business rules that were >> >>>>>>>>> developed in the UN + the analysis and >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations on community applications is very >> >>>>>>>>> + useful and I strongly support this aspect + the >> >>>>>>>>> paper recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal >> >>>>>>>>> basis to + include human rights in its bylaws - >> >>>>>>>>> that is good - but they should also become a member >> >>>>>>>>> of the GNI: Rafik Dammak and others have been >> >>>>>>>>> calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN board has >> >>>>>>>>> actively opposed that step. so we can raise that + >> >>>>>>>>> also recommends looking at the Red Cross as >> >>>>>>>>> possible inspiration + for a model - that made me >> >>>>>>>>> shudder give how the RC has behaved in policy >> >>>>>>>>> making in >> >>>>>> ICANN. >> >>>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must >> >>>>>>>>> respond on that specific >> >>>>>> point. >> >>>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and >> >>>>>>>>> challenging issues is + trying to define the public >> >>>>>>>>> interest aspects of ICANN's role and also GAC's >> >>>>>>>>> responsibilities - i think it's useful to raise >> >>>>>>>>> this again and try to squarely address it and there >> >>>>>>>>> are some options (the paper recommends an expert >> >>>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights >> >>>>>>>>> impact assessment of policy proposals - i think we >> >>>>>>>>> could also revive that idea..... >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi >> >>>>>>>>> all, Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few >> >>>>>>>>> others volunteered to work on a draft contribution >> >>>>>>>>> with comments and suggestions about CoE document. >> >>>>>>>>> Joy, your involvement is super important. Shall we >> >>>>>>>>> start to get it going? Best, Mar?lia >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment >> >>>>>>>>> period- and great that they took it up. And a >> >>>>>>>>> follow up event in LA would be excellent - I am >> >>>>>>>>> sure APC would want to support it. I do hope it >> >>>>>>>>> hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi >> >>>>>>>>> Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I?m glad Lee did this, as it?s not COE?s normal >> >>>>>>>>> procedure at all. We suggested they try it at our >> >>>>>>>>> meeting with them in London. We also agreed to >> >>>>>>>>> propose a follow up event for LA. It?d be good to >> >>>>>>>>> have our own position on paper prior. Since the >> >>>>>>>>> paper may have screwed Thomas? campaign for GAC >> >>>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Bill >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - >> >>>>>>>>> sorry it has taken me a while to get back on this, >> >>>>>>>>> I've been away from the office a while and it's >> >>>>>>>>> taken a while to catch up .... Thanks also Milton >> >>>>>>>>> for your blog post about the paper - I agree with >> >>>>>>>>> most of your comments. There are quite a few >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any >> >>>>>>>>> discussion at the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG >> >>>>>>>>> response? I note that some of the points and >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper were previously >> >>>>>>>>> covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in >> >>>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work >> >>>>>>>>> in any follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to >> >>>>>>>>> help with). Cheers Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human >> >>>>>>>>> Rights >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> Is on line and open to comments. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> avri >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >> >>>>>>>>> William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer >> >>>>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University >> >>>>>>>>> of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users >> >>>>>>>>> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> >>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >> >>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org >> >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *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 avri Thu Sep 18 16:50:53 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:50:53 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Process Question: starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <541AE33D.5050007@acm.org> Hi, BTW, to be clear, I think that it is still the NCSG PC that will determine which one person we want to put forward for the Accountability Coordination Group (all things being equal and ICANN does not revise the whole plan based on the comments that may come in before the 21st) I just think that whether an individual nominates to the PC, or a constituency nominates to the PC is not the critical issue. avri On 18-Sep-14 08:49, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > Not to be too contrarian, while we may not require constituencies to > nominate, there is no chartered reason why they can't. > > I wonder at the wisdom of nominating 3 for one spot, but no rules > against that either. > > > avri > > Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > >
-------- Original message --------
From: Rafik Dammak >
Date:09/18/2014 8:41 AM > (GMT-05:00)
To: Sam Lanfranco >
Cc: NCSG-Policy >
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Process Question: starting process > of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group >
Hi Sam, > > As I explained to you previously, constituencies dont make > nominations. When there will be the call for candidates any NCSG > member can nominate or self-nominate e.g. the NCSG election . > > For the timeframe, if we get the process agreed we can start it next > week for 7 days. That is my suggestion. > > Rafik > > On Sep 18, 2014 9:15 PM, "Sam Lanfranco" wrote: > Seeking Information: > > NPOC has assembled a list of three candidates it will nominate for > consideration for this position. What is the time line for submitting > nominations? > > > b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative on the AGC > (assumming there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) > > Sam Lanfranco, Chair NPOC Policy Committee > > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From avri Thu Sep 18 17:20:36 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:20:36 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair In-Reply-To: <001301cfd314$7aecf530$70c6df90$@gnso.icann.org> References: <001301cfd314$7aecf530$70c6df90$@gnso.icann.org> Message-ID: <541AEA34.3030309@acm.org> BTW, I think that we, NCSG and NCPH, should endorse Jonathan's nomination. avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:45:08 +0200 From: GNSO Secretariat To: Council GNSO FYI From: Jonathan Robinson Sent: jeudi 18 septembre 2014 08:55 To: 'GNSO Secretariat' Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: RE: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair Thanks Glen, Yes, I accept the nomination and will endeavour to submit the statement by 03 October 2014. Jonathan From: GNSO Secretariat [mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org] Sent: 17 September 2014 23:33 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: FW: CPH Nomination of Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Council Chair and Volker Greimann as CPH Vice Chair Dear Jonathan, You have been duly nominated by the Contracted Parties House for the position of GNSO Council chair. Do you accept the nomination, and if so please submit a candidacy statement in writing to the GNSO Secretariat as soon as possible and not later than 23:59UTC on 03 October2014 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 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.? From rafik.dammak Thu Sep 18 17:55:53 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:55:53 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO council chair/vice-chair Message-ID: 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.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Thu Sep 18 18:12:35 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <541AF663.2040407@acm.org> hi, that is my recommendation. avri On 18-Sep-14 10:55, Rafik Dammak wrote: > 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 > From mariliamaciel Thu Sep 18 18:18:54 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:18:54 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: <541AF663.2040407@acm.org> References: <541AF663.2040407@acm.org> Message-ID: Seems like a good way to go. Mar?lia On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > that is my recommendation. > > avri > > > On 18-Sep-14 10:55, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > 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 > -- *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 lanfran Thu Sep 18 23:50:51 2014 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:50:51 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Process Question: starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: References: <541ACD21.8070505@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <541B45AB.9010904@yorku.ca> Rafik, It makes no difference to the NPOC folk if the process wants individuals making nominations, self-nominations or whatever. We caucus, we discuss, people come forward. By one path of the other several candidates from the NPOC constituency will have their names placed in contention, once there is a known process. Sam L. On 2014-09-18 8:41 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > As I explained to you previously, constituencies dont make > nominations. When there will be the call for candidates any NCSG > member can nominate or self-nominate e.g. the NCSG election . > > For the timeframe, if we get the process agreed we can start it next > week for 7 days. That is my suggestion. > > Rafik > > On Sep 18, 2014 9:15 PM, "Sam Lanfranco" > wrote: > > Seeking Information: > > NPOC has assembled a list of three candidates it will nominate for > consideration for this position. > *What is the time line for submitting nominations?* > >>> >>> b. there is one seat for an NCSG representative >>> on the AGC (assumming >>> there still is an ACG after we finshed the review) >>> > > Sam Lanfranco, Chair > NPOC Policy Committee > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Fri Sep 19 04:07:01 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:07:01 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BB71C6.2020108@apc.org> <28BD6CA3-881D-4550-9B70-3913A850D455@gmail.com> <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> Message-ID: <541B81B5.2030601@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Fri Sep 19 04:30:09 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:30:09 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] starting process of appointment to Accountabilit and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: <54197622.5010702@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <5402B421.3070309@acm.org> <54131A81.9040907@yorku.ca> <54131EFB.90506@acm.org> <54197622.5010702@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <541B8721.1080007@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Sep 19 23:43:01 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:43:01 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BB71C6.2020108@apc.org> <28BD6CA3-881D-4550-9B70-3913A850D455@gmail.com> <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> Message-ID: <541C9555.7070900@acm.org> Hi, I went through it, changed the header from disagreements to concerns as offered by Gabrielle and support NCSg endorsement. avri On 18-Sep-14 09:32, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thank you Rafik and thank you very much Gabrielle and all who worked on the > drafting. > I endorse this document. I only made one minor suggestion regarding > consistency. > Best, > Mar?lia > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with review and >> endorsement? >> Thanks, >> >> Rafik >> On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin" >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments on the COE >>> report for your consideration. >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >>> >>> All best, >>> >>> Gabrielle >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Avri >>> Doria [avri at ACM.ORG] >>> Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52 >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>> Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am currently doing a edit pass though the document. By and large I >>> agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments. >>> >>> There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal Status. >>> this reads like an America overall forever clause. I think that >>> becoming an international organization has been studied, is feasible >>> and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO. I think it needs >>> to be studied further especially once we have understood the >>> parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship. >>> >>> I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause. I think >>> that this also needs further discussion to deal with the tussle among >>> rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US >>> trade-off. I recommend leaving this this out too. >>> >>> I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection >>> concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the stmt >>> would be stronger standing alone without the debatable clauses being >>> included in the doc. >>> >>> As it stands now, the document does not have my support. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> Thanks, folks. I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten up the >>>> lingo on the doc. The statement looks great to me and ready to go. >>>> And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors! Well >>>> done! >>>> >>>> Thank you, Robin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Niels, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and comments >>>>> and I think that is partly done. since were are late for >>>>> submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so we can >>>>> submit the comment. the comment link >>>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever >>>>> : >>>>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >>>> >>>> Has this been submitted? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Niels >>>> >>>> Niels ten Oever Head of Digital >>>> >>>> Article 19 www.article19.org >>>> >>>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >>>> 68E9 >>>> >>>> On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Gabrielle, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at >>>>>>>> perfect time just before IGF and the session there >>>>>>>> organized by council of europe about the report (Details >>>>>>>> shared by Bill few days ago) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin >>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a >>>>>>>>> go at summarising the various comments that have been >>>>>>>>> made by various NCSG members about the COE report on >>>>>>>>> human rights. Here is a draft: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is anything else I >>>>>>>>> can do to help. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All the best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gabrielle >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy [mailto:joy at apc.org] >>>>>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; >>>>>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE Doc open >>>>>>>>> to comments >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee >>>>>>>>> Hibbard at Council of Europe on the deadline for >>>>>>>>> comments. He's noted they are aiming for a compilation of >>>>>>>>> comments by 8 September. We should try to finalise sooner >>>>>>>>> if we can, though, and I'll aim to take another look at >>>>>>>>> the shared document later this week. Cheers Joy On >>>>>>>>> 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when >>>>>>>>>> the comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On >>>>>>>>>> 23/07/2014 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the >>>>>>>>>>> comments on the COE >>>>>>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too >>>>>>>>> but I won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us >>>>>>>>>>> going if we have a >>>>>>>>> document that others can start working on based on >>>>>>>>> comments already received, so here is a link to a >>>>>>>>> googledoc where I have just reproduced Ed, Joy and >>>>>>>>> Milton's contributions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems >>>>>>>>>>> with the document. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on >>>>>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG] Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 >>>>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE >>>>>>>>>>> Doc open to comments >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work >>>>>>>>>>> through of the document in detail - that is extremely >>>>>>>>>>> helpful! Shall we start a shared document and begin >>>>>>>>>>> building the submission based on these and >>>>>>>>> other inputs? >>>>>>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and >>>>>>>>>>> develop a response soon .. also, i am still mulling >>>>>>>>>>> over your points, Ed, but a few responses below .... >>>>>>>>>>> thanks again! Joy >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and >>>>>>>>>>>> erudite analysis. A few things I?d like to offer >>>>>>>>>>>> for consideration, in response both to Joy?s post >>>>>>>>>>>> and to the CoE document itself: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of >>>>>>>>>>>> Joy?s recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join >>>>>>>>>>>> the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I probably >>>>>>>>>>>> still am. However, I?m a bit concerned about the >>>>>>>>>>>> resignation of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation >>>>>>>>>>>> (EFF) >>>>>>>>> from the GNI in October of last year. >>>>>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> join the GNI, I?d suggest that we reach out to our >>>>>>>>>>>> EFF members and determine their views on the >>>>>>>>>>>> matter, given the action of their parent >>>>>>>>>>>> organization. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I >>>>>>>>>>> can also ask Katitza Rodriguez >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both >>>>>>>>>>>> for their work on this report and for the overall >>>>>>>>>>>> effort of the CoE in promoting the inclusion of >>>>>>>>>>>> human rights considerations within internet >>>>>>>>>>>> governance generally, and within ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this >>>>>>>>>>>> report. I want to particularly commend the authors >>>>>>>>>>>> on recognizing that domain names such as .sucks >>>>>>>>>>>> ?ordinarily come within the scope of protection >>>>>>>>>>>> offered by the right of freedom of >>>>>>>>> expression?(?117). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author?s suggestion that a >>>>>>>>>>>> human rights advisory panel be created within ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> (?134). NCSG member Roy Balleste has done some >>>>>>>>>>>> excellent work in this area and I?d suggest he be >>>>>>>>>>>> consulted as to whether the specific composition of >>>>>>>>>>>> the panel suggested in this report is an optimal >>>>>>>>>>>> one. >>>>>>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC >>>>>>>>>>> submission about 18months ago on human rights and >>>>>>>>>>> ICANN - it's still relevant imho. >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is >>>>>>>>>>>> the ?sole voice of human rights? within ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> (?125). We should politely remind the Council of >>>>>>>>>>>> Europe that the leading voice for human rights >>>>>>>>>>>> within ICANN has never been GAC but rather has been >>>>>>>>>>>> the NCSG, it?s predecessor, and it?s member >>>>>>>>>>>> constituencies. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for >>>>>>>>>>> governments, but certainly not for human rights! >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating >>>>>>>>>>>> the American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> (?9). As a corporation, it is likely that ICANN is >>>>>>>>>>>> not obligated to follow the precepts of the Bill of >>>>>>>>>>>> Rights in it?s relationships with others. I say >>>>>>>>>>>> likely, because if ICANN were construed by the >>>>>>>>>>>> courts to be a U.S. government contractor, which in >>>>>>>>>>>> some ways it currently is, ICANN could be construed >>>>>>>>>>>> as participating in state action and then would be >>>>>>>>>>>> obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a >>>>>>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights >>>>>>>>>>>> would apply to ICANN in its >>>>>>>>> relationship with others. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under >>>>>>>>>>>> American law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a >>>>>>>>>>>> non-natural person, and does benefit from the >>>>>>>>>>>> protections offered by Bill of Rights. It is bound >>>>>>>>>>>> to the Bill of Rights in this way. Further, ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> is also protected from government interference >>>>>>>>>>>> through the Declaration of Rights of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article >>>>>>>>>>>> 1), one of the most comprehensive statutory grants >>>>>>>>>>>> of rights that exist in the world. These are >>>>>>>>>>>> important considerations as we debate the future >>>>>>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. >>>>>>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law >>>>>>>>>>> dragons, i think a key question is also how the >>>>>>>>>>> international obligations of the US goverment relate >>>>>>>>>>> to a corporation such as ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than >>>>>>>>>>>> trademark law be considered to ?address speech >>>>>>>>>>>> rights? (?117) is welcome, with the caveat that any >>>>>>>>>>>> such model must expand freedom of expression and >>>>>>>>>>>> not further restrict it. As bad as the trademark >>>>>>>>>>>> maximalist model we now have is, there are many >>>>>>>>>>>> legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to >>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to, and open-ended recommendations in this >>>>>>>>>>>> regard should best be avoided lest they be used by >>>>>>>>>>>> those favoring a more restrictive >>>>>>>>> speech model. >>>>>>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas >>>>>>>>>>> here ... via the shared doc? >>>>>>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining >>>>>>>>>>>> and actualizing in policy the term ?public >>>>>>>>>>>> interest? (?115). As they acknowledge, it is a >>>>>>>>>>>> vague term ?providing neither guidance nor >>>>>>>>>>>> constraint on ICANN?s >>>>>>>>> actions? >>>>>>>>>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to ?flesh out >>>>>>>>>>>> the concept? of global public interest to >>>>>>>>>>>> strengthen accountability and transparency within >>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN (?115). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I?d suggest we move away from use of the term >>>>>>>>>>>> ?public interest? in all regards, as it?s imprecise >>>>>>>>>>>> definition leads to more problems than it solves. >>>>>>>>>>>> I?m particularly nonplused by the positioning of >>>>>>>>>>>> the concepts of accountability and transparency as >>>>>>>>>>>> a seeming subset of >>>>>>>>> ?public interest? >>>>>>>>>>>> (115). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> needs to embrace regardless of the ?public >>>>>>>>>>>> interest?, whatever it is. These twin concepts >>>>>>>>>>>> strengthen both the ICANN community and ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> corporate. An attitude that transparency and >>>>>>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to >>>>>>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public >>>>>>>>>>>> interest) should be rejected in favor of an >>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledgement that such processes strengthen >>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN internally. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous ?public interest? is >>>>>>>>>>>> welcome, but the principle reason for ICANN to >>>>>>>>>>>> conduct it?s affairs in a transparent and >>>>>>>>>>>> accountable manner is that it strengthens both >>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN the institution and ICANN the community. It >>>>>>>>>>>> is self-interest, not public interest, which should >>>>>>>>>>>> drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent >>>>>>>>>>>> and accountable as possible. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that >>>>>>>>>>>> accountability and transparency are dependent >>>>>>>>>>>> variables subject to whatever it is that ?public >>>>>>>>>>>> interest? is determined to be. They stand on their >>>>>>>>>>>> own. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and >>>>>>>>>>> accountable as possible and I agree that transparency >>>>>>>>>>> and accountability should not be dependent variables, >>>>>>>>>>> but I don't have the same negative reaction to >>>>>>>>>>> "public interest" - on the contrary, I find it a >>>>>>>>>>> useful concept, especially in administrative law as a >>>>>>>>>>> way to counter the power imbalances between private >>>>>>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which >>>>>>>>>>> States have obligations to protect - also because the >>>>>>>>>>> notion of public law and State obligations in the >>>>>>>>>>> public arena is a core component of the international >>>>>>>>>>> human rights framework (which distinguishes between >>>>>>>>>>> public and private law for example). So I would not >>>>>>>>>>> want to negate it in the context of responding to the >>>>>>>>>>> CoE paper nor in thinking through how this is >>>>>>>>>>> relevant to ICANN. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors >>>>>>>>>>>> to position ?hate speech? as an accepted derogation >>>>>>>>>>>> from free expression norms. This is not something >>>>>>>>>>>> that is generally accepted in the human rights >>>>>>>>>>>> community, but rather is a controversial notion >>>>>>>>>>>> that provokes rather heated and emotional >>>>>>>>>>>> argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the >>>>>>>>>>>> guise of obeying human rights norms, should police >>>>>>>>>>>> speech or in any way deny domain name applications >>>>>>>>>>>> because they may run afoul of ?hate speech? >>>>>>>>> principles. >>>>>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition >>>>>>>>>>>> of this SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate >>>>>>>>>>>> content or speech. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not >>>>>>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any >>>>>>>>>>>> sort of serious commitment to the principles of >>>>>>>>>>>> free speech. I know that there are many within our >>>>>>>>>>>> SG supportive of my views in this regard; I suspect >>>>>>>>>>>> there may be members that differ. Regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>> specific views on the issue, I hope we can all >>>>>>>>>>>> agree that ICANN is not the institution that should >>>>>>>>>>>> be determining what ?hate speech? is and then >>>>>>>>>>>> enforcing its >>>>>>>>> determination. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that ?despite its frequent >>>>>>>>>>>> use, there is no clear or unique understanding of >>>>>>>>>>>> what is ?hate speech?, and the definitions and >>>>>>>>>>>> conceptions vary in different countries? (?45). >>>>>>>>>>>> They then recognize that the European Court of >>>>>>>>>>>> Human Rights has not defined the term in order that >>>>>>>>>>>> it?s reasoning, ?is not confined within definitions >>>>>>>>>>>> that could limit its action in future cases?(?46). >>>>>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the issues, the authors >>>>>>>>>>>> suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with >>>>>>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I?d suggest that ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> should only do so if the same opportunity is given >>>>>>>>>>>> to intergovernmental organizations from all the >>>>>>>>> world?s regions. Europe should not receive special >>>>>>>>> consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to >>>>>>>>>>>> create unity out of the plurality of opinions and >>>>>>>>>>>> views relating to the proposed hate speech >>>>>>>>>>>> derogation from the universally recognized right of >>>>>>>>>>>> free expression. Upon close scrutiny, though, they >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be said to have >>>>>>>>> accomplished their goal. >>>>>>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two >>>>>>>>>>>> of the Additional Protocol to the Budapest >>>>>>>>>>>> Convention on Cybercrime, as they attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>> define some portion of ?hate crime?. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part >>>>>>>>>>>> of the universal human rights acquis. The numbers >>>>>>>>>>>> are pretty stark: Of the seventeen non Council of >>>>>>>>>>>> Europe signatories to the Cybercrime Convention >>>>>>>>>>>> only two have ratified the Additional Protocol. Of >>>>>>>>>>>> even greater significance, of the forty-seven >>>>>>>>>>>> members of the Council of Europe only twenty have >>>>>>>>>>>> signed the Additional Protocol (?45). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the ?hate >>>>>>>>>>>> speech? derogation, the lack of ratification of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Additional Protocol suggests severe reservations >>>>>>>>>>>> about the concept. Certainly the proposed >>>>>>>>>>>> definition is suspect. This is true even in Europe, >>>>>>>>>>>> the area of the world where the hate speech >>>>>>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, >>>>>>>>>>>> and within the Council of Europe itself. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a >>>>>>>>>>>> ?balancing? test, the authors recommend that ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> ?should ensure that ?hate speech? is not tolerated >>>>>>>>>>>> in the applied-for gTlds? (?60). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this >>>>>>>>>>>> recommendation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating >>>>>>>>>>>> speech. It certainly should not be in the business >>>>>>>>>>>> of deciding what is or is not hate speech, a >>>>>>>>>>>> concept with limited international acceptance and a >>>>>>>>>>>> variable definition, and then prohibiting it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that >>>>>>>>>>>> puts ICANN in the position of being a censor. This >>>>>>>>>>>> particular recommendation within this Council Of >>>>>>>>>>>> Europe report does just that and needs to be >>>>>>>>>>>> rejected. >>>>>>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist >>>>>>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some >>>>>>>>>>> of which does not - we could talk more offlist about >>>>>>>>>>> it. I agree on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, >>>>>>>>>>> but this begs the question of how should human >>>>>>>>>>> rights, ALL rights, be balanced in the >>>>>>>>>>> decision-making - on this I would point back to the >>>>>>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting >>>>>>>>>>> the rights arguments looked at there and getting GAC >>>>>>>>>>> members involved in that process, which is one of our >>>>>>>>>>> longstanding SG positions). maybe there are other >>>>>>>>>>> ideas here as well ... >>>>>>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any >>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion of giving ICANN ?international or >>>>>>>>>>>> quasi-international status? (?136) and I hope >>>>>>>>>>>> others will join me, as an SG and individually, in >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> opposition. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Joy ?shudders?? at the authors suggestion that the >>>>>>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red >>>>>>>>>>>> Crescent societies should serve as a ?source of >>>>>>>>>>>> inspiration? for ICANN?s future organizational >>>>>>>>>>>> legal position (?137). I shudder with her. Joy then >>>>>>>>>>>> suggests that the ILO might ?be a better model?. It >>>>>>>>>>>> might be, but if ICANN received a status similar to >>>>>>>>>>>> that of the ILO I respectfully suggest that shudder >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than support would still be an appropriate >>>>>>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was >>>>>>>>>>> simply surprised that the CoE paper did not even >>>>>>>>>>> mention it - I know some governments are looking at >>>>>>>>>>> the ILO becuase it is tri-partite (government, >>>>>>>>>>> employers and worker representation) - and therefore >>>>>>>>>>> using it to try and persuade other governments that >>>>>>>>>>> other multi-stakeholder options do exist >>>>>>>>>>> internationally >>>>>>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of >>>>>>>>>>>> privileges and legal immunities. The ILO is >>>>>>>>>>>> actually a pretty good place to see what these >>>>>>>>>>>> entail. As a specialized agency of the United >>>>>>>>>>>> Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 Convention >>>>>>>>>>>> on Privileges and Immunities which grants, amongst >>>>>>>>>>>> other benefits: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization >>>>>>>>>>>> and for its officials in its official acts, with >>>>>>>>>>>> even greater immunity for executive officials, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical >>>>>>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special >>>>>>>>>>>> protection for its communications, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and >>>>>>>>>>>> its employees, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given >>>>>>>>>>>> diplomats for those attending organizational >>>>>>>>>>>> meetings. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The >>>>>>>>>>>> agreement between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal >>>>>>>>>>>> Council mandates that the Red Cross receives, >>>>>>>>>>>> amongst other benefits: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. >>>>>>>>>>>> This immunity extends to both the organization and >>>>>>>>>>>> to officials and continues with respect to >>>>>>>>>>>> officials even after they leave office, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited >>>>>>>>>>>> about proposals to give it international status. It >>>>>>>>>>>> is less easy to understand why anyone who is not a >>>>>>>>>>>> member of the ICANN staff thinks that this is a >>>>>>>>> good idea. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> international legal status the authors write, >>>>>>>>>>>> ?ICANN should be free from risk of dominance by >>>>>>>>>>>> states, other stakeholders, or even its own staff? >>>>>>>>>>>> (?136). I agree with the principle but fail to see >>>>>>>>>>>> how granting ICANN international legal status does >>>>>>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony >>>>>>>>>>>> of ICANN staff, making their actions less >>>>>>>>> transparent and less accountable. >>>>>>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) >>>>>>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of >>>>>>>>>>>> definite external accountability for ICANN are 1) >>>>>>>>>>>> the NTIA, 2) the attorney general of the State of >>>>>>>>>>>> California (AG) and the 3) courts, principally >>>>>>>>>>>> those located in California. As the NTIA withdraws >>>>>>>>>>>> from oversight the two remaining sources of >>>>>>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the >>>>>>>>>>>> courts. Should this CoE proposal for international >>>>>>>>>>>> status be accepted, in lieu of other changes, there >>>>>>>>>>>> will be no external control over ICANN. We cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> support this proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as >>>>>>>>>>>> a private, not for profit corporation. The authors >>>>>>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to >>>>>>>>>>>> this structure. In stating that ICANN has >>>>>>>>>>>> ?flexibly? met the ?changing needs of the >>>>>>>>>>>> internet?(?1) the authors implicitly recognize a >>>>>>>>>>>> value associated more with private corporations >>>>>>>>>>>> than with those institutions accorded international >>>>>>>>>>>> status. In using the .XXX decision as an example >>>>>>>>>>>> where the values of free expression trumped >>>>>>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should >>>>>>>>>>>> be noted that some observers, myself included, >>>>>>>>>>>> believe the Board?s decision in this matter was >>>>>>>>>>>> caused by fear of losing a lawsuit threatened by >>>>>>>>>>>> ICM Registry. Immunity from legal process >>>>>>>>>>>> eliminates this control >>>>>>>>> mechanism. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>> mean supporting ICANN?s continued corporate >>>>>>>>>>>> residence in California. I reject the notion, >>>>>>>>>>>> though, that leaving California necessarily would >>>>>>>>>>>> make things better from the perspective of civil >>>>>>>>>>>> society or of the individual user. It would depend >>>>>>>>>>>> upon the legal structure of the >>>>>>>>> receiving jurisdiction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is >>>>>>>>>>>> a corporate reorganization that would better help >>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN meet the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: >>>>>>>>>>>> the cration of membership within ICANN. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Changing ICANN?s corporate structure from that of >>>>>>>>>>>> a California public benefit corporation without >>>>>>>>>>>> members to that of a California public benefits >>>>>>>>>>>> corporation with members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the >>>>>>>>>>>> California Corporations Code, would do a far better >>>>>>>>>>>> job of creating a truly responsive and democratic >>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN than granting ICANN international status >>>>>>>>>>>> would. A more comprehensive discussion of this >>>>>>>>>>>> concept can be found in my 27 June post on >>>>>>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on >>>>>>>>> this list. >>>>>>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look >>>>>>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special >>>>>>>>>>>> international legal status for ICANN would somewhat >>>>>>>>>>>> entrench the organization, and not in a good way. >>>>>>>>>>>> None of us know what the communications landscape >>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>> look like in a decade. >>>>>>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block >>>>>>>>>>>> chain technology, or technologies not yet dreamt >>>>>>>>>>>> of, will obviate the need for a central naming and >>>>>>>>>>>> addressing authority. It is reasonable to think >>>>>>>>>>>> that an entity with international legal status >>>>>>>>>>>> would be more likely to try to cling to it?s >>>>>>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private >>>>>>>>>>>> corporation responsive to its members. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they >>>>>>>>>>>> will provide a further basis for discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed ! >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ed ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy >>>>>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 18 Jul >>>>>>>>>>>> 2014 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to >>>>>>>>>>>> comments >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary >>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts after some discussion in APC >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically >>>>>>>>>>>> saying that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling >>>>>>>>>>>> human rights obligations and that private sector, >>>>>>>>>>>> intellectual property and and law enforcement >>>>>>>>>>>> interests have been weighed too heavily in the >>>>>>>>>>>> balance of decision-making to the detriment of >>>>>>>>>>>> human rights and other stakeholders, including >>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not >>>>>>>>>>>> entirely new) points - some reflections for working >>>>>>>>>>>> up to a possible submission: + I think this paper >>>>>>>>>>>> is evidence that discourse is moving beyond >>>>>>>>> "whether" >>>>>>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making >>>>>>>>>>>> (the previous paper I contributed to) and more >>>>>>>>>>>> specifically into "how" in a very practical way - >>>>>>>>>>>> that is excellent and should be welcomed - the >>>>>>>>>>>> clear link to human rights in NETMundial and >>>>>>>>>>>> related documents seems to be tipping the human >>>>>>>>>>>> rights discussion - that is also really positive + >>>>>>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in >>>>>>>>>>>> specific ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up >>>>>>>>>>>> deficiencies in both the standards and processes >>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN is using - The paper does mention social and >>>>>>>>>>>> cultural rights but only in passing in relation to >>>>>>>>>>>> the community application dotgay, so I think this >>>>>>>>>>>> makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights >>>>>>>>>>>> timely and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + >>>>>>>>>>>> several parts of the analysis and of the >>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations were + already made by the Non >>>>>>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency in a submission >>>>>>>>>>>> developed in 2013 (one >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> on human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see >>>>>>>>>>>> that paper cited - we should point out this >>>>>>>>>>>> connection in making comments + clearly governments >>>>>>>>>>>> are reaching for the human rights framework to >>>>>>>>>>>> challenge the behaviour of other governments (as in >>>>>>>>>>>> relation the law enforcement and the registrar >>>>>>>>>>>> accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is >>>>>>>>>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed >>>>>>>>>>>> between and among governments - it suggests there >>>>>>>>>>>> is a lot of discussion going on behind GAC's closed >>>>>>>>>>>> doors on this.... I really like the references to >>>>>>>>>>>> the UN resolutions internet rights - it is good to >>>>>>>>>>>> see this jurisprudence emerging. + there is >>>>>>>>>>>> inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies to >>>>>>>>>>>> + business - not just business interests in ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such >>>>>>>>>>>> as registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - >>>>>>>>>>>> Anriette raised these points and I think we need to >>>>>>>>>>>> think through how to respond on this - especially >>>>>>>>>>>> on the human rights and business rules that were >>>>>>>>>>>> developed in the UN + the analysis and >>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations on community applications is very >>>>>>>>>>>> + useful and I strongly support this aspect + the >>>>>>>>>>>> paper recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal >>>>>>>>>>>> basis to + include human rights in its bylaws - >>>>>>>>>>>> that is good - but they should also become a member >>>>>>>>>>>> of the GNI: Rafik Dammak and others have been >>>>>>>>>>>> calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN board has >>>>>>>>>>>> actively opposed that step. so we can raise that + >>>>>>>>>>>> also recommends looking at the Red Cross as >>>>>>>>>>>> possible inspiration + for a model - that made me >>>>>>>>>>>> shudder give how the RC has behaved in policy >>>>>>>>>>>> making in >>>>>>>>> ICANN. >>>>>>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must >>>>>>>>>>>> respond on that specific >>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and >>>>>>>>>>>> challenging issues is + trying to define the public >>>>>>>>>>>> interest aspects of ICANN's role and also GAC's >>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities - i think it's useful to raise >>>>>>>>>>>> this again and try to squarely address it and there >>>>>>>>>>>> are some options (the paper recommends an expert >>>>>>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights >>>>>>>>>>>> impact assessment of policy proposals - i think we >>>>>>>>>>>> could also revive that idea..... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Joy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi >>>>>>>>>>>> all, Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few >>>>>>>>>>>> others volunteered to work on a draft contribution >>>>>>>>>>>> with comments and suggestions about CoE document. >>>>>>>>>>>> Joy, your involvement is super important. Shall we >>>>>>>>>>>> start to get it going? Best, Mar?lia >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment >>>>>>>>>>>> period- and great that they took it up. And a >>>>>>>>>>>> follow up event in LA would be excellent - I am >>>>>>>>>>>> sure APC would want to support it. I do hope it >>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! Joy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi >>>>>>>>>>>> Joy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I?m glad Lee did this, as it?s not COE?s normal >>>>>>>>>>>> procedure at all. We suggested they try it at our >>>>>>>>>>>> meeting with them in London. We also agreed to >>>>>>>>>>>> propose a follow up event for LA. It?d be good to >>>>>>>>>>>> have our own position on paper prior. Since the >>>>>>>>>>>> paper may have screwed Thomas? campaign for GAC >>>>>>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - >>>>>>>>>>>> sorry it has taken me a while to get back on this, >>>>>>>>>>>> I've been away from the office a while and it's >>>>>>>>>>>> taken a while to catch up .... Thanks also Milton >>>>>>>>>>>> for your blog post about the paper - I agree with >>>>>>>>>>>> most of your comments. There are quite a few >>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion at the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG >>>>>>>>>>>> response? I note that some of the points and >>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper were previously >>>>>>>>>>>> covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in >>>>>>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work >>>>>>>>>>>> in any follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to >>>>>>>>>>>> help with). Cheers Joy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human >>>>>>>>>>>> Rights >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Is on line and open to comments. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>> William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer >>>>>>>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University >>>>>>>>>>>> of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users >>>>>>>>>>>> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>>>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org >>>>>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From avri Fri Sep 19 23:44:39 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:44:39 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] pc list Message-ID: <541C95B7.2090801@acm.org> hi, it occurs to me that all of the newly elected council members are already members of this list except maybe Ed. maybe we want to add him as observer until such time as he takes his seat? just suggesting, leave it to our leaders to take it from there. avri From wjdrake Sat Sep 20 12:14:03 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 11:14:03 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: <541C9555.7070900@acm.org> References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BB71C6.2020108@apc.org> <28BD6CA3-881D-4550-9B70-3913A850D455@gmail.com> <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> <541C9555.7070900@acm.org> Message-ID: <21116A35-2B5B-455A-B9EE-C0AF88469232@gmail.com> FWIW so do I On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I went through it, changed the header from disagreements to concerns as > offered by Gabrielle and support NCSg endorsement. > > avri > > > On 18-Sep-14 09:32, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Thank you Rafik and thank you very much Gabrielle and all who worked on the >> drafting. >> I endorse this document. I only made one minor suggestion regarding >> consistency. >> Best, >> Mar?lia >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with review and >>> endorsement? >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Rafik >>> On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments on the COE >>>> report for your consideration. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >>>> >>>> All best, >>>> >>>> Gabrielle >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Avri >>>> Doria [avri at ACM.ORG] >>>> Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52 >>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am currently doing a edit pass though the document. By and large I >>>> agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments. >>>> >>>> There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal Status. >>>> this reads like an America overall forever clause. I think that >>>> becoming an international organization has been studied, is feasible >>>> and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO. I think it needs >>>> to be studied further especially once we have understood the >>>> parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship. >>>> >>>> I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause. I think >>>> that this also needs further discussion to deal with the tussle among >>>> rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US >>>> trade-off. I recommend leaving this this out too. >>>> >>>> I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection >>>> concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the stmt >>>> would be stronger standing alone without the debatable clauses being >>>> included in the doc. >>>> >>>> As it stands now, the document does not have my support. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote: >>>>> Thanks, folks. I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten up the >>>>> lingo on the doc. The statement looks great to me and ready to go. >>>>> And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors! Well >>>>> done! >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, Robin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Niels, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and comments >>>>>> and I think that is partly done. since were are late for >>>>>> submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so we can >>>>>> submit the comment. the comment link >>>>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever >>>>>> : >>>>>> >>>>> Dear Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> Has this been submitted? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Niels >>>>> >>>>> Niels ten Oever Head of Digital >>>>> >>>>> Article 19 www.article19.org >>>>> >>>>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >>>>> 68E9 >>>>> >>>>> On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Gabrielle, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at >>>>>>>>> perfect time just before IGF and the session there >>>>>>>>> organized by council of europe about the report (Details >>>>>>>>> shared by Bill few days ago) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin >>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a >>>>>>>>>> go at summarising the various comments that have been >>>>>>>>>> made by various NCSG members about the COE report on >>>>>>>>>> human rights. Here is a draft: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is anything else I >>>>>>>>>> can do to help. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All the best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gabrielle >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy [mailto:joy at apc.org] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE Doc open >>>>>>>>>> to comments >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee >>>>>>>>>> Hibbard at Council of Europe on the deadline for >>>>>>>>>> comments. He's noted they are aiming for a compilation of >>>>>>>>>> comments by 8 September. We should try to finalise sooner >>>>>>>>>> if we can, though, and I'll aim to take another look at >>>>>>>>>> the shared document later this week. Cheers Joy On >>>>>>>>>> 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when >>>>>>>>>>> the comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On >>>>>>>>>>> 23/07/2014 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the >>>>>>>>>>>> comments on the COE >>>>>>>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too >>>>>>>>>> but I won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us >>>>>>>>>>>> going if we have a >>>>>>>>>> document that others can start working on based on >>>>>>>>>> comments already received, so here is a link to a >>>>>>>>>> googledoc where I have just reproduced Ed, Joy and >>>>>>>>>> Milton's contributions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems >>>>>>>>>>>> with the document. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All best, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on >>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG] Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 >>>>>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE >>>>>>>>>>>> Doc open to comments >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work >>>>>>>>>>>> through of the document in detail - that is extremely >>>>>>>>>>>> helpful! Shall we start a shared document and begin >>>>>>>>>>>> building the submission based on these and >>>>>>>>>> other inputs? >>>>>>>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and >>>>>>>>>>>> develop a response soon .. also, i am still mulling >>>>>>>>>>>> over your points, Ed, but a few responses below .... >>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again! Joy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and >>>>>>>>>>>>> erudite analysis. A few things I?d like to offer >>>>>>>>>>>>> for consideration, in response both to Joy?s post >>>>>>>>>>>>> and to the CoE document itself: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy?s recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I probably >>>>>>>>>>>>> still am. However, I?m a bit concerned about the >>>>>>>>>>>>> resignation of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation >>>>>>>>>>>>> (EFF) >>>>>>>>>> from the GNI in October of last year. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> join the GNI, I?d suggest that we reach out to our >>>>>>>>>>>>> EFF members and determine their views on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter, given the action of their parent >>>>>>>>>>>>> organization. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I >>>>>>>>>>>> can also ask Katitza Rodriguez >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both >>>>>>>>>>>>> for their work on this report and for the overall >>>>>>>>>>>>> effort of the CoE in promoting the inclusion of >>>>>>>>>>>>> human rights considerations within internet >>>>>>>>>>>>> governance generally, and within ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this >>>>>>>>>>>>> report. I want to particularly commend the authors >>>>>>>>>>>>> on recognizing that domain names such as .sucks >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?ordinarily come within the scope of protection >>>>>>>>>>>>> offered by the right of freedom of >>>>>>>>>> expression?(?117). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author?s suggestion that a >>>>>>>>>>>>> human rights advisory panel be created within ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> (?134). NCSG member Roy Balleste has done some >>>>>>>>>>>>> excellent work in this area and I?d suggest he be >>>>>>>>>>>>> consulted as to whether the specific composition of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the panel suggested in this report is an optimal >>>>>>>>>>>>> one. >>>>>>>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC >>>>>>>>>>>> submission about 18months ago on human rights and >>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN - it's still relevant imho. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ?sole voice of human rights? within ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> (?125). We should politely remind the Council of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe that the leading voice for human rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> within ICANN has never been GAC but rather has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> the NCSG, it?s predecessor, and it?s member >>>>>>>>>>>>> constituencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for >>>>>>>>>>>> governments, but certainly not for human rights! >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating >>>>>>>>>>>>> the American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> (?9). As a corporation, it is likely that ICANN is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not obligated to follow the precepts of the Bill of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rights in it?s relationships with others. I say >>>>>>>>>>>>> likely, because if ICANN were construed by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> courts to be a U.S. government contractor, which in >>>>>>>>>>>>> some ways it currently is, ICANN could be construed >>>>>>>>>>>>> as participating in state action and then would be >>>>>>>>>>>>> obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a >>>>>>>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> would apply to ICANN in its >>>>>>>>>> relationship with others. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under >>>>>>>>>>>>> American law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-natural person, and does benefit from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> protections offered by Bill of Rights. It is bound >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the Bill of Rights in this way. Further, ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> is also protected from government interference >>>>>>>>>>>>> through the Declaration of Rights of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1), one of the most comprehensive statutory grants >>>>>>>>>>>>> of rights that exist in the world. These are >>>>>>>>>>>>> important considerations as we debate the future >>>>>>>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. >>>>>>>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law >>>>>>>>>>>> dragons, i think a key question is also how the >>>>>>>>>>>> international obligations of the US goverment relate >>>>>>>>>>>> to a corporation such as ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than >>>>>>>>>>>>> trademark law be considered to ?address speech >>>>>>>>>>>>> rights? (?117) is welcome, with the caveat that any >>>>>>>>>>>>> such model must expand freedom of expression and >>>>>>>>>>>>> not further restrict it. As bad as the trademark >>>>>>>>>>>>> maximalist model we now have is, there are many >>>>>>>>>>>>> legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to >>>>>>>>>>>>> adhere to, and open-ended recommendations in this >>>>>>>>>>>>> regard should best be avoided lest they be used by >>>>>>>>>>>>> those favoring a more restrictive >>>>>>>>>> speech model. >>>>>>>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas >>>>>>>>>>>> here ... via the shared doc? >>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining >>>>>>>>>>>>> and actualizing in policy the term ?public >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest? (?115). As they acknowledge, it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> vague term ?providing neither guidance nor >>>>>>>>>>>>> constraint on ICANN?s >>>>>>>>>> actions? >>>>>>>>>>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to ?flesh out >>>>>>>>>>>>> the concept? of global public interest to >>>>>>>>>>>>> strengthen accountability and transparency within >>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN (?115). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I?d suggest we move away from use of the term >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?public interest? in all regards, as it?s imprecise >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition leads to more problems than it solves. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I?m particularly nonplused by the positioning of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the concepts of accountability and transparency as >>>>>>>>>>>>> a seeming subset of >>>>>>>>>> ?public interest? >>>>>>>>>>>>> (115). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to embrace regardless of the ?public >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest?, whatever it is. These twin concepts >>>>>>>>>>>>> strengthen both the ICANN community and ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> corporate. An attitude that transparency and >>>>>>>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to >>>>>>>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest) should be rejected in favor of an >>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledgement that such processes strengthen >>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN internally. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous ?public interest? is >>>>>>>>>>>>> welcome, but the principle reason for ICANN to >>>>>>>>>>>>> conduct it?s affairs in a transparent and >>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable manner is that it strengthens both >>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN the institution and ICANN the community. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> is self-interest, not public interest, which should >>>>>>>>>>>>> drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent >>>>>>>>>>>>> and accountable as possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that >>>>>>>>>>>>> accountability and transparency are dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>> variables subject to whatever it is that ?public >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest? is determined to be. They stand on their >>>>>>>>>>>>> own. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and >>>>>>>>>>>> accountable as possible and I agree that transparency >>>>>>>>>>>> and accountability should not be dependent variables, >>>>>>>>>>>> but I don't have the same negative reaction to >>>>>>>>>>>> "public interest" - on the contrary, I find it a >>>>>>>>>>>> useful concept, especially in administrative law as a >>>>>>>>>>>> way to counter the power imbalances between private >>>>>>>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which >>>>>>>>>>>> States have obligations to protect - also because the >>>>>>>>>>>> notion of public law and State obligations in the >>>>>>>>>>>> public arena is a core component of the international >>>>>>>>>>>> human rights framework (which distinguishes between >>>>>>>>>>>> public and private law for example). So I would not >>>>>>>>>>>> want to negate it in the context of responding to the >>>>>>>>>>>> CoE paper nor in thinking through how this is >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to ICANN. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors >>>>>>>>>>>>> to position ?hate speech? as an accepted derogation >>>>>>>>>>>>> from free expression norms. This is not something >>>>>>>>>>>>> that is generally accepted in the human rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> community, but rather is a controversial notion >>>>>>>>>>>>> that provokes rather heated and emotional >>>>>>>>>>>>> argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> guise of obeying human rights norms, should police >>>>>>>>>>>>> speech or in any way deny domain name applications >>>>>>>>>>>>> because they may run afoul of ?hate speech? >>>>>>>>>> principles. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition >>>>>>>>>>>>> of this SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate >>>>>>>>>>>>> content or speech. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not >>>>>>>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any >>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of serious commitment to the principles of >>>>>>>>>>>>> free speech. I know that there are many within our >>>>>>>>>>>>> SG supportive of my views in this regard; I suspect >>>>>>>>>>>>> there may be members that differ. Regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific views on the issue, I hope we can all >>>>>>>>>>>>> agree that ICANN is not the institution that should >>>>>>>>>>>>> be determining what ?hate speech? is and then >>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcing its >>>>>>>>>> determination. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that ?despite its frequent >>>>>>>>>>>>> use, there is no clear or unique understanding of >>>>>>>>>>>>> what is ?hate speech?, and the definitions and >>>>>>>>>>>>> conceptions vary in different countries? (?45). >>>>>>>>>>>>> They then recognize that the European Court of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Human Rights has not defined the term in order that >>>>>>>>>>>>> it?s reasoning, ?is not confined within definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>> that could limit its action in future cases?(?46). >>>>>>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the issues, the authors >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I?d suggest that ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> should only do so if the same opportunity is given >>>>>>>>>>>>> to intergovernmental organizations from all the >>>>>>>>>> world?s regions. Europe should not receive special >>>>>>>>>> consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to >>>>>>>>>>>>> create unity out of the plurality of opinions and >>>>>>>>>>>>> views relating to the proposed hate speech >>>>>>>>>>>>> derogation from the universally recognized right of >>>>>>>>>>>>> free expression. Upon close scrutiny, though, they >>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be said to have >>>>>>>>>> accomplished their goal. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Additional Protocol to the Budapest >>>>>>>>>>>>> Convention on Cybercrime, as they attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>>> define some portion of ?hate crime?. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the universal human rights acquis. The numbers >>>>>>>>>>>>> are pretty stark: Of the seventeen non Council of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe signatories to the Cybercrime Convention >>>>>>>>>>>>> only two have ratified the Additional Protocol. Of >>>>>>>>>>>>> even greater significance, of the forty-seven >>>>>>>>>>>>> members of the Council of Europe only twenty have >>>>>>>>>>>>> signed the Additional Protocol (?45). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the ?hate >>>>>>>>>>>>> speech? derogation, the lack of ratification of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Additional Protocol suggests severe reservations >>>>>>>>>>>>> about the concept. Certainly the proposed >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition is suspect. This is true even in Europe, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the area of the world where the hate speech >>>>>>>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and within the Council of Europe itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?balancing? test, the authors recommend that ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?should ensure that ?hate speech? is not tolerated >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the applied-for gTlds? (?60). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this >>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating >>>>>>>>>>>>> speech. It certainly should not be in the business >>>>>>>>>>>>> of deciding what is or is not hate speech, a >>>>>>>>>>>>> concept with limited international acceptance and a >>>>>>>>>>>>> variable definition, and then prohibiting it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that >>>>>>>>>>>>> puts ICANN in the position of being a censor. This >>>>>>>>>>>>> particular recommendation within this Council Of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe report does just that and needs to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected. >>>>>>>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist >>>>>>>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some >>>>>>>>>>>> of which does not - we could talk more offlist about >>>>>>>>>>>> it. I agree on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, >>>>>>>>>>>> but this begs the question of how should human >>>>>>>>>>>> rights, ALL rights, be balanced in the >>>>>>>>>>>> decision-making - on this I would point back to the >>>>>>>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting >>>>>>>>>>>> the rights arguments looked at there and getting GAC >>>>>>>>>>>> members involved in that process, which is one of our >>>>>>>>>>>> longstanding SG positions). maybe there are other >>>>>>>>>>>> ideas here as well ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion of giving ICANN ?international or >>>>>>>>>>>>> quasi-international status? (?136) and I hope >>>>>>>>>>>>> others will join me, as an SG and individually, in >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> opposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy ?shudders?? at the authors suggestion that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red >>>>>>>>>>>>> Crescent societies should serve as a ?source of >>>>>>>>>>>>> inspiration? for ICANN?s future organizational >>>>>>>>>>>>> legal position (?137). I shudder with her. Joy then >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests that the ILO might ?be a better model?. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> might be, but if ICANN received a status similar to >>>>>>>>>>>>> that of the ILO I respectfully suggest that shudder >>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than support would still be an appropriate >>>>>>>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was >>>>>>>>>>>> simply surprised that the CoE paper did not even >>>>>>>>>>>> mention it - I know some governments are looking at >>>>>>>>>>>> the ILO becuase it is tri-partite (government, >>>>>>>>>>>> employers and worker representation) - and therefore >>>>>>>>>>>> using it to try and persuade other governments that >>>>>>>>>>>> other multi-stakeholder options do exist >>>>>>>>>>>> internationally >>>>>>>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of >>>>>>>>>>>>> privileges and legal immunities. The ILO is >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually a pretty good place to see what these >>>>>>>>>>>>> entail. As a specialized agency of the United >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 Convention >>>>>>>>>>>>> on Privileges and Immunities which grants, amongst >>>>>>>>>>>>> other benefits: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization >>>>>>>>>>>>> and for its officials in its official acts, with >>>>>>>>>>>>> even greater immunity for executive officials, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical >>>>>>>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special >>>>>>>>>>>>> protection for its communications, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and >>>>>>>>>>>>> its employees, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given >>>>>>>>>>>>> diplomats for those attending organizational >>>>>>>>>>>>> meetings. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal >>>>>>>>>>>>> Council mandates that the Red Cross receives, >>>>>>>>>>>>> amongst other benefits: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This immunity extends to both the organization and >>>>>>>>>>>>> to officials and continues with respect to >>>>>>>>>>>>> officials even after they leave office, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited >>>>>>>>>>>>> about proposals to give it international status. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> is less easy to understand why anyone who is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>> member of the ICANN staff thinks that this is a >>>>>>>>>> good idea. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> international legal status the authors write, >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?ICANN should be free from risk of dominance by >>>>>>>>>>>>> states, other stakeholders, or even its own staff? >>>>>>>>>>>>> (?136). I agree with the principle but fail to see >>>>>>>>>>>>> how granting ICANN international legal status does >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony >>>>>>>>>>>>> of ICANN staff, making their actions less >>>>>>>>>> transparent and less accountable. >>>>>>>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) >>>>>>>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of >>>>>>>>>>>>> definite external accountability for ICANN are 1) >>>>>>>>>>>>> the NTIA, 2) the attorney general of the State of >>>>>>>>>>>>> California (AG) and the 3) courts, principally >>>>>>>>>>>>> those located in California. As the NTIA withdraws >>>>>>>>>>>>> from oversight the two remaining sources of >>>>>>>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the >>>>>>>>>>>>> courts. Should this CoE proposal for international >>>>>>>>>>>>> status be accepted, in lieu of other changes, there >>>>>>>>>>>>> will be no external control over ICANN. We cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> support this proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as >>>>>>>>>>>>> a private, not for profit corporation. The authors >>>>>>>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to >>>>>>>>>>>>> this structure. In stating that ICANN has >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?flexibly? met the ?changing needs of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> internet?(?1) the authors implicitly recognize a >>>>>>>>>>>>> value associated more with private corporations >>>>>>>>>>>>> than with those institutions accorded international >>>>>>>>>>>>> status. In using the .XXX decision as an example >>>>>>>>>>>>> where the values of free expression trumped >>>>>>>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should >>>>>>>>>>>>> be noted that some observers, myself included, >>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the Board?s decision in this matter was >>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by fear of losing a lawsuit threatened by >>>>>>>>>>>>> ICM Registry. Immunity from legal process >>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminates this control >>>>>>>>>> mechanism. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean supporting ICANN?s continued corporate >>>>>>>>>>>>> residence in California. I reject the notion, >>>>>>>>>>>>> though, that leaving California necessarily would >>>>>>>>>>>>> make things better from the perspective of civil >>>>>>>>>>>>> society or of the individual user. It would depend >>>>>>>>>>>>> upon the legal structure of the >>>>>>>>>> receiving jurisdiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is >>>>>>>>>>>>> a corporate reorganization that would better help >>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN meet the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: >>>>>>>>>>>>> the cration of membership within ICANN. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing ICANN?s corporate structure from that of >>>>>>>>>>>>> a California public benefit corporation without >>>>>>>>>>>>> members to that of a California public benefits >>>>>>>>>>>>> corporation with members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> California Corporations Code, would do a far better >>>>>>>>>>>>> job of creating a truly responsive and democratic >>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN than granting ICANN international status >>>>>>>>>>>>> would. A more comprehensive discussion of this >>>>>>>>>>>>> concept can be found in my 27 June post on >>>>>>>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on >>>>>>>>>> this list. >>>>>>>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special >>>>>>>>>>>>> international legal status for ICANN would somewhat >>>>>>>>>>>>> entrench the organization, and not in a good way. >>>>>>>>>>>>> None of us know what the communications landscape >>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>> look like in a decade. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block >>>>>>>>>>>>> chain technology, or technologies not yet dreamt >>>>>>>>>>>>> of, will obviate the need for a central naming and >>>>>>>>>>>>> addressing authority. It is reasonable to think >>>>>>>>>>>>> that an entity with international legal status >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more likely to try to cling to it?s >>>>>>>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private >>>>>>>>>>>>> corporation responsive to its members. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they >>>>>>>>>>>>> will provide a further basis for discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed ! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 18 Jul >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2014 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to >>>>>>>>>>>>> comments >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary >>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts after some discussion in APC >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically >>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling >>>>>>>>>>>>> human rights obligations and that private sector, >>>>>>>>>>>>> intellectual property and and law enforcement >>>>>>>>>>>>> interests have been weighed too heavily in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> balance of decision-making to the detriment of >>>>>>>>>>>>> human rights and other stakeholders, including >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not >>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely new) points - some reflections for working >>>>>>>>>>>>> up to a possible submission: + I think this paper >>>>>>>>>>>>> is evidence that discourse is moving beyond >>>>>>>>>> "whether" >>>>>>>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making >>>>>>>>>>>>> (the previous paper I contributed to) and more >>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically into "how" in a very practical way - >>>>>>>>>>>>> that is excellent and should be welcomed - the >>>>>>>>>>>>> clear link to human rights in NETMundial and >>>>>>>>>>>>> related documents seems to be tipping the human >>>>>>>>>>>>> rights discussion - that is also really positive + >>>>>>>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up >>>>>>>>>>>>> deficiencies in both the standards and processes >>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN is using - The paper does mention social and >>>>>>>>>>>>> cultural rights but only in passing in relation to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the community application dotgay, so I think this >>>>>>>>>>>>> makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> timely and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + >>>>>>>>>>>>> several parts of the analysis and of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations were + already made by the Non >>>>>>>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency in a submission >>>>>>>>>>>>> developed in 2013 (one >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> on human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see >>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper cited - we should point out this >>>>>>>>>>>>> connection in making comments + clearly governments >>>>>>>>>>>>> are reaching for the human rights framework to >>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge the behaviour of other governments (as in >>>>>>>>>>>>> relation the law enforcement and the registrar >>>>>>>>>>>>> accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is >>>>>>>>>>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed >>>>>>>>>>>>> between and among governments - it suggests there >>>>>>>>>>>>> is a lot of discussion going on behind GAC's closed >>>>>>>>>>>>> doors on this.... I really like the references to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the UN resolutions internet rights - it is good to >>>>>>>>>>>>> see this jurisprudence emerging. + there is >>>>>>>>>>>>> inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies to >>>>>>>>>>>>> + business - not just business interests in ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such >>>>>>>>>>>>> as registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anriette raised these points and I think we need to >>>>>>>>>>>>> think through how to respond on this - especially >>>>>>>>>>>>> on the human rights and business rules that were >>>>>>>>>>>>> developed in the UN + the analysis and >>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations on community applications is very >>>>>>>>>>>>> + useful and I strongly support this aspect + the >>>>>>>>>>>>> paper recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal >>>>>>>>>>>>> basis to + include human rights in its bylaws - >>>>>>>>>>>>> that is good - but they should also become a member >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the GNI: Rafik Dammak and others have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN board has >>>>>>>>>>>>> actively opposed that step. so we can raise that + >>>>>>>>>>>>> also recommends looking at the Red Cross as >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible inspiration + for a model - that made me >>>>>>>>>>>>> shudder give how the RC has behaved in policy >>>>>>>>>>>>> making in >>>>>>>>>> ICANN. >>>>>>>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must >>>>>>>>>>>>> respond on that specific >>>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and >>>>>>>>>>>>> challenging issues is + trying to define the public >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest aspects of ICANN's role and also GAC's >>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities - i think it's useful to raise >>>>>>>>>>>>> this again and try to squarely address it and there >>>>>>>>>>>>> are some options (the paper recommends an expert >>>>>>>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> impact assessment of policy proposals - i think we >>>>>>>>>>>>> could also revive that idea..... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi >>>>>>>>>>>>> all, Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few >>>>>>>>>>>>> others volunteered to work on a draft contribution >>>>>>>>>>>>> with comments and suggestions about CoE document. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy, your involvement is super important. Shall we >>>>>>>>>>>>> start to get it going? Best, Mar?lia >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment >>>>>>>>>>>>> period- and great that they took it up. And a >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow up event in LA would be excellent - I am >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure APC would want to support it. I do hope it >>>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! Joy >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joy >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I?m glad Lee did this, as it?s not COE?s normal >>>>>>>>>>>>> procedure at all. We suggested they try it at our >>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting with them in London. We also agreed to >>>>>>>>>>>>> propose a follow up event for LA. It?d be good to >>>>>>>>>>>>> have our own position on paper prior. Since the >>>>>>>>>>>>> paper may have screwed Thomas? campaign for GAC >>>>>>>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - >>>>>>>>>>>>> sorry it has taken me a while to get back on this, >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been away from the office a while and it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> taken a while to catch up .... Thanks also Milton >>>>>>>>>>>>> for your blog post about the paper - I agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>> most of your comments. There are quite a few >>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion at the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG >>>>>>>>>>>>> response? I note that some of the points and >>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper were previously >>>>>>>>>>>>> covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work >>>>>>>>>>>>> in any follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to >>>>>>>>>>>>> help with). Cheers Joy >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Is on line and open to comments. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>> William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer >>>>>>>>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University >>>>>>>>>>>>> of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users >>>>>>>>>>>>> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Sat Sep 20 12:49:27 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 11:49:27 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] pc list In-Reply-To: <541C95B7.2090801@acm.org> References: <541C95B7.2090801@acm.org> Message-ID: <4ED3C607-28BA-4F5A-A7FB-C8EA334D7756@egyptig.org> Hi, I have no objection. Thanks. Amr On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > it occurs to me that all of the newly elected council members are > already members of this list except maybe Ed. maybe we want to add him > as observer until such time as he takes his seat? > > just suggesting, leave it to our leaders to take it from there. > > avri > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Sat Sep 20 13:36:06 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:36:06 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <53BB71C6.2020108@apc.org> <28BD6CA3-881D-4550-9B70-3913A850D455@gmail.com> <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> Message-ID: Hi, Also a lot of appreciation from me to those who worked on putting this statement together. I would be very happy if the NCSG endorsed it. Thanks again. Amr On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thank you Rafik and thank you very much Gabrielle and all who worked on the drafting. > I endorse this document. I only made one minor suggestion regarding consistency. > Best, > Mar?lia > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with review and endorsement? > Thanks, > > Rafik > > On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin" wrote: > Hi all > > Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments on the COE report for your consideration. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > > All best, > > Gabrielle > ________________________________________ > From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at ACM.ORG] > Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52 > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments > > Hi, > > I am currently doing a edit pass though the document. By and large I > agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments. > > There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal Status. > this reads like an America overall forever clause. I think that > becoming an international organization has been studied, is feasible > and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO. I think it needs > to be studied further especially once we have understood the > parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship. > > I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause. I think > that this also needs further discussion to deal with the tussle among > rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US > trade-off. I recommend leaving this this out too. > > I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection > concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the stmt > would be stronger standing alone without the debatable clauses being > included in the doc. > > As it stands now, the document does not have my support. > > avri > > > On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote: > > Thanks, folks. I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten up the > > lingo on the doc. The statement looks great to me and ready to go. > > And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors! Well > > done! > > > > Thank you, Robin > > > > > > On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > >> Hi Niels, > >> > >> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and comments > >> and I think that is partly done. since were are late for > >> submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so we can > >> submit the comment. the comment link > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > >> > >> > >> > >> > @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever > >> : > >> > > Dear Rafik, > > > > Has this been submitted? > > > > Best, > > > > Niels > > > > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital > > > > Article 19 www.article19.org > > > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > > 68E9 > > > > On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>>>> Hi Gabrielle, > >>>>> > >>>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at > >>>>> perfect time just before IGF and the session there > >>>>> organized by council of europe about the report (Details > >>>>> shared by Bill few days ago) > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Rafik > >>>>> > >>>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin > >>>>> : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a > >>>>>> go at summarising the various comments that have been > >>>>>> made by various NCSG members about the COE report on > >>>>>> human rights. Here is a draft: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > > > Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is anything else I > >>>>>> can do to help. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> All the best, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Gabrielle > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy [mailto:joy at apc.org] > >>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; > >>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE Doc open > >>>>>> to comments > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee > >>>>>> Hibbard at Council of Europe on the deadline for > >>>>>> comments. He's noted they are aiming for a compilation of > >>>>>> comments by 8 September. We should try to finalise sooner > >>>>>> if we can, though, and I'll aim to take another look at > >>>>>> the shared document later this week. Cheers Joy On > >>>>>> 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: > >>>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when > >>>>>>> the comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On > >>>>>>> 23/07/2014 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the > >>>>>>>> comments on the COE > >>>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too > >>>>>> but I won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us > >>>>>>>> going if we have a > >>>>>> document that others can start working on based on > >>>>>> comments already received, so here is a link to a > >>>>>> googledoc where I have just reproduced Ed, Joy and > >>>>>> Milton's contributions. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems > >>>>>>>> with the document. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hope that helps. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> All best, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on > >>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG] Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 > >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE > >>>>>>>> Doc open to comments > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work > >>>>>>>> through of the document in detail - that is extremely > >>>>>>>> helpful! Shall we start a shared document and begin > >>>>>>>> building the submission based on these and > >>>>>> other inputs? > >>>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and > >>>>>>>> develop a response soon .. also, i am still mulling > >>>>>>>> over your points, Ed, but a few responses below .... > >>>>>>>> thanks again! Joy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and > >>>>>>>>> erudite analysis. A few things I?d like to offer > >>>>>>>>> for consideration, in response both to Joy?s post > >>>>>>>>> and to the CoE document itself: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of > >>>>>>>>> Joy?s recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join > >>>>>>>>> the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I probably > >>>>>>>>> still am. However, I?m a bit concerned about the > >>>>>>>>> resignation of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation > >>>>>>>>> (EFF) > >>>>>> from the GNI in October of last year. > >>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN > >>>>>>>>> join the GNI, I?d suggest that we reach out to our > >>>>>>>>> EFF members and determine their views on the > >>>>>>>>> matter, given the action of their parent > >>>>>>>>> organization. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I > >>>>>>>> can also ask Katitza Rodriguez > >>>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both > >>>>>>>>> for their work on this report and for the overall > >>>>>>>>> effort of the CoE in promoting the inclusion of > >>>>>>>>> human rights considerations within internet > >>>>>>>>> governance generally, and within ICANN > >>>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this > >>>>>>>>> report. I want to particularly commend the authors > >>>>>>>>> on recognizing that domain names such as .sucks > >>>>>>>>> ?ordinarily come within the scope of protection > >>>>>>>>> offered by the right of freedom of > >>>>>> expression?(?117). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author?s suggestion that a > >>>>>>>>> human rights advisory panel be created within ICANN > >>>>>>>>> (?134). NCSG member Roy Balleste has done some > >>>>>>>>> excellent work in this area and I?d suggest he be > >>>>>>>>> consulted as to whether the specific composition of > >>>>>>>>> the panel suggested in this report is an optimal > >>>>>>>>> one. > >>>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC > >>>>>>>> submission about 18months ago on human rights and > >>>>>>>> ICANN - it's still relevant imho. > >>>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is > >>>>>>>>> the ?sole voice of human rights? within ICANN > >>>>>>>>> (?125). We should politely remind the Council of > >>>>>>>>> Europe that the leading voice for human rights > >>>>>>>>> within ICANN has never been GAC but rather has been > >>>>>>>>> the NCSG, it?s predecessor, and it?s member > >>>>>>>>> constituencies. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for > >>>>>>>> governments, but certainly not for human rights! > >>>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating > >>>>>>>>> the American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN > >>>>>>>>> (?9). As a corporation, it is likely that ICANN is > >>>>>>>>> not obligated to follow the precepts of the Bill of > >>>>>>>>> Rights in it?s relationships with others. I say > >>>>>>>>> likely, because if ICANN were construed by the > >>>>>>>>> courts to be a U.S. government contractor, which in > >>>>>>>>> some ways it currently is, ICANN could be construed > >>>>>>>>> as participating in state action and then would be > >>>>>>>>> obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a > >>>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights > >>>>>>>>> would apply to ICANN in its > >>>>>> relationship with others. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under > >>>>>>>>> American law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a > >>>>>>>>> non-natural person, and does benefit from the > >>>>>>>>> protections offered by Bill of Rights. It is bound > >>>>>>>>> to the Bill of Rights in this way. Further, ICANN > >>>>>>>>> is also protected from government interference > >>>>>>>>> through the Declaration of Rights of the > >>>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article > >>>>>>>>> 1), one of the most comprehensive statutory grants > >>>>>>>>> of rights that exist in the world. These are > >>>>>>>>> important considerations as we debate the future > >>>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. > >>>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law > >>>>>>>> dragons, i think a key question is also how the > >>>>>>>> international obligations of the US goverment relate > >>>>>>>> to a corporation such as ICANN > >>>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than > >>>>>>>>> trademark law be considered to ?address speech > >>>>>>>>> rights? (?117) is welcome, with the caveat that any > >>>>>>>>> such model must expand freedom of expression and > >>>>>>>>> not further restrict it. As bad as the trademark > >>>>>>>>> maximalist model we now have is, there are many > >>>>>>>>> legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to > >>>>>>>>> adhere to, and open-ended recommendations in this > >>>>>>>>> regard should best be avoided lest they be used by > >>>>>>>>> those favoring a more restrictive > >>>>>> speech model. > >>>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas > >>>>>>>> here ... via the shared doc? > >>>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining > >>>>>>>>> and actualizing in policy the term ?public > >>>>>>>>> interest? (?115). As they acknowledge, it is a > >>>>>>>>> vague term ?providing neither guidance nor > >>>>>>>>> constraint on ICANN?s > >>>>>> actions? > >>>>>>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to ?flesh out > >>>>>>>>> the concept? of global public interest to > >>>>>>>>> strengthen accountability and transparency within > >>>>>>>>> ICANN (?115). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I?d suggest we move away from use of the term > >>>>>>>>> ?public interest? in all regards, as it?s imprecise > >>>>>>>>> definition leads to more problems than it solves. > >>>>>>>>> I?m particularly nonplused by the positioning of > >>>>>>>>> the concepts of accountability and transparency as > >>>>>>>>> a seeming subset of > >>>>>> ?public interest? > >>>>>>>>> (115). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN > >>>>>>>>> needs to embrace regardless of the ?public > >>>>>>>>> interest?, whatever it is. These twin concepts > >>>>>>>>> strengthen both the ICANN community and ICANN > >>>>>>>>> corporate. An attitude that transparency and > >>>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to > >>>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public > >>>>>>>>> interest) should be rejected in favor of an > >>>>>>>>> acknowledgement that such processes strengthen > >>>>>>>>> ICANN internally. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous ?public interest? is > >>>>>>>>> welcome, but the principle reason for ICANN to > >>>>>>>>> conduct it?s affairs in a transparent and > >>>>>>>>> accountable manner is that it strengthens both > >>>>>>>>> ICANN the institution and ICANN the community. It > >>>>>>>>> is self-interest, not public interest, which should > >>>>>>>>> drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent > >>>>>>>>> and accountable as possible. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that > >>>>>>>>> accountability and transparency are dependent > >>>>>>>>> variables subject to whatever it is that ?public > >>>>>>>>> interest? is determined to be. They stand on their > >>>>>>>>> own. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and > >>>>>>>> accountable as possible and I agree that transparency > >>>>>>>> and accountability should not be dependent variables, > >>>>>>>> but I don't have the same negative reaction to > >>>>>>>> "public interest" - on the contrary, I find it a > >>>>>>>> useful concept, especially in administrative law as a > >>>>>>>> way to counter the power imbalances between private > >>>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which > >>>>>>>> States have obligations to protect - also because the > >>>>>>>> notion of public law and State obligations in the > >>>>>>>> public arena is a core component of the international > >>>>>>>> human rights framework (which distinguishes between > >>>>>>>> public and private law for example). So I would not > >>>>>>>> want to negate it in the context of responding to the > >>>>>>>> CoE paper nor in thinking through how this is > >>>>>>>> relevant to ICANN. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors > >>>>>>>>> to position ?hate speech? as an accepted derogation > >>>>>>>>> from free expression norms. This is not something > >>>>>>>>> that is generally accepted in the human rights > >>>>>>>>> community, but rather is a controversial notion > >>>>>>>>> that provokes rather heated and emotional > >>>>>>>>> argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the > >>>>>>>>> guise of obeying human rights norms, should police > >>>>>>>>> speech or in any way deny domain name applications > >>>>>>>>> because they may run afoul of ?hate speech? > >>>>>> principles. > >>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition > >>>>>>>>> of this SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate > >>>>>>>>> content or speech. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not > >>>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any > >>>>>>>>> sort of serious commitment to the principles of > >>>>>>>>> free speech. I know that there are many within our > >>>>>>>>> SG supportive of my views in this regard; I suspect > >>>>>>>>> there may be members that differ. Regardless of > >>>>>>>>> specific views on the issue, I hope we can all > >>>>>>>>> agree that ICANN is not the institution that should > >>>>>>>>> be determining what ?hate speech? is and then > >>>>>>>>> enforcing its > >>>>>> determination. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that ?despite its frequent > >>>>>>>>> use, there is no clear or unique understanding of > >>>>>>>>> what is ?hate speech?, and the definitions and > >>>>>>>>> conceptions vary in different countries? (?45). > >>>>>>>>> They then recognize that the European Court of > >>>>>>>>> Human Rights has not defined the term in order that > >>>>>>>>> it?s reasoning, ?is not confined within definitions > >>>>>>>>> that could limit its action in future cases?(?46). > >>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the issues, the authors > >>>>>>>>> suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with > >>>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I?d suggest that ICANN > >>>>>>>>> should only do so if the same opportunity is given > >>>>>>>>> to intergovernmental organizations from all the > >>>>>> world?s regions. Europe should not receive special > >>>>>> consideration. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to > >>>>>>>>> create unity out of the plurality of opinions and > >>>>>>>>> views relating to the proposed hate speech > >>>>>>>>> derogation from the universally recognized right of > >>>>>>>>> free expression. Upon close scrutiny, though, they > >>>>>>>>> cannot be said to have > >>>>>> accomplished their goal. > >>>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two > >>>>>>>>> of the Additional Protocol to the Budapest > >>>>>>>>> Convention on Cybercrime, as they attempted to > >>>>>>>>> define some portion of ?hate crime?. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part > >>>>>>>>> of the universal human rights acquis. The numbers > >>>>>>>>> are pretty stark: Of the seventeen non Council of > >>>>>>>>> Europe signatories to the Cybercrime Convention > >>>>>>>>> only two have ratified the Additional Protocol. Of > >>>>>>>>> even greater significance, of the forty-seven > >>>>>>>>> members of the Council of Europe only twenty have > >>>>>>>>> signed the Additional Protocol (?45). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the ?hate > >>>>>>>>> speech? derogation, the lack of ratification of the > >>>>>>>>> Additional Protocol suggests severe reservations > >>>>>>>>> about the concept. Certainly the proposed > >>>>>>>>> definition is suspect. This is true even in Europe, > >>>>>>>>> the area of the world where the hate speech > >>>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, > >>>>>>>>> and within the Council of Europe itself. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a > >>>>>>>>> ?balancing? test, the authors recommend that ICANN > >>>>>>>>> ?should ensure that ?hate speech? is not tolerated > >>>>>>>>> in the applied-for gTlds? (?60). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this > >>>>>>>>> recommendation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating > >>>>>>>>> speech. It certainly should not be in the business > >>>>>>>>> of deciding what is or is not hate speech, a > >>>>>>>>> concept with limited international acceptance and a > >>>>>>>>> variable definition, and then prohibiting it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that > >>>>>>>>> puts ICANN in the position of being a censor. This > >>>>>>>>> particular recommendation within this Council Of > >>>>>>>>> Europe report does just that and needs to be > >>>>>>>>> rejected. > >>>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist > >>>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some > >>>>>>>> of which does not - we could talk more offlist about > >>>>>>>> it. I agree on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, > >>>>>>>> but this begs the question of how should human > >>>>>>>> rights, ALL rights, be balanced in the > >>>>>>>> decision-making - on this I would point back to the > >>>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting > >>>>>>>> the rights arguments looked at there and getting GAC > >>>>>>>> members involved in that process, which is one of our > >>>>>>>> longstanding SG positions). maybe there are other > >>>>>>>> ideas here as well ... > >>>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any > >>>>>>>>> suggestion of giving ICANN ?international or > >>>>>>>>> quasi-international status? (?136) and I hope > >>>>>>>>> others will join me, as an SG and individually, in > >>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>> opposition. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joy ?shudders?? at the authors suggestion that the > >>>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red > >>>>>>>>> Crescent societies should serve as a ?source of > >>>>>>>>> inspiration? for ICANN?s future organizational > >>>>>>>>> legal position (?137). I shudder with her. Joy then > >>>>>>>>> suggests that the ILO might ?be a better model?. It > >>>>>>>>> might be, but if ICANN received a status similar to > >>>>>>>>> that of the ILO I respectfully suggest that shudder > >>>>>>>>> rather than support would still be an appropriate > >>>>>>>>> response. > >>>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was > >>>>>>>> simply surprised that the CoE paper did not even > >>>>>>>> mention it - I know some governments are looking at > >>>>>>>> the ILO becuase it is tri-partite (government, > >>>>>>>> employers and worker representation) - and therefore > >>>>>>>> using it to try and persuade other governments that > >>>>>>>> other multi-stakeholder options do exist > >>>>>>>> internationally > >>>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of > >>>>>>>>> privileges and legal immunities. The ILO is > >>>>>>>>> actually a pretty good place to see what these > >>>>>>>>> entail. As a specialized agency of the United > >>>>>>>>> Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 Convention > >>>>>>>>> on Privileges and Immunities which grants, amongst > >>>>>>>>> other benefits: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization > >>>>>>>>> and for its officials in its official acts, with > >>>>>>>>> even greater immunity for executive officials, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical > >>>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special > >>>>>>>>> protection for its communications, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and > >>>>>>>>> its employees, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given > >>>>>>>>> diplomats for those attending organizational > >>>>>>>>> meetings. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The > >>>>>>>>> agreement between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal > >>>>>>>>> Council mandates that the Red Cross receives, > >>>>>>>>> amongst other benefits: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. > >>>>>>>>> This immunity extends to both the organization and > >>>>>>>>> to officials and continues with respect to > >>>>>>>>> officials even after they leave office, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited > >>>>>>>>> about proposals to give it international status. It > >>>>>>>>> is less easy to understand why anyone who is not a > >>>>>>>>> member of the ICANN staff thinks that this is a > >>>>>> good idea. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN > >>>>>>>>> international legal status the authors write, > >>>>>>>>> ?ICANN should be free from risk of dominance by > >>>>>>>>> states, other stakeholders, or even its own staff? > >>>>>>>>> (?136). I agree with the principle but fail to see > >>>>>>>>> how granting ICANN international legal status does > >>>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony > >>>>>>>>> of ICANN staff, making their actions less > >>>>>> transparent and less accountable. > >>>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) > >>>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of > >>>>>>>>> definite external accountability for ICANN are 1) > >>>>>>>>> the NTIA, 2) the attorney general of the State of > >>>>>>>>> California (AG) and the 3) courts, principally > >>>>>>>>> those located in California. As the NTIA withdraws > >>>>>>>>> from oversight the two remaining sources of > >>>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the > >>>>>>>>> courts. Should this CoE proposal for international > >>>>>>>>> status be accepted, in lieu of other changes, there > >>>>>>>>> will be no external control over ICANN. We cannot > >>>>>>>>> support this proposition. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as > >>>>>>>>> a private, not for profit corporation. The authors > >>>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to > >>>>>>>>> this structure. In stating that ICANN has > >>>>>>>>> ?flexibly? met the ?changing needs of the > >>>>>>>>> internet?(?1) the authors implicitly recognize a > >>>>>>>>> value associated more with private corporations > >>>>>>>>> than with those institutions accorded international > >>>>>>>>> status. In using the .XXX decision as an example > >>>>>>>>> where the values of free expression trumped > >>>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should > >>>>>>>>> be noted that some observers, myself included, > >>>>>>>>> believe the Board?s decision in this matter was > >>>>>>>>> caused by fear of losing a lawsuit threatened by > >>>>>>>>> ICM Registry. Immunity from legal process > >>>>>>>>> eliminates this control > >>>>>> mechanism. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily > >>>>>>>>> mean supporting ICANN?s continued corporate > >>>>>>>>> residence in California. I reject the notion, > >>>>>>>>> though, that leaving California necessarily would > >>>>>>>>> make things better from the perspective of civil > >>>>>>>>> society or of the individual user. It would depend > >>>>>>>>> upon the legal structure of the > >>>>>> receiving jurisdiction. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is > >>>>>>>>> a corporate reorganization that would better help > >>>>>>>>> ICANN meet the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: > >>>>>>>>> the cration of membership within ICANN. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Changing ICANN?s corporate structure from that of > >>>>>>>>> a California public benefit corporation without > >>>>>>>>> members to that of a California public benefits > >>>>>>>>> corporation with members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the > >>>>>>>>> California Corporations Code, would do a far better > >>>>>>>>> job of creating a truly responsive and democratic > >>>>>>>>> ICANN than granting ICANN international status > >>>>>>>>> would. A more comprehensive discussion of this > >>>>>>>>> concept can be found in my 27 June post on > >>>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on > >>>>>> this list. > >>>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look > >>>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special > >>>>>>>>> international legal status for ICANN would somewhat > >>>>>>>>> entrench the organization, and not in a good way. > >>>>>>>>> None of us know what the communications landscape > >>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>> look like in a decade. > >>>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block > >>>>>>>>> chain technology, or technologies not yet dreamt > >>>>>>>>> of, will obviate the need for a central naming and > >>>>>>>>> addressing authority. It is reasonable to think > >>>>>>>>> that an entity with international legal status > >>>>>>>>> would be more likely to try to cling to it?s > >>>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private > >>>>>>>>> corporation responsive to its members. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they > >>>>>>>>> will provide a further basis for discussion. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Indeed ! > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ed ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy > >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 18 Jul > >>>>>>>>> 2014 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to > >>>>>>>>> comments > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary > >>>>>>>>> thoughts after some discussion in APC > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically > >>>>>>>>> saying that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling > >>>>>>>>> human rights obligations and that private sector, > >>>>>>>>> intellectual property and and law enforcement > >>>>>>>>> interests have been weighed too heavily in the > >>>>>>>>> balance of decision-making to the detriment of > >>>>>>>>> human rights and other stakeholders, including > >>>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not > >>>>>>>>> entirely new) points - some reflections for working > >>>>>>>>> up to a possible submission: + I think this paper > >>>>>>>>> is evidence that discourse is moving beyond > >>>>>> "whether" > >>>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making > >>>>>>>>> (the previous paper I contributed to) and more > >>>>>>>>> specifically into "how" in a very practical way - > >>>>>>>>> that is excellent and should be welcomed - the > >>>>>>>>> clear link to human rights in NETMundial and > >>>>>>>>> related documents seems to be tipping the human > >>>>>>>>> rights discussion - that is also really positive + > >>>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in > >>>>>>>>> specific ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up > >>>>>>>>> deficiencies in both the standards and processes > >>>>>>>>> ICANN is using - The paper does mention social and > >>>>>>>>> cultural rights but only in passing in relation to > >>>>>>>>> the community application dotgay, so I think this > >>>>>>>>> makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights > >>>>>>>>> timely and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + > >>>>>>>>> several parts of the analysis and of the > >>>>>>>>> recommendations were + already made by the Non > >>>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency in a submission > >>>>>>>>> developed in 2013 (one > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN > >>>>>>>>> on human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see > >>>>>>>>> that paper cited - we should point out this > >>>>>>>>> connection in making comments + clearly governments > >>>>>>>>> are reaching for the human rights framework to > >>>>>>>>> challenge the behaviour of other governments (as in > >>>>>>>>> relation the law enforcement and the registrar > >>>>>>>>> accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is > >>>>>>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed > >>>>>>>>> between and among governments - it suggests there > >>>>>>>>> is a lot of discussion going on behind GAC's closed > >>>>>>>>> doors on this.... I really like the references to > >>>>>>>>> the UN resolutions internet rights - it is good to > >>>>>>>>> see this jurisprudence emerging. + there is > >>>>>>>>> inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies to > >>>>>>>>> + business - not just business interests in ICANN > >>>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such > >>>>>>>>> as registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - > >>>>>>>>> Anriette raised these points and I think we need to > >>>>>>>>> think through how to respond on this - especially > >>>>>>>>> on the human rights and business rules that were > >>>>>>>>> developed in the UN + the analysis and > >>>>>>>>> recommendations on community applications is very > >>>>>>>>> + useful and I strongly support this aspect + the > >>>>>>>>> paper recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal > >>>>>>>>> basis to + include human rights in its bylaws - > >>>>>>>>> that is good - but they should also become a member > >>>>>>>>> of the GNI: Rafik Dammak and others have been > >>>>>>>>> calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN board has > >>>>>>>>> actively opposed that step. so we can raise that + > >>>>>>>>> also recommends looking at the Red Cross as > >>>>>>>>> possible inspiration + for a model - that made me > >>>>>>>>> shudder give how the RC has behaved in policy > >>>>>>>>> making in > >>>>>> ICANN. > >>>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must > >>>>>>>>> respond on that specific > >>>>>> point. > >>>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and > >>>>>>>>> challenging issues is + trying to define the public > >>>>>>>>> interest aspects of ICANN's role and also GAC's > >>>>>>>>> responsibilities - i think it's useful to raise > >>>>>>>>> this again and try to squarely address it and there > >>>>>>>>> are some options (the paper recommends an expert > >>>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights > >>>>>>>>> impact assessment of policy proposals - i think we > >>>>>>>>> could also revive that idea..... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi > >>>>>>>>> all, Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few > >>>>>>>>> others volunteered to work on a draft contribution > >>>>>>>>> with comments and suggestions about CoE document. > >>>>>>>>> Joy, your involvement is super important. Shall we > >>>>>>>>> start to get it going? Best, Mar?lia > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment > >>>>>>>>> period- and great that they took it up. And a > >>>>>>>>> follow up event in LA would be excellent - I am > >>>>>>>>> sure APC would want to support it. I do hope it > >>>>>>>>> hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi > >>>>>>>>> Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I?m glad Lee did this, as it?s not COE?s normal > >>>>>>>>> procedure at all. We suggested they try it at our > >>>>>>>>> meeting with them in London. We also agreed to > >>>>>>>>> propose a follow up event for LA. It?d be good to > >>>>>>>>> have our own position on paper prior. Since the > >>>>>>>>> paper may have screwed Thomas? campaign for GAC > >>>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Bill > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - > >>>>>>>>> sorry it has taken me a while to get back on this, > >>>>>>>>> I've been away from the office a while and it's > >>>>>>>>> taken a while to catch up .... Thanks also Milton > >>>>>>>>> for your blog post about the paper - I agree with > >>>>>>>>> most of your comments. There are quite a few > >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any > >>>>>>>>> discussion at the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG > >>>>>>>>> response? I note that some of the points and > >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper were previously > >>>>>>>>> covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in > >>>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work > >>>>>>>>> in any follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to > >>>>>>>>> help with). Cheers Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human > >>>>>>>>> Rights > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > Is on line and open to comments. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> avri > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** > >>>>>>>>> William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer > >>>>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University > >>>>>>>>> of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users > >>>>>>>>> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org > >>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com > >>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org > >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > Mar?lia Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Sat Sep 20 13:50:04 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 07:50:04 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] pc list In-Reply-To: <4ED3C607-28BA-4F5A-A7FB-C8EA334D7756@egyptig.org> References: <541C95B7.2090801@acm.org> <4ED3C607-28BA-4F5A-A7FB-C8EA334D7756@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Yes, good idea. Mar?lia Em 20/09/2014 06:47, "Amr Elsadr" escreveu: > Hi, > > I have no objection. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > hi, > > > > it occurs to me that all of the newly elected council members are > > already members of this list except maybe Ed. maybe we want to add him > > as observer until such time as he takes his seat? > > > > just suggesting, leave it to our leaders to take it from there. > > > > 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 Sat Sep 20 15:19:36 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 08:19:36 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.org> <28BD6CA3-881D-4550-9B70-3913A850D455@gmail.com> <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> Message-ID: <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> I apologize for commenting rather late, and for not signing into the document....I dont do google identities. So I show up as anonymous. I caught a few typos, and added a couple of things. Thanks for doing all the work Gabrielle, and I endorse it as well. If I get time I may send in my own separate comments, focusing in on the problems that have arisen in the context of WHOIS. no promises though, swamped.... cheers Stephanie On 2014-09-20, 6:36, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Also a lot of appreciation from me to those who worked on putting this > statement together. I would be very happy if the NCSG endorsed it. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > >> Thank you Rafik and thank you very much Gabrielle and all who worked >> on the drafting. >> I endorse this document. I only made one minor suggestion regarding >> consistency. >> Best, >> Mar?lia >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with >> review and endorsement? >> Thanks, >> >> Rafik >> >> On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin" >> > wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments >> on the COE report for your consideration. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >> >> All best, >> >> Gabrielle >> ________________________________________ >> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> ] on behalf of Avri >> Doria [avri at ACM.ORG ] >> Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52 >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments >> >> Hi, >> >> I am currently doing a edit pass though the document. By and >> large I >> agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments. >> >> There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal >> Status. >> this reads like an America overall forever clause. I think that >> becoming an international organization has been studied, is >> feasible >> and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO. I think >> it needs >> to be studied further especially once we have understood the >> parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship. >> >> I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause. I >> think >> that this also needs further discussion to deal with the >> tussle among >> rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US >> trade-off. I recommend leaving this this out too. >> >> I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection >> concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the >> stmt >> would be stronger standing alone without the debatable >> clauses being >> included in the doc. >> >> As it stands now, the document does not have my support. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote: >> > Thanks, folks. I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten >> up the >> > lingo on the doc. The statement looks great to me and >> ready to go. >> > And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors! Well >> > done! >> > >> > Thank you, Robin >> > >> > >> > On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Niels, >> >> >> >> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and >> comments >> >> and I think that is partly done. since were are late for >> >> submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so >> we can >> >> submit the comment. the comment link >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever >> >> > >: >> >> >> > Dear Rafik, >> > >> > Has this been submitted? >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Niels >> > >> > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital >> > >> > Article 19 www.article19.org >> > >> > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> > 68E9 >> > >> > On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>>>> Hi Gabrielle, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at >> >>>>> perfect time just before IGF and the session there >> >>>>> organized by council of europe about the report (Details >> >>>>> shared by Bill few days ago) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Rafik >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin >> >>>>> >: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi all >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a >> >>>>>> go at summarising the various comments that have been >> >>>>>> made by various NCSG members about the COE report on >> >>>>>> human rights. Here is a draft: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > >> > >> Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is >> anything else I >> >>>>>> can do to help. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> All the best, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Gabrielle >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy >> [mailto:joy at apc.org ] >> >>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; >> >>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: COE Doc open >> >>>>>> to comments >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee >> >>>>>> Hibbard at Council of Europe on the deadline for >> >>>>>> comments. He's noted they are aiming for a compilation of >> >>>>>> comments by 8 September. We should try to finalise sooner >> >>>>>> if we can, though, and I'll aim to take another look at >> >>>>>> the shared document later this week. Cheers Joy On >> >>>>>> 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: >> >>>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when >> >>>>>>> the comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On >> >>>>>>> 23/07/2014 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Hi all >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the >> >>>>>>>> comments on the COE >> >>>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too >> >>>>>> but I won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us >> >>>>>>>> going if we have a >> >>>>>> document that others can start working on based on >> >>>>>> comments already received, so here is a link to a >> >>>>>> googledoc where I have just reproduced Ed, Joy and >> >>>>>> Milton's contributions. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>> >> ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems >> >>>>>>>> with the document. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> All best, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ >> >>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> ] on >> >>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG ] >> Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 >> >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: COE >> >>>>>>>> Doc open to comments >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work >> >>>>>>>> through of the document in detail - that is extremely >> >>>>>>>> helpful! Shall we start a shared document and begin >> >>>>>>>> building the submission based on these and >> >>>>>> other inputs? >> >>>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and >> >>>>>>>> develop a response soon .. also, i am still mulling >> >>>>>>>> over your points, Ed, but a few responses below .... >> >>>>>>>> thanks again! Joy >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and >> >>>>>>>>> erudite analysis. A few things I'd like to offer >> >>>>>>>>> for consideration, in response both to Joy's post >> >>>>>>>>> and to the CoE document itself: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of >> >>>>>>>>> Joy's recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join >> >>>>>>>>> the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I probably >> >>>>>>>>> still am. However, I'm a bit concerned about the >> >>>>>>>>> resignation of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation >> >>>>>>>>> (EFF) >> >>>>>> from the GNI in October of last year. >> >>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> join the GNI, I'd suggest that we reach out to our >> >>>>>>>>> EFF members and determine their views on the >> >>>>>>>>> matter, given the action of their parent >> >>>>>>>>> organization. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I >> >>>>>>>> can also ask Katitza Rodriguez >> >>>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both >> >>>>>>>>> for their work on this report and for the overall >> >>>>>>>>> effort of the CoE in promoting the inclusion of >> >>>>>>>>> human rights considerations within internet >> >>>>>>>>> governance generally, and within ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this >> >>>>>>>>> report. I want to particularly commend the authors >> >>>>>>>>> on recognizing that domain names such as .sucks >> >>>>>>>>> "ordinarily come within the scope of protection >> >>>>>>>>> offered by the right of freedom of >> >>>>>> expression"(?117). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> +1 >> >>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author's suggestion that a >> >>>>>>>>> human rights advisory panel be created within ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> (?134). NCSG member Roy Balleste has done some >> >>>>>>>>> excellent work in this area and I'd suggest he be >> >>>>>>>>> consulted as to whether the specific composition of >> >>>>>>>>> the panel suggested in this report is an optimal >> >>>>>>>>> one. >> >>>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC >> >>>>>>>> submission about 18months ago on human rights and >> >>>>>>>> ICANN - it's still relevant imho. >> >>>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is >> >>>>>>>>> the "sole voice of human rights" within ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> (?125). We should politely remind the Council of >> >>>>>>>>> Europe that the leading voice for human rights >> >>>>>>>>> within ICANN has never been GAC but rather has been >> >>>>>>>>> the NCSG, it's predecessor, and it's member >> >>>>>>>>> constituencies. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for >> >>>>>>>> governments, but certainly not for human rights! >> >>>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating >> >>>>>>>>> the American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> (?9). As a corporation, it is likely that ICANN is >> >>>>>>>>> not obligated to follow the precepts of the Bill of >> >>>>>>>>> Rights in it's relationships with others. I say >> >>>>>>>>> likely, because if ICANN were construed by the >> >>>>>>>>> courts to be a U.S. government contractor, which in >> >>>>>>>>> some ways it currently is, ICANN could be construed >> >>>>>>>>> as participating in state action and then would be >> >>>>>>>>> obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a >> >>>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights >> >>>>>>>>> would apply to ICANN in its >> >>>>>> relationship with others. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under >> >>>>>>>>> American law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a >> >>>>>>>>> non-natural person, and does benefit from the >> >>>>>>>>> protections offered by Bill of Rights. It is bound >> >>>>>>>>> to the Bill of Rights in this way. Further, ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> is also protected from government interference >> >>>>>>>>> through the Declaration of Rights of the >> >>>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article >> >>>>>>>>> 1), one of the most comprehensive statutory grants >> >>>>>>>>> of rights that exist in the world. These are >> >>>>>>>>> important considerations as we debate the future >> >>>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. >> >>>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law >> >>>>>>>> dragons, i think a key question is also how the >> >>>>>>>> international obligations of the US goverment relate >> >>>>>>>> to a corporation such as ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than >> >>>>>>>>> trademark law be considered to "address speech >> >>>>>>>>> rights" (?117) is welcome, with the caveat that any >> >>>>>>>>> such model must expand freedom of expression and >> >>>>>>>>> not further restrict it. As bad as the trademark >> >>>>>>>>> maximalist model we now have is, there are many >> >>>>>>>>> legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to >> >>>>>>>>> adhere to, and open-ended recommendations in this >> >>>>>>>>> regard should best be avoided lest they be used by >> >>>>>>>>> those favoring a more restrictive >> >>>>>> speech model. >> >>>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas >> >>>>>>>> here ... via the shared doc? >> >>>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining >> >>>>>>>>> and actualizing in policy the term "public >> >>>>>>>>> interest" (?115). As they acknowledge, it is a >> >>>>>>>>> vague term "providing neither guidance nor >> >>>>>>>>> constraint on ICANN's >> >>>>>> actions" >> >>>>>>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to "flesh out >> >>>>>>>>> the concept" of global public interest to >> >>>>>>>>> strengthen accountability and transparency within >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN (?115). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'd suggest we move away from use of the term >> >>>>>>>>> "public interest" in all regards, as it's imprecise >> >>>>>>>>> definition leads to more problems than it solves. >> >>>>>>>>> I'm particularly nonplused by the positioning of >> >>>>>>>>> the concepts of accountability and transparency as >> >>>>>>>>> a seeming subset of >> >>>>>> "public interest" >> >>>>>>>>> (115). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> needs to embrace regardless of the "public >> >>>>>>>>> interest", whatever it is. These twin concepts >> >>>>>>>>> strengthen both the ICANN community and ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> corporate. An attitude that transparency and >> >>>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to >> >>>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public >> >>>>>>>>> interest) should be rejected in favor of an >> >>>>>>>>> acknowledgement that such processes strengthen >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN internally. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous "public interest" is >> >>>>>>>>> welcome, but the principle reason for ICANN to >> >>>>>>>>> conduct it's affairs in a transparent and >> >>>>>>>>> accountable manner is that it strengthens both >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN the institution and ICANN the community. It >> >>>>>>>>> is self-interest, not public interest, which should >> >>>>>>>>> drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent >> >>>>>>>>> and accountable as possible. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that >> >>>>>>>>> accountability and transparency are dependent >> >>>>>>>>> variables subject to whatever it is that "public >> >>>>>>>>> interest" is determined to be. They stand on their >> >>>>>>>>> own. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and >> >>>>>>>> accountable as possible and I agree that transparency >> >>>>>>>> and accountability should not be dependent variables, >> >>>>>>>> but I don't have the same negative reaction to >> >>>>>>>> "public interest" - on the contrary, I find it a >> >>>>>>>> useful concept, especially in administrative law as a >> >>>>>>>> way to counter the power imbalances between private >> >>>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which >> >>>>>>>> States have obligations to protect - also because the >> >>>>>>>> notion of public law and State obligations in the >> >>>>>>>> public arena is a core component of the international >> >>>>>>>> human rights framework (which distinguishes between >> >>>>>>>> public and private law for example). So I would not >> >>>>>>>> want to negate it in the context of responding to the >> >>>>>>>> CoE paper nor in thinking through how this is >> >>>>>>>> relevant to ICANN. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors >> >>>>>>>>> to position "hate speech" as an accepted derogation >> >>>>>>>>> from free expression norms. This is not something >> >>>>>>>>> that is generally accepted in the human rights >> >>>>>>>>> community, but rather is a controversial notion >> >>>>>>>>> that provokes rather heated and emotional >> >>>>>>>>> argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the >> >>>>>>>>> guise of obeying human rights norms, should police >> >>>>>>>>> speech or in any way deny domain name applications >> >>>>>>>>> because they may run afoul of 'hate speech' >> >>>>>> principles. >> >>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition >> >>>>>>>>> of this SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate >> >>>>>>>>> content or speech. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not >> >>>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any >> >>>>>>>>> sort of serious commitment to the principles of >> >>>>>>>>> free speech. I know that there are many within our >> >>>>>>>>> SG supportive of my views in this regard; I suspect >> >>>>>>>>> there may be members that differ. Regardless of >> >>>>>>>>> specific views on the issue, I hope we can all >> >>>>>>>>> agree that ICANN is not the institution that should >> >>>>>>>>> be determining what 'hate speech' is and then >> >>>>>>>>> enforcing its >> >>>>>> determination. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that "despite its frequent >> >>>>>>>>> use, there is no clear or unique understanding of >> >>>>>>>>> what is 'hate speech', and the definitions and >> >>>>>>>>> conceptions vary in different countries" (?45). >> >>>>>>>>> They then recognize that the European Court of >> >>>>>>>>> Human Rights has not defined the term in order that >> >>>>>>>>> it's reasoning, "is not confined within definitions >> >>>>>>>>> that could limit its action in future cases"(?46). >> >>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the issues, the authors >> >>>>>>>>> suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with >> >>>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I'd suggest that ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> should only do so if the same opportunity is given >> >>>>>>>>> to intergovernmental organizations from all the >> >>>>>> world's regions. Europe should not receive special >> >>>>>> consideration. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to >> >>>>>>>>> create unity out of the plurality of opinions and >> >>>>>>>>> views relating to the proposed hate speech >> >>>>>>>>> derogation from the universally recognized right of >> >>>>>>>>> free expression. Upon close scrutiny, though, they >> >>>>>>>>> cannot be said to have >> >>>>>> accomplished their goal. >> >>>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two >> >>>>>>>>> of the Additional Protocol to the Budapest >> >>>>>>>>> Convention on Cybercrime, as they attempted to >> >>>>>>>>> define some portion of 'hate crime'. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part >> >>>>>>>>> of the universal human rights acquis. The numbers >> >>>>>>>>> are pretty stark: Of the seventeen non Council of >> >>>>>>>>> Europe signatories to the Cybercrime Convention >> >>>>>>>>> only two have ratified the Additional Protocol. Of >> >>>>>>>>> even greater significance, of the forty-seven >> >>>>>>>>> members of the Council of Europe only twenty have >> >>>>>>>>> signed the Additional Protocol (?45). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the 'hate >> >>>>>>>>> speech' derogation, the lack of ratification of the >> >>>>>>>>> Additional Protocol suggests severe reservations >> >>>>>>>>> about the concept. Certainly the proposed >> >>>>>>>>> definition is suspect. This is true even in Europe, >> >>>>>>>>> the area of the world where the hate speech >> >>>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, >> >>>>>>>>> and within the Council of Europe itself. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a >> >>>>>>>>> "balancing" test, the authors recommend that ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> "should ensure that 'hate speech' is not tolerated >> >>>>>>>>> in the applied-for gTlds" (?60). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this >> >>>>>>>>> recommendation. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating >> >>>>>>>>> speech. It certainly should not be in the business >> >>>>>>>>> of deciding what is or is not hate speech, a >> >>>>>>>>> concept with limited international acceptance and a >> >>>>>>>>> variable definition, and then prohibiting it. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that >> >>>>>>>>> puts ICANN in the position of being a censor. This >> >>>>>>>>> particular recommendation within this Council Of >> >>>>>>>>> Europe report does just that and needs to be >> >>>>>>>>> rejected. >> >>>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist >> >>>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some >> >>>>>>>> of which does not - we could talk more offlist about >> >>>>>>>> it. I agree on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, >> >>>>>>>> but this begs the question of how should human >> >>>>>>>> rights, ALL rights, be balanced in the >> >>>>>>>> decision-making - on this I would point back to the >> >>>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting >> >>>>>>>> the rights arguments looked at there and getting GAC >> >>>>>>>> members involved in that process, which is one of our >> >>>>>>>> longstanding SG positions). maybe there are other >> >>>>>>>> ideas here as well ... >> >>>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any >> >>>>>>>>> suggestion of giving ICANN "international or >> >>>>>>>>> quasi-international status" (?136) and I hope >> >>>>>>>>> others will join me, as an SG and individually, in >> >>>>>>>>> this >> >>>>>> opposition. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Joy "shudders'" at the authors suggestion that the >> >>>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red >> >>>>>>>>> Crescent societies should serve as a "source of >> >>>>>>>>> inspiration" for ICANN's future organizational >> >>>>>>>>> legal position (?137). I shudder with her. Joy then >> >>>>>>>>> suggests that the ILO might "be a better model". It >> >>>>>>>>> might be, but if ICANN received a status similar to >> >>>>>>>>> that of the ILO I respectfully suggest that shudder >> >>>>>>>>> rather than support would still be an appropriate >> >>>>>>>>> response. >> >>>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was >> >>>>>>>> simply surprised that the CoE paper did not even >> >>>>>>>> mention it - I know some governments are looking at >> >>>>>>>> the ILO becuase it is tri-partite (government, >> >>>>>>>> employers and worker representation) - and therefore >> >>>>>>>> using it to try and persuade other governments that >> >>>>>>>> other multi-stakeholder options do exist >> >>>>>>>> internationally >> >>>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of >> >>>>>>>>> privileges and legal immunities. The ILO is >> >>>>>>>>> actually a pretty good place to see what these >> >>>>>>>>> entail. As a specialized agency of the United >> >>>>>>>>> Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 Convention >> >>>>>>>>> on Privileges and Immunities which grants, amongst >> >>>>>>>>> other benefits: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization >> >>>>>>>>> and for its officials in its official acts, with >> >>>>>>>>> even greater immunity for executive officials, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical >> >>>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special >> >>>>>>>>> protection for its communications, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and >> >>>>>>>>> its employees, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given >> >>>>>>>>> diplomats for those attending organizational >> >>>>>>>>> meetings. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The >> >>>>>>>>> agreement between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal >> >>>>>>>>> Council mandates that the Red Cross receives, >> >>>>>>>>> amongst other benefits: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. >> >>>>>>>>> This immunity extends to both the organization and >> >>>>>>>>> to officials and continues with respect to >> >>>>>>>>> officials even after they leave office, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited >> >>>>>>>>> about proposals to give it international status. It >> >>>>>>>>> is less easy to understand why anyone who is not a >> >>>>>>>>> member of the ICANN staff thinks that this is a >> >>>>>> good idea. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> international legal status the authors write, >> >>>>>>>>> "ICANN should be free from risk of dominance by >> >>>>>>>>> states, other stakeholders, or even its own staff" >> >>>>>>>>> (?136). I agree with the principle but fail to see >> >>>>>>>>> how granting ICANN international legal status does >> >>>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony >> >>>>>>>>> of ICANN staff, making their actions less >> >>>>>> transparent and less accountable. >> >>>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) >> >>>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of >> >>>>>>>>> definite external accountability for ICANN are 1) >> >>>>>>>>> the NTIA, 2) the attorney general of the State of >> >>>>>>>>> California (AG) and the 3) courts, principally >> >>>>>>>>> those located in California. As the NTIA withdraws >> >>>>>>>>> from oversight the two remaining sources of >> >>>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the >> >>>>>>>>> courts. Should this CoE proposal for international >> >>>>>>>>> status be accepted, in lieu of other changes, there >> >>>>>>>>> will be no external control over ICANN. We cannot >> >>>>>>>>> support this proposition. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as >> >>>>>>>>> a private, not for profit corporation. The authors >> >>>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to >> >>>>>>>>> this structure. In stating that ICANN has >> >>>>>>>>> "flexibly" met the "changing needs of the >> >>>>>>>>> internet"(?1) the authors implicitly recognize a >> >>>>>>>>> value associated more with private corporations >> >>>>>>>>> than with those institutions accorded international >> >>>>>>>>> status. In using the .XXX decision as an example >> >>>>>>>>> where the values of free expression trumped >> >>>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should >> >>>>>>>>> be noted that some observers, myself included, >> >>>>>>>>> believe the Board's decision in this matter was >> >>>>>>>>> caused by fear of losing a lawsuit threatened by >> >>>>>>>>> ICM Registry. Immunity from legal process >> >>>>>>>>> eliminates this control >> >>>>>> mechanism. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily >> >>>>>>>>> mean supporting ICANN's continued corporate >> >>>>>>>>> residence in California. I reject the notion, >> >>>>>>>>> though, that leaving California necessarily would >> >>>>>>>>> make things better from the perspective of civil >> >>>>>>>>> society or of the individual user. It would depend >> >>>>>>>>> upon the legal structure of the >> >>>>>> receiving jurisdiction. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is >> >>>>>>>>> a corporate reorganization that would better help >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN meet the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: >> >>>>>>>>> the cration of membership within ICANN. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Changing ICANN's corporate structure from that of >> >>>>>>>>> a California public benefit corporation without >> >>>>>>>>> members to that of a California public benefits >> >>>>>>>>> corporation with members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the >> >>>>>>>>> California Corporations Code, would do a far better >> >>>>>>>>> job of creating a truly responsive and democratic >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN than granting ICANN international status >> >>>>>>>>> would. A more comprehensive discussion of this >> >>>>>>>>> concept can be found in my 27 June post on >> >>>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on >> >>>>>> this list. >> >>>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look >> >>>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special >> >>>>>>>>> international legal status for ICANN would somewhat >> >>>>>>>>> entrench the organization, and not in a good way. >> >>>>>>>>> None of us know what the communications landscape >> >>>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>> look like in a decade. >> >>>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block >> >>>>>>>>> chain technology, or technologies not yet dreamt >> >>>>>>>>> of, will obviate the need for a central naming and >> >>>>>>>>> addressing authority. It is reasonable to think >> >>>>>>>>> that an entity with international legal status >> >>>>>>>>> would be more likely to try to cling to it's >> >>>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private >> >>>>>>>>> corporation responsive to its members. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they >> >>>>>>>>> will provide a further basis for discussion. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Indeed ! >> >>>>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ed ? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy > > >> >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Date: Fri, 18 Jul >> >>>>>>>>> 2014 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to >> >>>>>>>>> comments >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary >> >>>>>>>>> thoughts after some discussion in APC >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically >> >>>>>>>>> saying that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling >> >>>>>>>>> human rights obligations and that private sector, >> >>>>>>>>> intellectual property and and law enforcement >> >>>>>>>>> interests have been weighed too heavily in the >> >>>>>>>>> balance of decision-making to the detriment of >> >>>>>>>>> human rights and other stakeholders, including >> >>>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not >> >>>>>>>>> entirely new) points - some reflections for working >> >>>>>>>>> up to a possible submission: + I think this paper >> >>>>>>>>> is evidence that discourse is moving beyond >> >>>>>> "whether" >> >>>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making >> >>>>>>>>> (the previous paper I contributed to) and more >> >>>>>>>>> specifically into "how" in a very practical way - >> >>>>>>>>> that is excellent and should be welcomed - the >> >>>>>>>>> clear link to human rights in NETMundial and >> >>>>>>>>> related documents seems to be tipping the human >> >>>>>>>>> rights discussion - that is also really positive + >> >>>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in >> >>>>>>>>> specific ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up >> >>>>>>>>> deficiencies in both the standards and processes >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN is using - The paper does mention social and >> >>>>>>>>> cultural rights but only in passing in relation to >> >>>>>>>>> the community application dotgay, so I think this >> >>>>>>>>> makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights >> >>>>>>>>> timely and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + >> >>>>>>>>> several parts of the analysis and of the >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations were + already made by the Non >> >>>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency in a submission >> >>>>>>>>> developed in 2013 (one >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> on human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see >> >>>>>>>>> that paper cited - we should point out this >> >>>>>>>>> connection in making comments + clearly governments >> >>>>>>>>> are reaching for the human rights framework to >> >>>>>>>>> challenge the behaviour of other governments (as in >> >>>>>>>>> relation the law enforcement and the registrar >> >>>>>>>>> accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is >> >>>>>>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed >> >>>>>>>>> between and among governments - it suggests there >> >>>>>>>>> is a lot of discussion going on behind GAC's closed >> >>>>>>>>> doors on this.... I really like the references to >> >>>>>>>>> the UN resolutions internet rights - it is good to >> >>>>>>>>> see this jurisprudence emerging. + there is >> >>>>>>>>> inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies to >> >>>>>>>>> + business - not just business interests in ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such >> >>>>>>>>> as registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - >> >>>>>>>>> Anriette raised these points and I think we need to >> >>>>>>>>> think through how to respond on this - especially >> >>>>>>>>> on the human rights and business rules that were >> >>>>>>>>> developed in the UN + the analysis and >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations on community applications is very >> >>>>>>>>> + useful and I strongly support this aspect + the >> >>>>>>>>> paper recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal >> >>>>>>>>> basis to + include human rights in its bylaws - >> >>>>>>>>> that is good - but they should also become a member >> >>>>>>>>> of the GNI: Rafik Dammak and others have been >> >>>>>>>>> calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN board has >> >>>>>>>>> actively opposed that step. so we can raise that + >> >>>>>>>>> also recommends looking at the Red Cross as >> >>>>>>>>> possible inspiration + for a model - that made me >> >>>>>>>>> shudder give how the RC has behaved in policy >> >>>>>>>>> making in >> >>>>>> ICANN. >> >>>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must >> >>>>>>>>> respond on that specific >> >>>>>> point. >> >>>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and >> >>>>>>>>> challenging issues is + trying to define the public >> >>>>>>>>> interest aspects of ICANN's role and also GAC's >> >>>>>>>>> responsibilities - i think it's useful to raise >> >>>>>>>>> this again and try to squarely address it and there >> >>>>>>>>> are some options (the paper recommends an expert >> >>>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights >> >>>>>>>>> impact assessment of policy proposals - i think we >> >>>>>>>>> could also revive that idea..... >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi >> >>>>>>>>> all, Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few >> >>>>>>>>> others volunteered to work on a draft contribution >> >>>>>>>>> with comments and suggestions about CoE document. >> >>>>>>>>> Joy, your involvement is super important. Shall we >> >>>>>>>>> start to get it going? Best, Mar?lia >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment >> >>>>>>>>> period- and great that they took it up. And a >> >>>>>>>>> follow up event in LA would be excellent - I am >> >>>>>>>>> sure APC would want to support it. I do hope it >> >>>>>>>>> hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi >> >>>>>>>>> Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm glad Lee did this, as it's not COE's normal >> >>>>>>>>> procedure at all. We suggested they try it at our >> >>>>>>>>> meeting with them in London. We also agreed to >> >>>>>>>>> propose a follow up event for LA. It'd be good to >> >>>>>>>>> have our own position on paper prior. Since the >> >>>>>>>>> paper may have screwed Thomas' campaign for GAC >> >>>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Bill >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - >> >>>>>>>>> sorry it has taken me a while to get back on this, >> >>>>>>>>> I've been away from the office a while and it's >> >>>>>>>>> taken a while to catch up .... Thanks also Milton >> >>>>>>>>> for your blog post about the paper - I agree with >> >>>>>>>>> most of your comments. There are quite a few >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any >> >>>>>>>>> discussion at the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG >> >>>>>>>>> response? I note that some of the points and >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper were previously >> >>>>>>>>> covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in >> >>>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work >> >>>>>>>>> in any follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to >> >>>>>>>>> help with). Cheers Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human >> >>>>>>>>> Rights >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> Is on line and open to comments. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> avri >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >> >>>>>>>>> William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer >> >>>>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University >> >>>>>>>>> of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users >> >>>>>>>>> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> >> >>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >> >>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org >> >> >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Mar?lia Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV >> Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From magaly.pazello Sat Sep 20 17:29:43 2014 From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 11:29:43 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] pc list In-Reply-To: <4ED3C607-28BA-4F5A-A7FB-C8EA334D7756@egyptig.org> References: <541C95B7.2090801@acm.org> <4ED3C607-28BA-4F5A-A7FB-C8EA334D7756@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Ed is very welcome in my opinion. Magaly On Saturday, September 20, 2014, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I have no objection. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> hi, >> >> it occurs to me that all of the newly elected council members are >> already members of this list except maybe Ed. maybe we want to add him >> as observer until such time as he takes his seat? >> >> just suggesting, leave it to our leaders to take it from there. >> >> 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 > -- Sent from my Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Mon Sep 22 01:12:58 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:12:58 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: <541AF663.2040407@acm.org> Message-ID: <541F4D6A.9060703@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Mon Sep 22 01:44:22 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:44:22 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: <541D70D8.6060500@mail.utoronto.ca> 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> Message-ID: <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Mon Sep 22 01:58:33 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:58:33 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: <4886414.15991410957018105.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> References: <4886414.15991410957018105.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> Message-ID: <541F5819.5060704@apc.org> I also support Avri for this Joy On 18/09/2014 12:30 a.m., Dorothy K. Gordon wrote: > Total support for Avri, her knowledge benefits us in so many ways. > > best > > Dorothy K. Gordon > Director-General > Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT > Mobile: 233 265005712 > Direct Line: 233 302 683579 > Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh > Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephanie Perrin" > To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > Sent: Wednesday, 17 September, 2014 11:56:58 AM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review > > > Let us just endorse Avri, folks, if there are no objections. No time no time. Plus I am sure she is going to be terrific and several of us are going as observers. > Steph > > On 2014-09-17, 6:40, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > Avri volunteered and seemed to get support from several members on the NCSG list. Nobody else stepped up, and we?re already past the deadline for submitting the name of our representative. I would set a quick deadline for a PC consensus call of Avri?s appointment. > > > Thanks. > > > Amr > > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > as a reminder we need to appoint someone for the the CCWG on IANA transition > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-10 15:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > : > > > > Hi , > > > Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG representative in the cross-community working group. for procedure matter, shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for representation, I would like to ask the NCSG policy committee to proceed and respond quickly to this. I do think that Avri would make a good representative and liaison there. > > > indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being observer doesn't mean having a lower status regarding participation). I am joining myself the CCWG. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > : > > > Hi, > > Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as many NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria < avri at ACM.ORG > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The charter was approved. >> >> I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the >> Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. >> >> I also encourage others to participate in this group. >> >> Thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for >> observers for your review >> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 >> From: Marika Konings < marika.konings at icann.org > >> To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org < CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org > >> >> Dear All, >> >> For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during its >> meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO >> Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 September >> at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as the >> interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to select >> its leadership. >> >> In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the attached >> draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of the >> chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand that >> the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing >> tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to >> share. >> >> As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, please >> provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the mailing >> list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the CWG in >> early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to meet >> in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials >> should be prepared, if any. >> >> As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the ICG >> has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted by 31 >> December 2014. >> >> We hope this is helpful. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> ==================== >> >> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA >> Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >> >> Made by: Avri Doria >> Seconded by: Amr Elsadr >> >> Whereas, >> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has >> requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan >> to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the IANA >> Functions and related root zone management. >> 2. >> 3. >> 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship >> Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a transition >> proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of >> the IANA functions.? >> 5. >> 6. >> 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within >> the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of >> standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs >> for functions related the management and distribution of numbering >> resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name >> System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose >> responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal >> from these autonomously developed components. >> 8. >> 9. >> 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. >> 11. >> 12. >> 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, >> GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). >> Resolved, >> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints >> Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. >> 2. >> 3. >> 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 >> September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. >> * >> * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council >> recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the >> interim co-chairs of the CWG. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From rafik.dammak Mon Sep 22 15:17:49 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:17:49 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments In-Reply-To: <541F54C6.5070406@apc.org> 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> Message-ID: thanks Joy! seeing endorsement and support here, we need PC chairs to make the call for consensus and get this ready to be submitted . Rafik 2014-09-22 7:44 GMT+09:00 joy : > One other follow up - once this is finalised, I'd be happy to post a link > to it on the APC site > Cheers > Joy > > On 21/09/2014 12:19 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I apologize for commenting rather late, and for not signing into the > document....I dont do google identities. So I show up as anonymous. I > caught a few typos, and added a couple of things. > Thanks for doing all the work Gabrielle, and I endorse it as well. If I > get time I may send in my own separate comments, focusing in on the > problems that have arisen in the context of WHOIS. no promises though, > swamped.... > cheers Stephanie > On 2014-09-20, 6:36, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > Also a lot of appreciation from me to those who worked on putting this > statement together. I would be very happy if the NCSG endorsed it. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > > Thank you Rafik and thank you very much Gabrielle and all who worked on > the drafting. > I endorse this document. I only made one minor suggestion regarding > consistency. > Best, > Mar?lia > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with > review and endorsement? > Thanks, > > Rafik > > On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin" > > > wrote: > > Hi all > > Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments > on the COE report for your consideration. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > > All best, > > Gabrielle > ________________________________________ > From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > ] on behalf of Avri > Doria [avri at ACM.ORG ] > Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52 > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > > Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments > > Hi, > > I am currently doing a edit pass though the document. By and > large I > agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments. > > There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal > Status. > this reads like an America overall forever clause. I think that > becoming an international organization has been studied, is > feasible > and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO. I think > it needs > to be studied further especially once we have understood the > parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship. > > I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause. I > think > that this also needs further discussion to deal with the > tussle among > rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US > trade-off. I recommend leaving this this out too. > > I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection > concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the > stmt > would be stronger standing alone without the debatable > clauses being > included in the doc. > > As it stands now, the document does not have my support. > > avri > > > On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote: > > Thanks, folks. I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten > up the > > lingo on the doc. The statement looks great to me and > ready to go. > > And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors! Well > > done! > > > > Thank you, Robin > > > > > > On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > >> Hi Niels, > >> > >> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and > comments > >> and I think that is partly done. since were are late for > >> submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so > we can > >> submit the comment. the comment link > >> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > >> > >> > >> > >> > @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever > >> >: > > >> > > Dear Rafik, > > > > Has this been submitted? > > > > Best, > > > > Niels > > > > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital > > > > Article 19 www.article19.org > > > > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > > 68E9 > > > > On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>>>> Hi Gabrielle, > >>>>> > >>>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at > >>>>> perfect time just before IGF and the session there > >>>>> organized by council of europe about the report (Details > >>>>> shared by Bill few days ago) > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Rafik > >>>>> > >>>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin > >>>>> > >: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a > >>>>>> go at summarising the various comments that have been > >>>>>> made by various NCSG members about the COE report on > >>>>>> human rights. Here is a draft: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > > > Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is > anything else I > >>>>>> can do to help. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> All the best, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Gabrielle > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy > [mailto:joy at apc.org > ] > >>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; > >>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Subject: Re: COE Doc open > >>>>>> to comments > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee > >>>>>> Hibbard at Council of Europe on the deadline for > >>>>>> comments. He's noted they are aiming for a compilation of > >>>>>> comments by 8 September. We should try to finalise sooner > >>>>>> if we can, though, and I'll aim to take another look at > >>>>>> the shared document later this week. Cheers Joy On > >>>>>> 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: > >>>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when > >>>>>>> the comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On > >>>>>>> 23/07/2014 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the > >>>>>>>> comments on the COE > >>>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too > >>>>>> but I won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us > >>>>>>>> going if we have a > >>>>>> document that others can start working on based on > >>>>>> comments already received, so here is a link to a > >>>>>> googledoc where I have just reproduced Ed, Joy and > >>>>>> Milton's contributions. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems > >>>>>>>> with the document. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hope that helps. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> All best, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > ] on > >>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG > ] > Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 > >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Subject: Re: COE > >>>>>>>> Doc open to comments > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work > >>>>>>>> through of the document in detail - that is extremely > >>>>>>>> helpful! Shall we start a shared document and begin > >>>>>>>> building the submission based on these and > >>>>>> other inputs? > >>>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and > >>>>>>>> develop a response soon .. also, i am still mulling > >>>>>>>> over your points, Ed, but a few responses below .... > >>>>>>>> thanks again! Joy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and > >>>>>>>>> erudite analysis. A few things I'd like to offer > >>>>>>>>> for consideration, in response both to Joy's post > >>>>>>>>> and to the CoE document itself: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of > >>>>>>>>> Joy's recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join > >>>>>>>>> the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I probably > >>>>>>>>> still am. However, I'm a bit concerned about the > >>>>>>>>> resignation of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation > >>>>>>>>> (EFF) > >>>>>> from the GNI in October of last year. > >>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN > >>>>>>>>> join the GNI, I'd suggest that we reach out to our > >>>>>>>>> EFF members and determine their views on the > >>>>>>>>> matter, given the action of their parent > >>>>>>>>> organization. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I > >>>>>>>> can also ask Katitza Rodriguez > >>>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both > >>>>>>>>> for their work on this report and for the overall > >>>>>>>>> effort of the CoE in promoting the inclusion of > >>>>>>>>> human rights considerations within internet > >>>>>>>>> governance generally, and within ICANN > >>>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this > >>>>>>>>> report. I want to particularly commend the authors > >>>>>>>>> on recognizing that domain names such as .sucks > >>>>>>>>> "ordinarily come within the scope of protection > >>>>>>>>> offered by the right of freedom of > >>>>>> expression"(?117). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author's suggestion that a > >>>>>>>>> human rights advisory panel be created within ICANN > >>>>>>>>> (?134). NCSG member Roy Balleste has done some > >>>>>>>>> excellent work in this area and I'd suggest he be > >>>>>>>>> consulted as to whether the specific composition of > >>>>>>>>> the panel suggested in this report is an optimal > >>>>>>>>> one. > >>>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC > >>>>>>>> submission about 18months ago on human rights and > >>>>>>>> ICANN - it's still relevant imho. > >>>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is > >>>>>>>>> the "sole voice of human rights" within ICANN > >>>>>>>>> (?125). We should politely remind the Council of > >>>>>>>>> Europe that the leading voice for human rights > >>>>>>>>> within ICANN has never been GAC but rather has been > >>>>>>>>> the NCSG, it's predecessor, and it's member > >>>>>>>>> constituencies. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for > >>>>>>>> governments, but certainly not for human rights! > >>>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating > >>>>>>>>> the American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN > >>>>>>>>> (?9). As a corporation, it is likely that ICANN is > >>>>>>>>> not obligated to follow the precepts of the Bill of > >>>>>>>>> Rights in it's relationships with others. I say > >>>>>>>>> likely, because if ICANN were construed by the > >>>>>>>>> courts to be a U.S. government contractor, which in > >>>>>>>>> some ways it currently is, ICANN could be construed > >>>>>>>>> as participating in state action and then would be > >>>>>>>>> obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a > >>>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights > >>>>>>>>> would apply to ICANN in its > >>>>>> relationship with others. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under > >>>>>>>>> American law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a > >>>>>>>>> non-natural person, and does benefit from the > >>>>>>>>> protections offered by Bill of Rights. It is bound > >>>>>>>>> to the Bill of Rights in this way. Further, ICANN > >>>>>>>>> is also protected from government interference > >>>>>>>>> through the Declaration of Rights of the > >>>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article > >>>>>>>>> 1), one of the most comprehensive statutory grants > >>>>>>>>> of rights that exist in the world. These are > >>>>>>>>> important considerations as we debate the future > >>>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. > >>>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law > >>>>>>>> dragons, i think a key question is also how the > >>>>>>>> international obligations of the US goverment relate > >>>>>>>> to a corporation such as ICANN > >>>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than > >>>>>>>>> trademark law be considered to "address speech > >>>>>>>>> rights" (?117) is welcome, with the caveat that any > >>>>>>>>> such model must expand freedom of expression and > >>>>>>>>> not further restrict it. As bad as the trademark > >>>>>>>>> maximalist model we now have is, there are many > >>>>>>>>> legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to > >>>>>>>>> adhere to, and open-ended recommendations in this > >>>>>>>>> regard should best be avoided lest they be used by > >>>>>>>>> those favoring a more restrictive > >>>>>> speech model. > >>>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas > >>>>>>>> here ... via the shared doc? > >>>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining > >>>>>>>>> and actualizing in policy the term "public > >>>>>>>>> interest" (?115). As they acknowledge, it is a > >>>>>>>>> vague term "providing neither guidance nor > >>>>>>>>> constraint on ICANN's > >>>>>> actions" > >>>>>>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to "flesh out > >>>>>>>>> the concept" of global public interest to > >>>>>>>>> strengthen accountability and transparency within > >>>>>>>>> ICANN (?115). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'd suggest we move away from use of the term > >>>>>>>>> "public interest" in all regards, as it's imprecise > >>>>>>>>> definition leads to more problems than it solves. > >>>>>>>>> I'm particularly nonplused by the positioning of > >>>>>>>>> the concepts of accountability and transparency as > >>>>>>>>> a seeming subset of > >>>>>> "public interest" > >>>>>>>>> (115). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN > >>>>>>>>> needs to embrace regardless of the "public > >>>>>>>>> interest", whatever it is. These twin concepts > >>>>>>>>> strengthen both the ICANN community and ICANN > >>>>>>>>> corporate. An attitude that transparency and > >>>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to > >>>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public > >>>>>>>>> interest) should be rejected in favor of an > >>>>>>>>> acknowledgement that such processes strengthen > >>>>>>>>> ICANN internally. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous "public interest" is > >>>>>>>>> welcome, but the principle reason for ICANN to > >>>>>>>>> conduct it's affairs in a transparent and > >>>>>>>>> accountable manner is that it strengthens both > >>>>>>>>> ICANN the institution and ICANN the community. It > >>>>>>>>> is self-interest, not public interest, which should > >>>>>>>>> drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent > >>>>>>>>> and accountable as possible. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that > >>>>>>>>> accountability and transparency are dependent > >>>>>>>>> variables subject to whatever it is that "public > >>>>>>>>> interest" is determined to be. They stand on their > >>>>>>>>> own. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and > >>>>>>>> accountable as possible and I agree that transparency > >>>>>>>> and accountability should not be dependent variables, > >>>>>>>> but I don't have the same negative reaction to > >>>>>>>> "public interest" - on the contrary, I find it a > >>>>>>>> useful concept, especially in administrative law as a > >>>>>>>> way to counter the power imbalances between private > >>>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which > >>>>>>>> States have obligations to protect - also because the > >>>>>>>> notion of public law and State obligations in the > >>>>>>>> public arena is a core component of the international > >>>>>>>> human rights framework (which distinguishes between > >>>>>>>> public and private law for example). So I would not > >>>>>>>> want to negate it in the context of responding to the > >>>>>>>> CoE paper nor in thinking through how this is > >>>>>>>> relevant to ICANN. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors > >>>>>>>>> to position "hate speech" as an accepted derogation > >>>>>>>>> from free expression norms. This is not something > >>>>>>>>> that is generally accepted in the human rights > >>>>>>>>> community, but rather is a controversial notion > >>>>>>>>> that provokes rather heated and emotional > >>>>>>>>> argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the > >>>>>>>>> guise of obeying human rights norms, should police > >>>>>>>>> speech or in any way deny domain name applications > >>>>>>>>> because they may run afoul of 'hate speech' > >>>>>> principles. > >>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition > >>>>>>>>> of this SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate > >>>>>>>>> content or speech. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not > >>>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any > >>>>>>>>> sort of serious commitment to the principles of > >>>>>>>>> free speech. I know that there are many within our > >>>>>>>>> SG supportive of my views in this regard; I suspect > >>>>>>>>> there may be members that differ. Regardless of > >>>>>>>>> specific views on the issue, I hope we can all > >>>>>>>>> agree that ICANN is not the institution that should > >>>>>>>>> be determining what 'hate speech' is and then > >>>>>>>>> enforcing its > >>>>>> determination. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that "despite its frequent > >>>>>>>>> use, there is no clear or unique understanding of > >>>>>>>>> what is 'hate speech', and the definitions and > >>>>>>>>> conceptions vary in different countries" (?45). > >>>>>>>>> They then recognize that the European Court of > >>>>>>>>> Human Rights has not defined the term in order that > >>>>>>>>> it's reasoning, "is not confined within definitions > >>>>>>>>> that could limit its action in future cases"(?46). > >>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the issues, the authors > >>>>>>>>> suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with > >>>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I'd suggest that ICANN > >>>>>>>>> should only do so if the same opportunity is given > >>>>>>>>> to intergovernmental organizations from all the > >>>>>> world's regions. Europe should not receive special > >>>>>> consideration. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to > >>>>>>>>> create unity out of the plurality of opinions and > >>>>>>>>> views relating to the proposed hate speech > >>>>>>>>> derogation from the universally recognized right of > >>>>>>>>> free expression. Upon close scrutiny, though, they > >>>>>>>>> cannot be said to have > >>>>>> accomplished their goal. > >>>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two > >>>>>>>>> of the Additional Protocol to the Budapest > >>>>>>>>> Convention on Cybercrime, as they attempted to > >>>>>>>>> define some portion of 'hate crime'. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part > >>>>>>>>> of the universal human rights acquis. The numbers > >>>>>>>>> are pretty stark: Of the seventeen non Council of > >>>>>>>>> Europe signatories to the Cybercrime Convention > >>>>>>>>> only two have ratified the Additional Protocol. Of > >>>>>>>>> even greater significance, of the forty-seven > >>>>>>>>> members of the Council of Europe only twenty have > >>>>>>>>> signed the Additional Protocol (?45). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the 'hate > >>>>>>>>> speech' derogation, the lack of ratification of the > >>>>>>>>> Additional Protocol suggests severe reservations > >>>>>>>>> about the concept. Certainly the proposed > >>>>>>>>> definition is suspect. This is true even in Europe, > >>>>>>>>> the area of the world where the hate speech > >>>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, > >>>>>>>>> and within the Council of Europe itself. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a > >>>>>>>>> "balancing" test, the authors recommend that ICANN > >>>>>>>>> "should ensure that 'hate speech' is not tolerated > >>>>>>>>> in the applied-for gTlds" (?60). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this > >>>>>>>>> recommendation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating > >>>>>>>>> speech. It certainly should not be in the business > >>>>>>>>> of deciding what is or is not hate speech, a > >>>>>>>>> concept with limited international acceptance and a > >>>>>>>>> variable definition, and then prohibiting it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that > >>>>>>>>> puts ICANN in the position of being a censor. This > >>>>>>>>> particular recommendation within this Council Of > >>>>>>>>> Europe report does just that and needs to be > >>>>>>>>> rejected. > >>>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist > >>>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some > >>>>>>>> of which does not - we could talk more offlist about > >>>>>>>> it. I agree on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, > >>>>>>>> but this begs the question of how should human > >>>>>>>> rights, ALL rights, be balanced in the > >>>>>>>> decision-making - on this I would point back to the > >>>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting > >>>>>>>> the rights arguments looked at there and getting GAC > >>>>>>>> members involved in that process, which is one of our > >>>>>>>> longstanding SG positions). maybe there are other > >>>>>>>> ideas here as well ... > >>>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any > >>>>>>>>> suggestion of giving ICANN "international or > >>>>>>>>> quasi-international status" (?136) and I hope > >>>>>>>>> others will join me, as an SG and individually, in > >>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>> opposition. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joy "shudders'" at the authors suggestion that the > >>>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red > >>>>>>>>> Crescent societies should serve as a "source of > >>>>>>>>> inspiration" for ICANN's future organizational > >>>>>>>>> legal position (?137). I shudder with her. Joy then > >>>>>>>>> suggests that the ILO might "be a better model". It > >>>>>>>>> might be, but if ICANN received a status similar to > >>>>>>>>> that of the ILO I respectfully suggest that shudder > >>>>>>>>> rather than support would still be an appropriate > >>>>>>>>> response. > >>>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was > >>>>>>>> simply surprised that the CoE paper did not even > >>>>>>>> mention it - I know some governments are looking at > >>>>>>>> the ILO becuase it is tri-partite (government, > >>>>>>>> employers and worker representation) - and therefore > >>>>>>>> using it to try and persuade other governments that > >>>>>>>> other multi-stakeholder options do exist > >>>>>>>> internationally > >>>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of > >>>>>>>>> privileges and legal immunities. The ILO is > >>>>>>>>> actually a pretty good place to see what these > >>>>>>>>> entail. As a specialized agency of the United > >>>>>>>>> Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 Convention > >>>>>>>>> on Privileges and Immunities which grants, amongst > >>>>>>>>> other benefits: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization > >>>>>>>>> and for its officials in its official acts, with > >>>>>>>>> even greater immunity for executive officials, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical > >>>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special > >>>>>>>>> protection for its communications, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and > >>>>>>>>> its employees, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given > >>>>>>>>> diplomats for those attending organizational > >>>>>>>>> meetings. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The > >>>>>>>>> agreement between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal > >>>>>>>>> Council mandates that the Red Cross receives, > >>>>>>>>> amongst other benefits: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. > >>>>>>>>> This immunity extends to both the organization and > >>>>>>>>> to officials and continues with respect to > >>>>>>>>> officials even after they leave office, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited > >>>>>>>>> about proposals to give it international status. It > >>>>>>>>> is less easy to understand why anyone who is not a > >>>>>>>>> member of the ICANN staff thinks that this is a > >>>>>> good idea. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN > >>>>>>>>> international legal status the authors write, > >>>>>>>>> "ICANN should be free from risk of dominance by > >>>>>>>>> states, other stakeholders, or even its own staff" > >>>>>>>>> (?136). I agree with the principle but fail to see > >>>>>>>>> how granting ICANN international legal status does > >>>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony > >>>>>>>>> of ICANN staff, making their actions less > >>>>>> transparent and less accountable. > >>>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) > >>>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of > >>>>>>>>> definite external accountability for ICANN are 1) > >>>>>>>>> the NTIA, 2) the attorney general of the State of > >>>>>>>>> California (AG) and the 3) courts, principally > >>>>>>>>> those located in California. As the NTIA withdraws > >>>>>>>>> from oversight the two remaining sources of > >>>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the > >>>>>>>>> courts. Should this CoE proposal for international > >>>>>>>>> status be accepted, in lieu of other changes, there > >>>>>>>>> will be no external control over ICANN. We cannot > >>>>>>>>> support this proposition. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as > >>>>>>>>> a private, not for profit corporation. The authors > >>>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to > >>>>>>>>> this structure. In stating that ICANN has > >>>>>>>>> "flexibly" met the "changing needs of the > >>>>>>>>> internet"(?1) the authors implicitly recognize a > >>>>>>>>> value associated more with private corporations > >>>>>>>>> than with those institutions accorded international > >>>>>>>>> status. In using the .XXX decision as an example > >>>>>>>>> where the values of free expression trumped > >>>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should > >>>>>>>>> be noted that some observers, myself included, > >>>>>>>>> believe the Board's decision in this matter was > >>>>>>>>> caused by fear of losing a lawsuit threatened by > >>>>>>>>> ICM Registry. Immunity from legal process > >>>>>>>>> eliminates this control > >>>>>> mechanism. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily > >>>>>>>>> mean supporting ICANN's continued corporate > >>>>>>>>> residence in California. I reject the notion, > >>>>>>>>> though, that leaving California necessarily would > >>>>>>>>> make things better from the perspective of civil > >>>>>>>>> society or of the individual user. It would depend > >>>>>>>>> upon the legal structure of the > >>>>>> receiving jurisdiction. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is > >>>>>>>>> a corporate reorganization that would better help > >>>>>>>>> ICANN meet the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: > >>>>>>>>> the cration of membership within ICANN. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Changing ICANN's corporate structure from that of > >>>>>>>>> a California public benefit corporation without > >>>>>>>>> members to that of a California public benefits > >>>>>>>>> corporation with members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the > >>>>>>>>> California Corporations Code, would do a far better > >>>>>>>>> job of creating a truly responsive and democratic > >>>>>>>>> ICANN than granting ICANN international status > >>>>>>>>> would. A more comprehensive discussion of this > >>>>>>>>> concept can be found in my 27 June post on > >>>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on > >>>>>> this list. > >>>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look > >>>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special > >>>>>>>>> international legal status for ICANN would somewhat > >>>>>>>>> entrench the organization, and not in a good way. > >>>>>>>>> None of us know what the communications landscape > >>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>> look like in a decade. > >>>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block > >>>>>>>>> chain technology, or technologies not yet dreamt > >>>>>>>>> of, will obviate the need for a central naming and > >>>>>>>>> addressing authority. It is reasonable to think > >>>>>>>>> that an entity with international legal status > >>>>>>>>> would be more likely to try to cling to it's > >>>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private > >>>>>>>>> corporation responsive to its members. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they > >>>>>>>>> will provide a further basis for discussion. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Indeed ! > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ed ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy > > >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Date: Fri, 18 Jul > >>>>>>>>> 2014 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to > >>>>>>>>> comments > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary > >>>>>>>>> thoughts after some discussion in APC > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically > >>>>>>>>> saying that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling > >>>>>>>>> human rights obligations and that private sector, > >>>>>>>>> intellectual property and and law enforcement > >>>>>>>>> interests have been weighed too heavily in the > >>>>>>>>> balance of decision-making to the detriment of > >>>>>>>>> human rights and other stakeholders, including > >>>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not > >>>>>>>>> entirely new) points - some reflections for working > >>>>>>>>> up to a possible submission: + I think this paper > >>>>>>>>> is evidence that discourse is moving beyond > >>>>>> "whether" > >>>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making > >>>>>>>>> (the previous paper I contributed to) and more > >>>>>>>>> specifically into "how" in a very practical way - > >>>>>>>>> that is excellent and should be welcomed - the > >>>>>>>>> clear link to human rights in NETMundial and > >>>>>>>>> related documents seems to be tipping the human > >>>>>>>>> rights discussion - that is also really positive + > >>>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in > >>>>>>>>> specific ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up > >>>>>>>>> deficiencies in both the standards and processes > >>>>>>>>> ICANN is using - The paper does mention social and > >>>>>>>>> cultural rights but only in passing in relation to > >>>>>>>>> the community application dotgay, so I think this > >>>>>>>>> makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights > >>>>>>>>> timely and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + > >>>>>>>>> several parts of the analysis and of the > >>>>>>>>> recommendations were + already made by the Non > >>>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency in a submission > >>>>>>>>> developed in 2013 (one > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN > >>>>>>>>> on human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see > >>>>>>>>> that paper cited - we should point out this > >>>>>>>>> connection in making comments + clearly governments > >>>>>>>>> are reaching for the human rights framework to > >>>>>>>>> challenge the behaviour of other governments (as in > >>>>>>>>> relation the law enforcement and the registrar > >>>>>>>>> accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is > >>>>>>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed > >>>>>>>>> between and among governments - it suggests there > >>>>>>>>> is a lot of discussion going on behind GAC's closed > >>>>>>>>> doors on this.... I really like the references to > >>>>>>>>> the UN resolutions internet rights - it is good to > >>>>>>>>> see this jurisprudence emerging. + there is > >>>>>>>>> inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies to > >>>>>>>>> + business - not just business interests in ICANN > >>>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such > >>>>>>>>> as registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - > >>>>>>>>> Anriette raised these points and I think we need to > >>>>>>>>> think through how to respond on this - especially > >>>>>>>>> on the human rights and business rules that were > >>>>>>>>> developed in the UN + the analysis and > >>>>>>>>> recommendations on community applications is very > >>>>>>>>> + useful and I strongly support this aspect + the > >>>>>>>>> paper recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal > >>>>>>>>> basis to + include human rights in its bylaws - > >>>>>>>>> that is good - but they should also become a member > >>>>>>>>> of the GNI: Rafik Dammak and others have been > >>>>>>>>> calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN board has > >>>>>>>>> actively opposed that step. so we can raise that + > >>>>>>>>> also recommends looking at the Red Cross as > >>>>>>>>> possible inspiration + for a model - that made me > >>>>>>>>> shudder give how the RC has behaved in policy > >>>>>>>>> making in > >>>>>> ICANN. > >>>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must > >>>>>>>>> respond on that specific > >>>>>> point. > >>>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and > >>>>>>>>> challenging issues is + trying to define the public > >>>>>>>>> interest aspects of ICANN's role and also GAC's > >>>>>>>>> responsibilities - i think it's useful to raise > >>>>>>>>> this again and try to squarely address it and there > >>>>>>>>> are some options (the paper recommends an expert > >>>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights > >>>>>>>>> impact assessment of policy proposals - i think we > >>>>>>>>> could also revive that idea..... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi > >>>>>>>>> all, Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few > >>>>>>>>> others volunteered to work on a draft contribution > >>>>>>>>> with comments and suggestions about CoE document. > >>>>>>>>> Joy, your involvement is super important. Shall we > >>>>>>>>> start to get it going? Best, Mar?lia > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment > >>>>>>>>> period- and great that they took it up. And a > >>>>>>>>> follow up event in LA would be excellent - I am > >>>>>>>>> sure APC would want to support it. I do hope it > >>>>>>>>> hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi > >>>>>>>>> Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm glad Lee did this, as it's not COE's normal > >>>>>>>>> procedure at all. We suggested they try it at our > >>>>>>>>> meeting with them in London. We also agreed to > >>>>>>>>> propose a follow up event for LA. It'd be good to > >>>>>>>>> have our own position on paper prior. Since the > >>>>>>>>> paper may have screwed Thomas' campaign for GAC > >>>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Bill > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - > >>>>>>>>> sorry it has taken me a while to get back on this, > >>>>>>>>> I've been away from the office a while and it's > >>>>>>>>> taken a while to catch up .... Thanks also Milton > >>>>>>>>> for your blog post about the paper - I agree with > >>>>>>>>> most of your comments. There are quite a few > >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any > >>>>>>>>> discussion at the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG > >>>>>>>>> response? I note that some of the points and > >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper were previously > >>>>>>>>> covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in > >>>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work > >>>>>>>>> in any follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to > >>>>>>>>> help with). Cheers Joy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human > >>>>>>>>> Rights > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > Is on line and open to comments. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> avri > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** > >>>>>>>>> William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer > >>>>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University > >>>>>>>>> of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users > >>>>>>>>> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org > > >>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch > > (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com > > >>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org > > >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Sep 22 15:19:16 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:19:16 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: <541F5819.5060704@apc.org> References: <4886414.15991410957018105.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> <541F5819.5060704@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, OK I see endorsement and support here, shall PC chairs make the consensus call and get this done? Rafik 2014-09-22 7:58 GMT+09:00 joy : > I also support Avri for this > Joy > On 18/09/2014 12:30 a.m., Dorothy K. Gordon wrote: > > Total support for Avri, her knowledge benefits us in so many ways. > > > > best > > > > Dorothy K. Gordon > > Director-General > > Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT > > Mobile: 233 265005712 > > Direct Line: 233 302 683579 > > Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh > > Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Stephanie Perrin" > > To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > > Sent: Wednesday, 17 September, 2014 11:56:58 AM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / > Monrovia > > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from > the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review > > > > > > Let us just endorse Avri, folks, if there are no objections. No time no > time. Plus I am sure she is going to be terrific and several of us are > going as observers. > > Steph > > > > On 2014-09-17, 6:40, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Avri volunteered and seemed to get support from several members on the > NCSG list. Nobody else stepped up, and we?re already past the deadline for > submitting the name of our representative. I would set a quick deadline for > a PC consensus call of Avri?s appointment. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Amr > > > > > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > as a reminder we need to appoint someone for the the CCWG on IANA > transition > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-09-10 15:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > : > > > > > > > > Hi , > > > > > > Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG > representative in the cross-community working group. for procedure matter, > shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for representation, I would like to > ask the NCSG policy committee to proceed and respond quickly to this. I do > think that Avri would make a good representative and liaison there. > > > > > > indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being observer > doesn't mean having a lower status regarding participation). I am joining > myself the CCWG. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > : > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as many > NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > > > On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria < avri at ACM.ORG > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> The charter was approved. > >> > >> I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the > >> Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. > >> > >> I also encourage others to participate in this group. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for > >> observers for your review > >> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 > >> From: Marika Konings < marika.konings at icann.org > > >> To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org < CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org > > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during > its > >> meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO > >> Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 > September > >> at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as the > >> interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to > select > >> its leadership. > >> > >> In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the > attached > >> draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of > the > >> chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand > that > >> the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing > >> tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to > >> share. > >> > >> As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, > please > >> provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the > mailing > >> list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the > CWG in > >> early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to > meet > >> in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials > >> should be prepared, if any. > >> > >> As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the > ICG > >> has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted by > 31 > >> December 2014. > >> > >> We hope this is helpful. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Marika > >> > >> ==================== > >> > >> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an > IANA > >> Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions > >> > >> Made by: Avri Doria > >> Seconded by: Amr Elsadr > >> > >> Whereas, > >> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration > (NTIA) has > >> requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a > plan > >> to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the > IANA > >> Functions and related root zone management. > >> 2. > >> 3. > >> 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship > >> Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a > transition > >> proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties > of > >> the IANA functions.? > >> 5. > >> 6. > >> 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed > within > >> the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of > >> standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the > RIRs > >> for functions related the management and distribution of numbering > >> resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain > Name > >> System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose > >> responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition > proposal > >> from these autonomously developed components. > >> 8. > >> 9. > >> 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. > >> 11. > >> 12. > >> 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the > ccNSO, > >> GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). > >> Resolved, > >> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints > >> Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. > >> 2. > >> 3. > >> 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by > 15 > >> September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. > >> * > >> * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council > >> recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the > >> interim co-chairs of the CWG. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Sep 22 15:23:22 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:23:22 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@egyptig.org> <5419F7A5.1090809@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, I think this document is ready for consensus call, hope the PC chairs can do it asap Rafik 2014-09-18 7:12 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Hi again, > > Made some changes to the document based on feedback. I exchanged ?less > private sector-led? to ?less community-driven? in the first paragraph > (although not completely convinced with this). > > Also took the part about some of the GAC members representing > authoritarian regimes out of the fourth paragraph. Some rationale provided > in comments on the document. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 18, 2014, at 12:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Great. I?m fine with those two. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > My inclination > > On 17-Sep-14 16:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > The ones I liked that weren?t by NCSG members were the ones by: > > The Internet Commerce Association submitted by Phil Corwin > ( > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00012.html > ) > > > i do not support this one. Has an implication that paying money is > relevant. also seems to deny that governments are stakeholders like > everyone wwesle (I know we don't all agree wtih this) > > Blacknight submitted by Michele Neylon > ( > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00036.html > ) > > > not this one either. > he refers to Corwin whose comment i dont endorse. > > but we might want to endorse thee Internet Infrastructure he refers to. > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html > > and > > Tucows submitted by Graeme Bunton > ( > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html > ) > > > i agree with this one. > > avri > > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I think we would need to read and agree. > > avri > > > On 17-Sep-14 11:51, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we might want > to approve of? Or would that be too big a reading assignment? > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > hi, > > I approve. > > We may want to include in the cover note that this is sent in > response and support of previous comments and then enumerate > any we agree with. > > That we have followed the response rule. I recommend leaving > the stmt as is. > > avri > > > On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There > have only been a couple of minor changes; mostly just > language. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > > > Thanks. > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Sep 22 15:34:51 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:34:51 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@egyptig.org> <5419F7A5.1090809@acm.org> Message-ID: <05C4C14F-2385-4807-AD64-E705CCA05BC2@egyptig.org> Hi Rafik, Actually, it isn?t. There?s a paragraph I?d like to add based on feedback from Robin. I should have done that days ago, but have been a little swamped. I promise to get it done today. I also suspect that there may be comments about the change I put in, and think it might be a good idea to give a few more days for folks to look it over again once it?s done. We still have some time as the reply period is open until October 6th. Apologies for the delay. Thanks. Amr On Sep 22, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I think this document is ready for consensus call, hope the PC chairs can do it asap > > Rafik > > 2014-09-18 7:12 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Hi again, > > Made some changes to the document based on feedback. I exchanged ?less private sector-led? to ?less community-driven? in the first paragraph (although not completely convinced with this). > > Also took the part about some of the GAC members representing authoritarian regimes out of the fourth paragraph. Some rationale provided in comments on the document. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 18, 2014, at 12:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Great. I?m fine with those two. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> My inclination >>> >>> On 17-Sep-14 16:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> The ones I liked that weren?t by NCSG members were the ones by: >>>> >>>> The Internet Commerce Association submitted by Phil Corwin >>>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00012.html) >>>> >>> >>> i do not support this one. Has an implication that paying money is >>> relevant. also seems to deny that governments are stakeholders like >>> everyone wwesle (I know we don't all agree wtih this) >>> >>>> Blacknight submitted by Michele Neylon >>>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00036.html) >>>> >>> >>> not this one either. >>> he refers to Corwin whose comment i dont endorse. >>> >>> but we might want to endorse thee Internet Infrastructure he refers to. >>> >>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html >>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> Tucows submitted by Graeme Bunton >>>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) >>>> >>> >>> i agree with this one. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I think we would need to read and agree. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17-Sep-14 11:51, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>> Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we might want >>>>>> to approve of? Or would that be too big a reading assignment? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I approve. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We may want to include in the cover note that this is sent in >>>>>>> response and support of previous comments and then enumerate >>>>>>> any we agree with. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That we have followed the response rule. I recommend leaving >>>>>>> the stmt as is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. There >>>>>>>> have only been a couple of minor changes; mostly just >>>>>>>> language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Sep 22 17:04:28 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:04:28 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <05C4C14F-2385-4807-AD64-E705CCA05BC2@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> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@egyptig.org> <5419F7A5.1090809@acm.org> <05C4C14F-2385-4807-AD64-E705CCA05BC2@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <54202C6C.7070204@acm.org> Hi, If we add another paragrapgh we do go back to zero and need to reread and give a new measure of agreement. as for our PC chair, we have 2. A Primary and an alternate, either of whom can ask as chair. Are both too busy for this committee? if so, perhaps we need a new solution. avri On 22-Sep-14 08:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > Actually, it isn?t. There?s a paragraph I?d like to add based on > feedback from Robin. I should have done that days ago, but have been > a little swamped. I promise to get it done today. > > I also suspect that there may be comments about the change I put in, > and think it might be a good idea to give a few more days for folks > to look it over again once it?s done. We still have some time as the > reply period is open until October 6th. > > Apologies for the delay. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 22, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I think this document is ready for consensus call, hope the PC >> chairs can do it asap >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-09-18 7:12 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : Hi >> again, >> >> Made some changes to the document based on feedback. I exchanged >> ?less private sector-led? to ?less community-driven? in the first >> paragraph (although not completely convinced with this). >> >> Also took the part about some of the GAC members representing >> authoritarian regimes out of the fourth paragraph. Some rationale >> provided in comments on the document. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 18, 2014, at 12:01 AM, Amr Elsadr >> wrote: >> >>> Great. I?m fine with those two. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> My inclination >>>> >>>> On 17-Sep-14 16:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> The ones I liked that weren?t by NCSG members were the ones >>>>> by: >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Commerce Association submitted by Phil Corwin >>>>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00012.html) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> i do not support this one. Has an implication that paying money is >>>> relevant. also seems to deny that governments are stakeholders >>>> like everyone wwesle (I know we don't all agree wtih this) >>>> >>>>> Blacknight submitted by Michele Neylon >>>>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00036.html) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> not this one either. >>>> he refers to Corwin whose comment i dont endorse. >>>> >>>> but we might want to endorse thee Internet Infrastructure he >>>> refers to. >>>> >>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html >>>> >>>>> >>>> and >>>>> >>>>> Tucows submitted by Graeme Bunton >>>>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> i agree with this one. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we would need to read and agree. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17-Sep-14 11:51, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>>> Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we >>>>>>> might want to approve of? Or would that be too big a >>>>>>> reading assignment? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I approve. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We may want to include in the cover note that this is >>>>>>>> sent in response and support of previous comments and >>>>>>>> then enumerate any we agree with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That we have followed the response rule. I recommend >>>>>>>> leaving the stmt as is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. >>>>>>>>> There have only been a couple of minor changes; >>>>>>>>> mostly just language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing >>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing >>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing >> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > i From avri Mon Sep 22 17:11:01 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:11:01 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <54202C6C.7070204@acm.org> References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@egyptig.org> <5419F7A5.1090809@acm.org> <05C4C14F-2385-4807-AD64-E705CCA05BC2@egyptig.org> <54202C6C.7070204@acm.org> Message-ID: <54202DF5.1010604@acm.org> On 22-Sep-14 10:04, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > If we add another paragrapgh we do go back to zero and need to reread > and give a new measure of agreement. > > as for our PC chair, we have 2. A Primary and an alternate, either of > whom can ask as chair. Are both too busy for this committee? if so, .. can act .. > perhaps we need a new solution. > > avri > > > > > On 22-Sep-14 08:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Actually, it isn?t. There?s a paragraph I?d like to add based on >> feedback from Robin. I should have done that days ago, but have been >> a little swamped. I promise to get it done today. >> >> I also suspect that there may be comments about the change I put in, >> and think it might be a good idea to give a few more days for folks >> to look it over again once it?s done. We still have some time as the >> reply period is open until October 6th. >> >> Apologies for the delay. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 22, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I think this document is ready for consensus call, hope the PC >>> chairs can do it asap >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-09-18 7:12 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : Hi >>> again, >>> >>> Made some changes to the document based on feedback. I exchanged >>> ?less private sector-led? to ?less community-driven? in the first >>> paragraph (although not completely convinced with this). >>> >>> Also took the part about some of the GAC members representing >>> authoritarian regimes out of the fourth paragraph. Some rationale >>> provided in comments on the document. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>> >>> >>> > Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 12:01 AM, Amr Elsadr >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Great. I?m fine with those two. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> My inclination >>>>> >>>>> On 17-Sep-14 16:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> The ones I liked that weren?t by NCSG members were the ones >>>>>> by: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Internet Commerce Association submitted by Phil Corwin >>>>>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00012.html) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> > i do not support this one. Has an implication that paying money is >>>>> relevant. also seems to deny that governments are stakeholders >>>>> like everyone wwesle (I know we don't all agree wtih this) >>>>> >>>>>> Blacknight submitted by Michele Neylon >>>>>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00036.html) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> > not this one either. >>>>> he refers to Corwin whose comment i dont endorse. >>>>> >>>>> but we might want to endorse thee Internet Infrastructure he >>>>> refers to. >>>>> >>>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00032.html >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > and >>>>>> >>>>>> Tucows submitted by Graeme Bunton >>>>>> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amend-gac-advice-15aug14/msg00038.html) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> > i agree with this one. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we would need to read and agree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17-Sep-14 11:51, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>>>> Sounds good. Would that include non-NCSG comments we >>>>>>>> might want to approve of? Or would that be too big a >>>>>>>> reading assignment? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Avri Doria >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I approve. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We may want to include in the cover note that this is >>>>>>>>> sent in response and support of previous comments and >>>>>>>>> then enumerate any we agree with. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That we have followed the response rule. I recommend >>>>>>>>> leaving the stmt as is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 17-Sep-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can we get this comment approved and submitted soon. >>>>>>>>>> There have only been a couple of minor changes; >>>>>>>>>> mostly just language. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISi_1cIaG3Hl4hzCM2VVc8sBsqGJQw6WR3vr6tptUcI/edit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing >>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing >>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing >>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > i > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > From aelsadr Mon Sep 22 17:18:02 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:18:02 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus check on Re: [] [] NCSG position regarding by-laws change for GAC advice In-Reply-To: <54202C6C.7070204@acm.org> References: <57E4CBFE-EE7B-4F85-9AB3-2B9B23B5B22B@egyptig.org> <87DC905D-F313-41FA-BA6C-518725FB8C26@isoc-cr.org> <533074D2-99E3-4879-811E-77617037EA55@egyptig.org> <10C43DE0-FB92-4029-A074-F6F282D94AC4@egyptig.org> <5419AB59.6020902@acm.org> <5419B927.3070500@acm.org> <48F56792-6175-482C-9594-4EE4B86B4DF7@egyptig.org> <5419F7A5.1090809@acm.org> <05C4C14F-2385-4807-AD64-E705CCA05BC2@egyptig.org> <54202C6C.7070204@acm.org> Message-ID: <02B14C57-FB3E-405B-9BD3-C506013C11F7@egyptig.org> Hi, On Sep 22, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > If we add another paragrapgh we do go back to zero and need to reread > and give a new measure of agreement. Yeah?, I would think so. Although it isn?t a completely new point, but rather repurposing the bit we took out regarding what we were calling authoritative regimes to make it more relevant to the context of the announcement. Robin, I thought, made her point very nicely in a comment on the text in the google doc. > as for our PC chair, we have 2. A Primary and an alternate, either of > whom can ask as chair. Are both too busy for this committee? if so, > perhaps we need a new solution. It?d be nice to hear from them; what their thoughts are. Thanks. Amr From mariliamaciel Mon Sep 22 17:34:32 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:34:32 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: References: <4886414.15991410957018105.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> <541F5819.5060704@apc.org> Message-ID: Also support Avri. Would like to join as observer, if possible. Best Mar?lia On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > OK I see endorsement and support here, shall PC chairs make the consensus > call and get this done? > > Rafik > > 2014-09-22 7:58 GMT+09:00 joy : > >> I also support Avri for this >> Joy >> On 18/09/2014 12:30 a.m., Dorothy K. Gordon wrote: >> > Total support for Avri, her knowledge benefits us in so many ways. >> > >> > best >> > >> > Dorothy K. Gordon >> > Director-General >> > Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT >> > Mobile: 233 265005712 >> > Direct Line: 233 302 683579 >> > Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh >> > Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Stephanie Perrin" >> > To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org >> > Sent: Wednesday, 17 September, 2014 11:56:58 AM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / >> Monrovia >> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from >> the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review >> > >> > >> > Let us just endorse Avri, folks, if there are no objections. No time no >> time. Plus I am sure she is going to be terrific and several of us are >> going as observers. >> > Steph >> > >> > On 2014-09-17, 6:40, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > >> > Avri volunteered and seemed to get support from several members on the >> NCSG list. Nobody else stepped up, and we?re already past the deadline for >> submitting the name of our representative. I would set a quick deadline for >> a PC consensus call of Avri?s appointment. >> > >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > >> > Amr >> > >> > >> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > >> > as a reminder we need to appoint someone for the the CCWG on IANA >> transition >> > >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > 2014-09-10 15:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > : >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi , >> > >> > >> > Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG >> representative in the cross-community working group. for procedure matter, >> shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for representation, I would like to >> ask the NCSG policy committee to proceed and respond quickly to this. I do >> think that Avri would make a good representative and liaison there. >> > >> > >> > indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being observer >> doesn't mean having a lower status regarding participation). I am joining >> myself the CCWG. >> > >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > : >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as >> many NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > Amr >> > >> > >> > On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria < avri at ACM.ORG > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> The charter was approved. >> >> >> >> I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the >> >> Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. >> >> >> >> I also encourage others to participate in this group. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> >> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for >> >> observers for your review >> >> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 >> >> From: Marika Konings < marika.konings at icann.org > >> >> To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org < CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org > >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during >> its >> >> meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO >> >> Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 >> September >> >> at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as >> the >> >> interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to >> select >> >> its leadership. >> >> >> >> In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the >> attached >> >> draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most of >> the >> >> chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand >> that >> >> the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is finishing >> >> tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free to >> >> share. >> >> >> >> As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, >> please >> >> provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the >> mailing >> >> list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the >> CWG in >> >> early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like to >> meet >> >> in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what materials >> >> should be prepared, if any. >> >> >> >> As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, the >> ICG >> >> has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted >> by 31 >> >> December 2014. >> >> >> >> We hope this is helpful. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Marika >> >> >> >> ==================== >> >> >> >> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop >> an IANA >> >> Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >> >> >> >> Made by: Avri Doria >> >> Seconded by: Amr Elsadr >> >> >> >> Whereas, >> >> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration >> (NTIA) has >> >> requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a >> plan >> >> to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to the >> IANA >> >> Functions and related root zone management. >> >> 2. >> >> 3. >> >> 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship >> >> Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a >> transition >> >> proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected >> parties of >> >> the IANA functions.? >> >> 5. >> >> 6. >> >> 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed >> within >> >> the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of >> >> standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the >> RIRs >> >> for functions related the management and distribution of numbering >> >> resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain >> Name >> >> System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose >> >> responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition >> proposal >> >> from these autonomously developed components. >> >> 8. >> >> 9. >> >> 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. >> >> 11. >> >> 12. >> >> 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the >> ccNSO, >> >> GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). >> >> Resolved, >> >> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints >> >> Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. >> >> 2. >> >> 3. >> >> 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by >> 15 >> >> September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. >> >> * >> >> * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council >> >> recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the >> >> interim co-chairs of the CWG. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Sep 22 17:48:15 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 23:48:15 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review In-Reply-To: References: <4886414.15991410957018105.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> <541F5819.5060704@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Marilia, easy just send email to Grace Abuhamad and you will be added Rafik 2014-09-22 23:34 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : > Also support Avri. Would like to join as observer, if possible. > Best > Mar?lia > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi, >> OK I see endorsement and support here, shall PC chairs make the consensus >> call and get this done? >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-09-22 7:58 GMT+09:00 joy : >> >>> I also support Avri for this >>> Joy >>> On 18/09/2014 12:30 a.m., Dorothy K. Gordon wrote: >>> > Total support for Avri, her knowledge benefits us in so many ways. >>> > >>> > best >>> > >>> > Dorothy K. Gordon >>> > Director-General >>> > Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT >>> > Mobile: 233 265005712 >>> > Direct Line: 233 302 683579 >>> > Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh >>> > Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Stephanie Perrin" >>> > To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org >>> > Sent: Wednesday, 17 September, 2014 11:56:58 AM GMT +00:00 Casablanca >>> / Monrovia >>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from >>> the GNSO and draft call for observers for your review >>> > >>> > >>> > Let us just endorse Avri, folks, if there are no objections. No time >>> no time. Plus I am sure she is going to be terrific and several of us are >>> going as observers. >>> > Steph >>> > >>> > On 2014-09-17, 6:40, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > >>> > Avri volunteered and seemed to get support from several members on the >>> NCSG list. Nobody else stepped up, and we?re already past the deadline for >>> submitting the name of our representative. I would set a quick deadline for >>> a PC consensus call of Avri?s appointment. >>> > >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > >>> > Amr >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi everyone, >>> > >>> > >>> > as a reminder we need to appoint someone for the the CCWG on IANA >>> transition >>> > >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Rafik >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-09-10 15:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > : >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi , >>> > >>> > >>> > Thanks Avri and Amr, we need to settle out this and appoint NCSG >>> representative in the cross-community working group. for procedure matter, >>> shall we sent the name to GNSO council? for representation, I would like to >>> ask the NCSG policy committee to proceed and respond quickly to this. I do >>> think that Avri would make a good representative and liaison there. >>> > >>> > >>> > indeed, everyone is encouraged to join as observer (being observer >>> doesn't mean having a lower status regarding participation). I am joining >>> myself the CCWG. >>> > >>> > >>> > Best Regards, >>> > >>> > >>> > Rafik >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-09-08 18:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr < aelsadr at egyptig.org > : >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Sounds good to me. And like Avri, I believe it?d be good to have as >>> many NCSG members sign up for the CWG as possible. >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > Amr >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Avri Doria < avri at ACM.ORG > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> The charter was approved. >>> >> >>> >> I request that I be designated to continue the role I held in the >>> >> Drafting team for this charter, as the NCSG rep on this group. >>> >> >>> >> I also encourage others to participate in this group. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> >>> >> avri >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>> >> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Update from the GNSO and draft call for >>> >> observers for your review >>> >> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:35:52 +0000 >>> >> From: Marika Konings < marika.konings at icann.org > >>> >> To: CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org < CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org > >>> >> >>> >> Dear All, >>> >> >>> >> For your information, the GNSO Council adopted the CWG charter during >>> its >>> >> meeting today (see resolution below). The GNSO has requested that GNSO >>> >> Stakeholder Groups provide the names of members for the CWG by 15 >>> September >>> >> at the latest and has recommended that the chairs of the DT serve as >>> the >>> >> interim chairs of the CWG until the CWG has had the opportunity to >>> select >>> >> its leadership. >>> >> >>> >> In order to prepare for the call for observers, we've prepared the >>> attached >>> >> draft call that we would suggest is posted and circulated once most >>> of the >>> >> chartering organisations have appointed their members (we understand >>> that >>> >> the SSAC has already adopted the charter and the ALAC vote is >>> finishing >>> >> tomorrow). If you have any comments or suggestions, please feel free >>> to >>> >> share. >>> >> >>> >> As your respective organisations identify their members for the CWG, >>> please >>> >> provide the information to Grace so that they can be added to the >>> mailing >>> >> list. We hope it will be possible to schedule a first meeting of the >>> CWG in >>> >> early October so the group can discuss whether or not it would like >>> to meet >>> >> in Los Angeles, and if so, what the agenda should be and what >>> materials >>> >> should be prepared, if any. >>> >> >>> >> As you'll have noted from the announcement that Grace just shared, >>> the ICG >>> >> has requested that all formal responses are expected to be submitted >>> by 31 >>> >> December 2014. >>> >> >>> >> We hope this is helpful. >>> >> >>> >> Best regards, >>> >> >>> >> Marika >>> >> >>> >> ==================== >>> >> >>> >> Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop >>> an IANA >>> >> Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >>> >> >>> >> Made by: Avri Doria >>> >> Seconded by: Amr Elsadr >>> >> >>> >> Whereas, >>> >> 1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration >>> (NTIA) has >>> >> requested that ICANN ?convene a multistakeholder process to develop a >>> plan >>> >> to transition the U.S. government stewardship role? with regard to >>> the IANA >>> >> Functions and related root zone management. >>> >> 2. >>> >> 3. >>> >> 4. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship >>> >> Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ?responsible for preparing a >>> transition >>> >> proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected >>> parties of >>> >> the IANA functions.? >>> >> 5. >>> >> 6. >>> >> 7. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed >>> within >>> >> the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of >>> >> standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the >>> RIRs >>> >> for functions related the management and distribution of numbering >>> >> resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain >>> Name >>> >> System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose >>> >> responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition >>> proposal >>> >> from these autonomously developed components. >>> >> 8. >>> >> 9. >>> >> 10. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, 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. >>> >> 11. >>> >> 12. >>> >> 13. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the >>> ccNSO, >>> >> GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]). >>> >> Resolved, >>> >> 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints >>> >> Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG. >>> >> 2. >>> >> 3. >>> >> 4. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG >>> by 15 >>> >> September 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 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, each in accordance with its own rules. >>> >> * >>> >> * 4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council >>> >> recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the >>> >> interim co-chairs of the CWG. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Part.txt> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Sep 23 12:25:07 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:25:07 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Doodle Poll: Start discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <790301bb2d2d41dfa428f58dd1a71dea@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <790301bb2d2d41dfa428f58dd1a71dea@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Hi everyone, I reached the CSG counterpart to discuss about vice chair election and if they want to have a call with us. so please fill the doodle poll with your availability Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brenda Brewer Date: 2014-09-23 8:26 GMT+09:00 Subject: Doodle Poll: Start discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair Elections To: Elisa Cooper , Tony Holmes < tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Marilyn Cade , " harris at cabase.org.ar" , "Rosette, Kristina" < krosette at cov.com>, "met at msk.com" Hello all, Please find below the link to a Doodle poll for the upcoming call taking place this week regarding ?starting discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair elections?. http://doodle.com/qa2dywzc8csytxdp Thank you for completing the poll as soon as possible so I can proceed to book the call. With kind regards, *B**renda **B**rewer * * ---* *Brenda Brewer* *Secretariat** - BC, IPC, and ISPCP* Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *Email:* brenda.brewer at icann.org *Skype ID:* brenda.brewer.icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5035 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Sep 23 18:17:02 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 00:17:02 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] appointment to Accountability and Governance co-ordination group In-Reply-To: <5273B31D-33F3-4ECD-B65B-1199E3F02EA6@comaser.be> References: <5273B31D-33F3-4ECD-B65B-1199E3F02EA6@comaser.be> Message-ID: Hi Rudi, sorry, I think you are mixing two process here. * Avri is candidate for IANA CCWG. the deadline is 15th Sept. she has support on NCSG list and PC * we have a proposal for the process to appoint a representative for accountability coordination group when consensus made on that process, we should have a call for candidates. Rafik 2014-09-24 0:11 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > Dear members of the PC, > > As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to finalize > the selection of candidates for the Accountability and Governance > co-ordination group. Deadline was 15 september. > > If I?m not wrong candidates who posted their candidature already are : > - Avri Doria > - and I?m aware of some people in NPOC willing to stand (3). > > The process of selection not being very clear, I would ask by this mail to > post the names of the candidates that are willing to stand for this > position within the next 24 hours, thus ending 24/9 - 23:59 UTC to allow > everyone to respond. > > Next in the process will be the selection of the final names by the PC > which I will call for voting (e-vote) on 25/9. > > Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be able to > officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate PC NCSG chair. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Tue Sep 23 19:06:27 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:06:27 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group Message-ID: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> Dear all, As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to finalize the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community Group. Deadline was 15 september. So far the only candidate who posted interest for this position is : Avri Doria I?m calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no other nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on 25/9 - 23:59 UTC. Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be able to officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Alternate PC NCSG chair. The SO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their respective communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, who will then be confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These names should be provided to the Cross Community Group and be public. Names selected by the SO/AC/SGs for the Coordination Group are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross Community Group prior to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to be a member of the Cross Community Group to be selected by the respectiveSO/AC/SGs to the Coordination Group. SO/AC/SGs may identify their own processes for selecting experts. All participants on the Coordination Group are expected to conduct the work on a consensus basis, consistent with community processes, including open, transparent, and meeting with the community at respectiveICANN meetings." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Tue Sep 23 19:14:36 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:14:36 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group In-Reply-To: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> References: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> Message-ID: Thank you, Rafik. Vividly support Avri. Mar?lia On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Dear all, > > As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to finalize > the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community Group. Deadline > was 15 september. So far the only candidate who posted interest for this > position is : Avri Doria > > I?m calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no other > nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on 25/9 - 23:59 UTC. > > Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be able to > officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate PC NCSG chair. > > > The SO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their respective > communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, who will then be > confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These names should be provided to > the Cross Community Group and be public. Names selected by the SO/AC/SGs > for the Coordination Group are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross > Community Group prior to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to be > a member of the Cross Community Group to be selected by the respectiveSO/ > AC/SGs to the Coordination Group. SO/AC/SGs may identify their own > processes for selecting experts. All participants on the Coordination Group > are expected to conduct the work on a consensus basis, consistent with > community processes, including open, transparent, and meeting with the > community at respectiveICANN meetings." > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 dave Tue Sep 23 19:22:12 2014 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 00:22:12 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group In-Reply-To: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> References: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> Message-ID: <220EF27E-6639-4FFE-A5EA-975BEBA95713@difference.com.au> I support Avri. David On 24 Sep 2014, at 12:06 am, Rudi Vansnick wrote: Dear all, As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to finalize the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community Group. Deadline was 15 september. So far the only candidate who posted interest for this position is : Avri Doria I?m calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no other nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on 25/9 - 23:59 UTC. Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be able to officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Alternate PC NCSG chair. The SO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their respective communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, who will then be confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These names should be provided to the Cross Community Group and be public. Names selected by the SO/AC/SGs for the Coordination Group are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross Community Group prior to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to be a member of the Cross Community Group to be selected by the respectiveSO/AC/SGs to the Coordination Group. SO/AC/SGs may identify their own processes for selecting experts. All participants on the Coordination Group are expected to conduct the work on a consensus basis, consistent with community processes, including open, transparent, and meeting with the community at respectiveICANN meetings." _______________________________________________ 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 lanfran Tue Sep 23 19:40:40 2014 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:40:40 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group In-Reply-To: References: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> Message-ID: <5421A288.90701@yorku.ca> This consensus vote has my support. > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Rudi Vansnick > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to > finalize the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community > Group. Deadline was 15 september. So far the only candidate who > posted interest for this position is : Avri Doria > > I'm calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no > other nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on > 25/9 - 23:59 UTC. > > Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be > able to officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate PC NCSG chair. > > > TheSO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their > respective communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, > who will then be confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These > names should be provided to the Cross Community Group and be > public. Names selected by theSO/AC/SGs for the Coordination Group > are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross Community Group prior > to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to be a member of > the Cross Community Group to be selected by the > respectiveSO/AC/SGs to the Coordination Group.SO/AC/SGs may > identify their own processes for selecting experts. All > participants on the Coordination Group are expected to conduct the > work on a consensus basis, consistent with community processes, > including open, transparent, and meeting with the community at > respectiveICANNmeetings." > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue Sep 23 19:43:52 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:43:52 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group In-Reply-To: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> References: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> Message-ID: <0AC25475-FCCC-41FA-894B-77EAE8F5F795@egyptig.org> Thanks Rudi. I support Avri?s nomination. I also apologise about not making it to the NCSG call. I had to be on another call at the time, and had planned to attend the second half, but I guess it wrapped up early. Thanks again. Amr On Sep 23, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Dear all, > > As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to finalize the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community Group. Deadline was 15 september. So far the only candidate who posted interest for this position is : Avri Doria > > I?m calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no other nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on 25/9 - 23:59 UTC. > > Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be able to officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate PC NCSG chair. > > > The SO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their respective communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, who will then be confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These names should be provided to the Cross Community Group and be public. Names selected by the SO/AC/SGs for the Coordination Group are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross Community Group prior to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to be a member of the Cross Community Group to be selected by the respectiveSO/AC/SGs to the Coordination Group. SO/AC/SGs may identify their own processes for selecting experts. All participants on the Coordination Group are expected to conduct the work on a consensus basis, consistent with community processes, including open, transparent, and meeting with the community at respectiveICANN meetings." > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Tue Sep 23 21:53:08 2014 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:53:08 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group In-Reply-To: <0AC25475-FCCC-41FA-894B-77EAE8F5F795@egyptig.org> References: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> <0AC25475-FCCC-41FA-894B-77EAE8F5F795@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <6437C308-47BC-4212-8A37-7C74D6F429DB@difference.com.au> I am in the same position as Amr - the PPSAI Working Group is at a crucial stage, my apologies for not attending the NCSG meeting. On 24 Sep 2014, at 12:43 am, Amr Elsadr wrote: Thanks Rudi. I support Avri?s nomination. I also apologise about not making it to the NCSG call. I had to be on another call at the time, and had planned to attend the second half, but I guess it wrapped up early. Thanks again. Amr On Sep 23, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: Dear all, As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to finalize the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community Group. Deadline was 15 september. So far the only candidate who posted interest for this position is : Avri Doria I?m calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no other nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on 25/9 - 23:59 UTC. Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be able to officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Alternate PC NCSG chair. The SO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their respective communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, who will then be confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These names should be provided to the Cross Community Group and be public. Names selected by the SO/AC/SGs for the Coordination Group are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross Community Group prior to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to be a member of the Cross Community Group to be selected by the respectiveSO/AC/SGs to the Coordination Group. SO/AC/SGs may identify their own processes for selecting experts. All participants on the Coordination Group are expected to conduct the work on a consensus basis, consistent with community processes, including open, transparent, and meeting with the community at respectiveICANN meetings." _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Sep 24 05:54:21 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:54:21 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group In-Reply-To: <220EF27E-6639-4FFE-A5EA-975BEBA95713@difference.com.au> References: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> <220EF27E-6639-4FFE-A5EA-975BEBA95713@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <5422325D.8010906@mail.utoronto.ca> I support Avri. Stephanie On 2014-09-23, 12:22, David Cake wrote: > I support Avri. > > David > > On 24 Sep 2014, at 12:06 am, Rudi Vansnick > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to >> finalize the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community >> Group. Deadline was 15 september. So far the only candidate who >> posted interest for this position is : Avri Doria >> >> I'm calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no >> other nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on 25/9 >> - 23:59 UTC. >> >> Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be >> able to officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> Alternate PC NCSG chair. >> >> >> TheSO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their >> respective communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, who >> will then be confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These names >> should be provided to the Cross Community Group and be public. Names >> selected by theSO/AC/SGs for the Coordination Group are encouraged to >> be submitted to the Cross Community Group prior to its 15 September >> meeting. One does not need to be a member of the Cross Community >> Group to be selected by the respectiveSO/AC/SGs to the Coordination >> Group.SO/AC/SGs may identify their own processes for selecting >> experts. All participants on the Coordination Group are expected to >> conduct the work on a consensus basis, consistent with community >> processes, including open, transparent, and meeting with the >> community at respectiveICANNmeetings." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Sep 24 16:33:02 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:33:02 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: <541F4D6A.9060703@apc.org> References: <541AF663.2040407@acm.org> <541F4D6A.9060703@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, CSG want to have a call with us about this topic, I sent the doodle yesterday but resending since not everybody filled it http://doodle.com/qa2dywzc8csytxdp Rafik 2014-09-22 7:12 GMT+09:00 joy : > I also agree that this seems a sensible approach > Joy > On 19/09/2014 3:18 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Seems like a good way to go. > Mar?lia > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > hi, > > that is my recommendation. > > avri > > > On 18-Sep-14 10:55, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > 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 Secretariatgnso.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 listPC-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 magaly.pazello Thu Sep 25 05:15:11 2014 From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:15:11 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO council chair/vice-chair In-Reply-To: References: <541AF663.2040407@acm.org> <541F4D6A.9060703@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, I'm not available thursday or friday due teaching obligations. Magaly On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > CSG want to have a call with us about this topic, I sent the doodle yesterday but resending since not everybody filled it http://doodle.com/qa2dywzc8csytxdp > Rafik > > 2014-09-22 7:12 GMT+09:00 joy : >> >> I also agree that this seems a sensible approach >> Joy >> On 19/09/2014 3:18 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> Seems like a good way to go. >> Mar?lia >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> hi, >> >> that is my recommendation. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 18-Sep-14 10:55, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 rafik.dammak Thu Sep 25 05:20:02 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:20:02 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments 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> Message-ID: Hi Maria, Rudi, can we start the call for consensus for this statement? Rafik 2014-09-22 21:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > thanks Joy! > seeing endorsement and support here, we need PC chairs to make the call > for consensus and get this ready to be submitted . > > Rafik > > 2014-09-22 7:44 GMT+09:00 joy : > >> One other follow up - once this is finalised, I'd be happy to post a >> link to it on the APC site >> Cheers >> Joy >> >> On 21/09/2014 12:19 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> I apologize for commenting rather late, and for not signing into the >> document....I dont do google identities. So I show up as anonymous. I >> caught a few typos, and added a couple of things. >> Thanks for doing all the work Gabrielle, and I endorse it as well. If I >> get time I may send in my own separate comments, focusing in on the >> problems that have arisen in the context of WHOIS. no promises though, >> swamped.... >> cheers Stephanie >> On 2014-09-20, 6:36, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Also a lot of appreciation from me to those who worked on putting this >> statement together. I would be very happy if the NCSG endorsed it. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> >> On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marilia Maciel > > wrote: >> >> Thank you Rafik and thank you very much Gabrielle and all who worked on >> the drafting. >> I endorse this document. I only made one minor suggestion regarding >> consistency. >> Best, >> Mar?lia >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with >> review and endorsement? >> Thanks, >> >> Rafik >> >> On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin" >> >> > wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments >> on the COE report for your consideration. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >> >> All best, >> >> Gabrielle >> ________________________________________ >> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> ] on behalf of Avri >> Doria [avri at ACM.ORG ] >> Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52 >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> >> Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments >> >> Hi, >> >> I am currently doing a edit pass though the document. By and >> large I >> agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments. >> >> There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal >> Status. >> this reads like an America overall forever clause. I think that >> becoming an international organization has been studied, is >> feasible >> and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO. I think >> it needs >> to be studied further especially once we have understood the >> parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship. >> >> I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause. I >> think >> that this also needs further discussion to deal with the >> tussle among >> rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US >> trade-off. I recommend leaving this this out too. >> >> I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection >> concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the >> stmt >> would be stronger standing alone without the debatable >> clauses being >> included in the doc. >> >> As it stands now, the document does not have my support. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote: >> > Thanks, folks. I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten >> up the >> > lingo on the doc. The statement looks great to me and >> ready to go. >> > And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors! Well >> > done! >> > >> > Thank you, Robin >> > >> > >> > On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Niels, >> >> >> >> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and >> comments >> >> and I think that is partly done. since were are late for >> >> submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so >> we can >> >> submit the comment. the comment link >> >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever >> >> > >> >: >> >> >> > Dear Rafik, >> > >> > Has this been submitted? >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Niels >> > >> > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital >> > >> > Article 19 www.article19.org >> >> > >> > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> > 68E9 >> > >> > On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>>>> Hi Gabrielle, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at >> >>>>> perfect time just before IGF and the session there >> >>>>> organized by council of europe about the report (Details >> >>>>> shared by Bill few days ago) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Rafik >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin >> >>>>> >> >: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi all >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a >> >>>>>> go at summarising the various comments that have been >> >>>>>> made by various NCSG members about the COE report on >> >>>>>> human rights. Here is a draft: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > >> > >> Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is >> anything else I >> >>>>>> can do to help. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> All the best, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Gabrielle >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy >> [mailto:joy at apc.org >> ] >> >>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; >> >>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> Subject: Re: COE Doc open >> >>>>>> to comments >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee >> >>>>>> Hibbard at Council of Europe on the deadline for >> >>>>>> comments. He's noted they are aiming for a compilation of >> >>>>>> comments by 8 September. We should try to finalise sooner >> >>>>>> if we can, though, and I'll aim to take another look at >> >>>>>> the shared document later this week. Cheers Joy On >> >>>>>> 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: >> >>>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when >> >>>>>>> the comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On >> >>>>>>> 23/07/2014 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Hi all >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the >> >>>>>>>> comments on the COE >> >>>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too >> >>>>>> but I won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us >> >>>>>>>> going if we have a >> >>>>>> document that others can start working on based on >> >>>>>> comments already received, so here is a link to a >> >>>>>> googledoc where I have just reproduced Ed, Joy and >> >>>>>> Milton's contributions. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>> >> ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems >> >>>>>>>> with the document. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> All best, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ >> >>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> ] on >> >>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG >> ] >> Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 >> >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> Subject: Re: COE >> >>>>>>>> Doc open to comments >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work >> >>>>>>>> through of the document in detail - that is extremely >> >>>>>>>> helpful! Shall we start a shared document and begin >> >>>>>>>> building the submission based on these and >> >>>>>> other inputs? >> >>>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and >> >>>>>>>> develop a response soon .. also, i am still mulling >> >>>>>>>> over your points, Ed, but a few responses below .... >> >>>>>>>> thanks again! Joy >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and >> >>>>>>>>> erudite analysis. A few things I'd like to offer >> >>>>>>>>> for consideration, in response both to Joy's post >> >>>>>>>>> and to the CoE document itself: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of >> >>>>>>>>> Joy's recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join >> >>>>>>>>> the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I probably >> >>>>>>>>> still am. However, I'm a bit concerned about the >> >>>>>>>>> resignation of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation >> >>>>>>>>> (EFF) >> >>>>>> from the GNI in October of last year. >> >>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> join the GNI, I'd suggest that we reach out to our >> >>>>>>>>> EFF members and determine their views on the >> >>>>>>>>> matter, given the action of their parent >> >>>>>>>>> organization. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I >> >>>>>>>> can also ask Katitza Rodriguez >> >>>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both >> >>>>>>>>> for their work on this report and for the overall >> >>>>>>>>> effort of the CoE in promoting the inclusion of >> >>>>>>>>> human rights considerations within internet >> >>>>>>>>> governance generally, and within ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this >> >>>>>>>>> report. I want to particularly commend the authors >> >>>>>>>>> on recognizing that domain names such as .sucks >> >>>>>>>>> "ordinarily come within the scope of protection >> >>>>>>>>> offered by the right of freedom of >> >>>>>> expression"(?117). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> +1 >> >>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author's suggestion that a >> >>>>>>>>> human rights advisory panel be created within ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> (?134). NCSG member Roy Balleste has done some >> >>>>>>>>> excellent work in this area and I'd suggest he be >> >>>>>>>>> consulted as to whether the specific composition of >> >>>>>>>>> the panel suggested in this report is an optimal >> >>>>>>>>> one. >> >>>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC >> >>>>>>>> submission about 18months ago on human rights and >> >>>>>>>> ICANN - it's still relevant imho. >> >>>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is >> >>>>>>>>> the "sole voice of human rights" within ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> (?125). We should politely remind the Council of >> >>>>>>>>> Europe that the leading voice for human rights >> >>>>>>>>> within ICANN has never been GAC but rather has been >> >>>>>>>>> the NCSG, it's predecessor, and it's member >> >>>>>>>>> constituencies. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for >> >>>>>>>> governments, but certainly not for human rights! >> >>>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating >> >>>>>>>>> the American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> (?9). As a corporation, it is likely that ICANN is >> >>>>>>>>> not obligated to follow the precepts of the Bill of >> >>>>>>>>> Rights in it's relationships with others. I say >> >>>>>>>>> likely, because if ICANN were construed by the >> >>>>>>>>> courts to be a U.S. government contractor, which in >> >>>>>>>>> some ways it currently is, ICANN could be construed >> >>>>>>>>> as participating in state action and then would be >> >>>>>>>>> obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a >> >>>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights >> >>>>>>>>> would apply to ICANN in its >> >>>>>> relationship with others. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under >> >>>>>>>>> American law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a >> >>>>>>>>> non-natural person, and does benefit from the >> >>>>>>>>> protections offered by Bill of Rights. It is bound >> >>>>>>>>> to the Bill of Rights in this way. Further, ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> is also protected from government interference >> >>>>>>>>> through the Declaration of Rights of the >> >>>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article >> >>>>>>>>> 1), one of the most comprehensive statutory grants >> >>>>>>>>> of rights that exist in the world. These are >> >>>>>>>>> important considerations as we debate the future >> >>>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. >> >>>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law >> >>>>>>>> dragons, i think a key question is also how the >> >>>>>>>> international obligations of the US goverment relate >> >>>>>>>> to a corporation such as ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than >> >>>>>>>>> trademark law be considered to "address speech >> >>>>>>>>> rights" (?117) is welcome, with the caveat that any >> >>>>>>>>> such model must expand freedom of expression and >> >>>>>>>>> not further restrict it. As bad as the trademark >> >>>>>>>>> maximalist model we now have is, there are many >> >>>>>>>>> legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to >> >>>>>>>>> adhere to, and open-ended recommendations in this >> >>>>>>>>> regard should best be avoided lest they be used by >> >>>>>>>>> those favoring a more restrictive >> >>>>>> speech model. >> >>>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas >> >>>>>>>> here ... via the shared doc? >> >>>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining >> >>>>>>>>> and actualizing in policy the term "public >> >>>>>>>>> interest" (?115). As they acknowledge, it is a >> >>>>>>>>> vague term "providing neither guidance nor >> >>>>>>>>> constraint on ICANN's >> >>>>>> actions" >> >>>>>>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to "flesh out >> >>>>>>>>> the concept" of global public interest to >> >>>>>>>>> strengthen accountability and transparency within >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN (?115). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'd suggest we move away from use of the term >> >>>>>>>>> "public interest" in all regards, as it's imprecise >> >>>>>>>>> definition leads to more problems than it solves. >> >>>>>>>>> I'm particularly nonplused by the positioning of >> >>>>>>>>> the concepts of accountability and transparency as >> >>>>>>>>> a seeming subset of >> >>>>>> "public interest" >> >>>>>>>>> (115). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> needs to embrace regardless of the "public >> >>>>>>>>> interest", whatever it is. These twin concepts >> >>>>>>>>> strengthen both the ICANN community and ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> corporate. An attitude that transparency and >> >>>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to >> >>>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public >> >>>>>>>>> interest) should be rejected in favor of an >> >>>>>>>>> acknowledgement that such processes strengthen >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN internally. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous "public interest" is >> >>>>>>>>> welcome, but the principle reason for ICANN to >> >>>>>>>>> conduct it's affairs in a transparent and >> >>>>>>>>> accountable manner is that it strengthens both >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN the institution and ICANN the community. It >> >>>>>>>>> is self-interest, not public interest, which should >> >>>>>>>>> drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent >> >>>>>>>>> and accountable as possible. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that >> >>>>>>>>> accountability and transparency are dependent >> >>>>>>>>> variables subject to whatever it is that "public >> >>>>>>>>> interest" is determined to be. They stand on their >> >>>>>>>>> own. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and >> >>>>>>>> accountable as possible and I agree that transparency >> >>>>>>>> and accountability should not be dependent variables, >> >>>>>>>> but I don't have the same negative reaction to >> >>>>>>>> "public interest" - on the contrary, I find it a >> >>>>>>>> useful concept, especially in administrative law as a >> >>>>>>>> way to counter the power imbalances between private >> >>>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which >> >>>>>>>> States have obligations to protect - also because the >> >>>>>>>> notion of public law and State obligations in the >> >>>>>>>> public arena is a core component of the international >> >>>>>>>> human rights framework (which distinguishes between >> >>>>>>>> public and private law for example). So I would not >> >>>>>>>> want to negate it in the context of responding to the >> >>>>>>>> CoE paper nor in thinking through how this is >> >>>>>>>> relevant to ICANN. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors >> >>>>>>>>> to position "hate speech" as an accepted derogation >> >>>>>>>>> from free expression norms. This is not something >> >>>>>>>>> that is generally accepted in the human rights >> >>>>>>>>> community, but rather is a controversial notion >> >>>>>>>>> that provokes rather heated and emotional >> >>>>>>>>> argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the >> >>>>>>>>> guise of obeying human rights norms, should police >> >>>>>>>>> speech or in any way deny domain name applications >> >>>>>>>>> because they may run afoul of 'hate speech' >> >>>>>> principles. >> >>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition >> >>>>>>>>> of this SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate >> >>>>>>>>> content or speech. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not >> >>>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any >> >>>>>>>>> sort of serious commitment to the principles of >> >>>>>>>>> free speech. I know that there are many within our >> >>>>>>>>> SG supportive of my views in this regard; I suspect >> >>>>>>>>> there may be members that differ. Regardless of >> >>>>>>>>> specific views on the issue, I hope we can all >> >>>>>>>>> agree that ICANN is not the institution that should >> >>>>>>>>> be determining what 'hate speech' is and then >> >>>>>>>>> enforcing its >> >>>>>> determination. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that "despite its frequent >> >>>>>>>>> use, there is no clear or unique understanding of >> >>>>>>>>> what is 'hate speech', and the definitions and >> >>>>>>>>> conceptions vary in different countries" (?45). >> >>>>>>>>> They then recognize that the European Court of >> >>>>>>>>> Human Rights has not defined the term in order that >> >>>>>>>>> it's reasoning, "is not confined within definitions >> >>>>>>>>> that could limit its action in future cases"(?46). >> >>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the issues, the authors >> >>>>>>>>> suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with >> >>>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I'd suggest that ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> should only do so if the same opportunity is given >> >>>>>>>>> to intergovernmental organizations from all the >> >>>>>> world's regions. Europe should not receive special >> >>>>>> consideration. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to >> >>>>>>>>> create unity out of the plurality of opinions and >> >>>>>>>>> views relating to the proposed hate speech >> >>>>>>>>> derogation from the universally recognized right of >> >>>>>>>>> free expression. Upon close scrutiny, though, they >> >>>>>>>>> cannot be said to have >> >>>>>> accomplished their goal. >> >>>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two >> >>>>>>>>> of the Additional Protocol to the Budapest >> >>>>>>>>> Convention on Cybercrime, as they attempted to >> >>>>>>>>> define some portion of 'hate crime'. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part >> >>>>>>>>> of the universal human rights acquis. The numbers >> >>>>>>>>> are pretty stark: Of the seventeen non Council of >> >>>>>>>>> Europe signatories to the Cybercrime Convention >> >>>>>>>>> only two have ratified the Additional Protocol. Of >> >>>>>>>>> even greater significance, of the forty-seven >> >>>>>>>>> members of the Council of Europe only twenty have >> >>>>>>>>> signed the Additional Protocol (?45). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the 'hate >> >>>>>>>>> speech' derogation, the lack of ratification of the >> >>>>>>>>> Additional Protocol suggests severe reservations >> >>>>>>>>> about the concept. Certainly the proposed >> >>>>>>>>> definition is suspect. This is true even in Europe, >> >>>>>>>>> the area of the world where the hate speech >> >>>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, >> >>>>>>>>> and within the Council of Europe itself. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a >> >>>>>>>>> "balancing" test, the authors recommend that ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> "should ensure that 'hate speech' is not tolerated >> >>>>>>>>> in the applied-for gTlds" (?60). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this >> >>>>>>>>> recommendation. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating >> >>>>>>>>> speech. It certainly should not be in the business >> >>>>>>>>> of deciding what is or is not hate speech, a >> >>>>>>>>> concept with limited international acceptance and a >> >>>>>>>>> variable definition, and then prohibiting it. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that >> >>>>>>>>> puts ICANN in the position of being a censor. This >> >>>>>>>>> particular recommendation within this Council Of >> >>>>>>>>> Europe report does just that and needs to be >> >>>>>>>>> rejected. >> >>>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist >> >>>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some >> >>>>>>>> of which does not - we could talk more offlist about >> >>>>>>>> it. I agree on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, >> >>>>>>>> but this begs the question of how should human >> >>>>>>>> rights, ALL rights, be balanced in the >> >>>>>>>> decision-making - on this I would point back to the >> >>>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting >> >>>>>>>> the rights arguments looked at there and getting GAC >> >>>>>>>> members involved in that process, which is one of our >> >>>>>>>> longstanding SG positions). maybe there are other >> >>>>>>>> ideas here as well ... >> >>>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any >> >>>>>>>>> suggestion of giving ICANN "international or >> >>>>>>>>> quasi-international status" (?136) and I hope >> >>>>>>>>> others will join me, as an SG and individually, in >> >>>>>>>>> this >> >>>>>> opposition. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Joy "shudders'" at the authors suggestion that the >> >>>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red >> >>>>>>>>> Crescent societies should serve as a "source of >> >>>>>>>>> inspiration" for ICANN's future organizational >> >>>>>>>>> legal position (?137). I shudder with her. Joy then >> >>>>>>>>> suggests that the ILO might "be a better model". It >> >>>>>>>>> might be, but if ICANN received a status similar to >> >>>>>>>>> that of the ILO I respectfully suggest that shudder >> >>>>>>>>> rather than support would still be an appropriate >> >>>>>>>>> response. >> >>>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was >> >>>>>>>> simply surprised that the CoE paper did not even >> >>>>>>>> mention it - I know some governments are looking at >> >>>>>>>> the ILO becuase it is tri-partite (government, >> >>>>>>>> employers and worker representation) - and therefore >> >>>>>>>> using it to try and persuade other governments that >> >>>>>>>> other multi-stakeholder options do exist >> >>>>>>>> internationally >> >>>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of >> >>>>>>>>> privileges and legal immunities. The ILO is >> >>>>>>>>> actually a pretty good place to see what these >> >>>>>>>>> entail. As a specialized agency of the United >> >>>>>>>>> Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 Convention >> >>>>>>>>> on Privileges and Immunities which grants, amongst >> >>>>>>>>> other benefits: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization >> >>>>>>>>> and for its officials in its official acts, with >> >>>>>>>>> even greater immunity for executive officials, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical >> >>>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special >> >>>>>>>>> protection for its communications, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and >> >>>>>>>>> its employees, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given >> >>>>>>>>> diplomats for those attending organizational >> >>>>>>>>> meetings. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The >> >>>>>>>>> agreement between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal >> >>>>>>>>> Council mandates that the Red Cross receives, >> >>>>>>>>> amongst other benefits: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. >> >>>>>>>>> This immunity extends to both the organization and >> >>>>>>>>> to officials and continues with respect to >> >>>>>>>>> officials even after they leave office, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited >> >>>>>>>>> about proposals to give it international status. It >> >>>>>>>>> is less easy to understand why anyone who is not a >> >>>>>>>>> member of the ICANN staff thinks that this is a >> >>>>>> good idea. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> international legal status the authors write, >> >>>>>>>>> "ICANN should be free from risk of dominance by >> >>>>>>>>> states, other stakeholders, or even its own staff" >> >>>>>>>>> (?136). I agree with the principle but fail to see >> >>>>>>>>> how granting ICANN international legal status does >> >>>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony >> >>>>>>>>> of ICANN staff, making their actions less >> >>>>>> transparent and less accountable. >> >>>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) >> >>>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of >> >>>>>>>>> definite external accountability for ICANN are 1) >> >>>>>>>>> the NTIA, 2) the attorney general of the State of >> >>>>>>>>> California (AG) and the 3) courts, principally >> >>>>>>>>> those located in California. As the NTIA withdraws >> >>>>>>>>> from oversight the two remaining sources of >> >>>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the >> >>>>>>>>> courts. Should this CoE proposal for international >> >>>>>>>>> status be accepted, in lieu of other changes, there >> >>>>>>>>> will be no external control over ICANN. We cannot >> >>>>>>>>> support this proposition. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as >> >>>>>>>>> a private, not for profit corporation. The authors >> >>>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to >> >>>>>>>>> this structure. In stating that ICANN has >> >>>>>>>>> "flexibly" met the "changing needs of the >> >>>>>>>>> internet"(?1) the authors implicitly recognize a >> >>>>>>>>> value associated more with private corporations >> >>>>>>>>> than with those institutions accorded international >> >>>>>>>>> status. In using the .XXX decision as an example >> >>>>>>>>> where the values of free expression trumped >> >>>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should >> >>>>>>>>> be noted that some observers, myself included, >> >>>>>>>>> believe the Board's decision in this matter was >> >>>>>>>>> caused by fear of losing a lawsuit threatened by >> >>>>>>>>> ICM Registry. Immunity from legal process >> >>>>>>>>> eliminates this control >> >>>>>> mechanism. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily >> >>>>>>>>> mean supporting ICANN's continued corporate >> >>>>>>>>> residence in California. I reject the notion, >> >>>>>>>>> though, that leaving California necessarily would >> >>>>>>>>> make things better from the perspective of civil >> >>>>>>>>> society or of the individual user. It would depend >> >>>>>>>>> upon the legal structure of the >> >>>>>> receiving jurisdiction. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is >> >>>>>>>>> a corporate reorganization that would better help >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN meet the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: >> >>>>>>>>> the cration of membership within ICANN. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Changing ICANN's corporate structure from that of >> >>>>>>>>> a California public benefit corporation without >> >>>>>>>>> members to that of a California public benefits >> >>>>>>>>> corporation with members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the >> >>>>>>>>> California Corporations Code, would do a far better >> >>>>>>>>> job of creating a truly responsive and democratic >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN than granting ICANN international status >> >>>>>>>>> would. A more comprehensive discussion of this >> >>>>>>>>> concept can be found in my 27 June post on >> >>>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on >> >>>>>> this list. >> >>>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look >> >>>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special >> >>>>>>>>> international legal status for ICANN would somewhat >> >>>>>>>>> entrench the organization, and not in a good way. >> >>>>>>>>> None of us know what the communications landscape >> >>>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>> look like in a decade. >> >>>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block >> >>>>>>>>> chain technology, or technologies not yet dreamt >> >>>>>>>>> of, will obviate the need for a central naming and >> >>>>>>>>> addressing authority. It is reasonable to think >> >>>>>>>>> that an entity with international legal status >> >>>>>>>>> would be more likely to try to cling to it's >> >>>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private >> >>>>>>>>> corporation responsive to its members. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they >> >>>>>>>>> will provide a further basis for discussion. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Indeed ! >> >>>>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ed ? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy > > >> >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> Date: Fri, 18 Jul >> >>>>>>>>> 2014 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to >> >>>>>>>>> comments >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary >> >>>>>>>>> thoughts after some discussion in APC >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically >> >>>>>>>>> saying that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling >> >>>>>>>>> human rights obligations and that private sector, >> >>>>>>>>> intellectual property and and law enforcement >> >>>>>>>>> interests have been weighed too heavily in the >> >>>>>>>>> balance of decision-making to the detriment of >> >>>>>>>>> human rights and other stakeholders, including >> >>>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not >> >>>>>>>>> entirely new) points - some reflections for working >> >>>>>>>>> up to a possible submission: + I think this paper >> >>>>>>>>> is evidence that discourse is moving beyond >> >>>>>> "whether" >> >>>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making >> >>>>>>>>> (the previous paper I contributed to) and more >> >>>>>>>>> specifically into "how" in a very practical way - >> >>>>>>>>> that is excellent and should be welcomed - the >> >>>>>>>>> clear link to human rights in NETMundial and >> >>>>>>>>> related documents seems to be tipping the human >> >>>>>>>>> rights discussion - that is also really positive + >> >>>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in >> >>>>>>>>> specific ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up >> >>>>>>>>> deficiencies in both the standards and processes >> >>>>>>>>> ICANN is using - The paper does mention social and >> >>>>>>>>> cultural rights but only in passing in relation to >> >>>>>>>>> the community application dotgay, so I think this >> >>>>>>>>> makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights >> >>>>>>>>> timely and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + >> >>>>>>>>> several parts of the analysis and of the >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations were + already made by the Non >> >>>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency in a submission >> >>>>>>>>> developed in 2013 (one >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> on human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see >> >>>>>>>>> that paper cited - we should point out this >> >>>>>>>>> connection in making comments + clearly governments >> >>>>>>>>> are reaching for the human rights framework to >> >>>>>>>>> challenge the behaviour of other governments (as in >> >>>>>>>>> relation the law enforcement and the registrar >> >>>>>>>>> accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is >> >>>>>>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed >> >>>>>>>>> between and among governments - it suggests there >> >>>>>>>>> is a lot of discussion going on behind GAC's closed >> >>>>>>>>> doors on this.... I really like the references to >> >>>>>>>>> the UN resolutions internet rights - it is good to >> >>>>>>>>> see this jurisprudence emerging. + there is >> >>>>>>>>> inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies to >> >>>>>>>>> + business - not just business interests in ICANN >> >>>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such >> >>>>>>>>> as registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - >> >>>>>>>>> Anriette raised these points and I think we need to >> >>>>>>>>> think through how to respond on this - especially >> >>>>>>>>> on the human rights and business rules that were >> >>>>>>>>> developed in the UN + the analysis and >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations on community applications is very >> >>>>>>>>> + useful and I strongly support this aspect + the >> >>>>>>>>> paper recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal >> >>>>>>>>> basis to + include human rights in its bylaws - >> >>>>>>>>> that is good - but they should also become a member >> >>>>>>>>> of the GNI: Rafik Dammak and others have been >> >>>>>>>>> calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN board has >> >>>>>>>>> actively opposed that step. so we can raise that + >> >>>>>>>>> also recommends looking at the Red Cross as >> >>>>>>>>> possible inspiration + for a model - that made me >> >>>>>>>>> shudder give how the RC has behaved in policy >> >>>>>>>>> making in >> >>>>>> ICANN. >> >>>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must >> >>>>>>>>> respond on that specific >> >>>>>> point. >> >>>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and >> >>>>>>>>> challenging issues is + trying to define the public >> >>>>>>>>> interest aspects of ICANN's role and also GAC's >> >>>>>>>>> responsibilities - i think it's useful to raise >> >>>>>>>>> this again and try to squarely address it and there >> >>>>>>>>> are some options (the paper recommends an expert >> >>>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights >> >>>>>>>>> impact assessment of policy proposals - i think we >> >>>>>>>>> could also revive that idea..... >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi >> >>>>>>>>> all, Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few >> >>>>>>>>> others volunteered to work on a draft contribution >> >>>>>>>>> with comments and suggestions about CoE document. >> >>>>>>>>> Joy, your involvement is super important. Shall we >> >>>>>>>>> start to get it going? Best, Mar?lia >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment >> >>>>>>>>> period- and great that they took it up. And a >> >>>>>>>>> follow up event in LA would be excellent - I am >> >>>>>>>>> sure APC would want to support it. I do hope it >> >>>>>>>>> hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi >> >>>>>>>>> Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm glad Lee did this, as it's not COE's normal >> >>>>>>>>> procedure at all. We suggested they try it at our >> >>>>>>>>> meeting with them in London. We also agreed to >> >>>>>>>>> propose a follow up event for LA. It'd be good to >> >>>>>>>>> have our own position on paper prior. Since the >> >>>>>>>>> paper may have screwed Thomas' campaign for GAC >> >>>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Bill >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - >> >>>>>>>>> sorry it has taken me a while to get back on this, >> >>>>>>>>> I've been away from the office a while and it's >> >>>>>>>>> taken a while to catch up .... Thanks also Milton >> >>>>>>>>> for your blog post about the paper - I agree with >> >>>>>>>>> most of your comments. There are quite a few >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any >> >>>>>>>>> discussion at the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG >> >>>>>>>>> response? I note that some of the points and >> >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper were previously >> >>>>>>>>> covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in >> >>>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work >> >>>>>>>>> in any follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to >> >>>>>>>>> help with). Cheers Joy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human >> >>>>>>>>> Rights >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> Is on line and open to comments. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> avri >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >> >>>>>>>>> William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer >> >>>>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University >> >>>>>>>>> of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users >> >>>>>>>>> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> >> >>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >> >> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >> >> >>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org >> >> >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Mar?lia Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law >> School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >> >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing 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 rudi.vansnick Thu Sep 25 10:18:20 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:18:20 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments 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> Message-ID: Rafik, I?ll start the process today ? will also close the other call for consensus for Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group today (23:59 UTC). So far it looks like we have already a good majority for the candidature of Avri Doria. 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 25-sep.-2014, om 04:20 heeft Rafik Dammak het volgende geschreven: > Hi Maria, Rudi, > > can we start the call for consensus for this statement? > > Rafik > > 2014-09-22 21:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > thanks Joy! > seeing endorsement and support here, we need PC chairs to make the call for consensus and get this ready to be submitted . > > Rafik > > 2014-09-22 7:44 GMT+09:00 joy : > One other follow up - once this is finalised, I'd be happy to post a link to it on the APC site > Cheers > Joy > > On 21/09/2014 12:19 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> I apologize for commenting rather late, and for not signing into the document....I dont do google identities. So I show up as anonymous. I caught a few typos, and added a couple of things. >> Thanks for doing all the work Gabrielle, and I endorse it as well. If I get time I may send in my own separate comments, focusing in on the problems that have arisen in the context of WHOIS. no promises though, swamped.... >> cheers Stephanie >> On 2014-09-20, 6:36, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Also a lot of appreciation from me to those who worked on putting this statement together. I would be very happy if the NCSG endorsed it. >>> >>> Thanks again. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Rafik and thank you very much Gabrielle and all who worked on the drafting. >>>> I endorse this document. I only made one minor suggestion regarding consistency. >>>> Best, >>>> Mar?lia >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with >>>> review and endorsement? >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin" >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments >>>> on the COE report for your consideration. >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >>>> >>>> All best, >>>> >>>> Gabrielle >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> ] on behalf of Avri >>>> Doria [avri at ACM.ORG ] >>>> Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52 >>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am currently doing a edit pass though the document. By and >>>> large I >>>> agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments. >>>> >>>> There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal >>>> Status. >>>> this reads like an America overall forever clause. I think that >>>> becoming an international organization has been studied, is >>>> feasible >>>> and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO. I think >>>> it needs >>>> to be studied further especially once we have understood the >>>> parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship. >>>> >>>> I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause. I >>>> think >>>> that this also needs further discussion to deal with the >>>> tussle among >>>> rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US >>>> trade-off. I recommend leaving this this out too. >>>> >>>> I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection >>>> concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the >>>> stmt >>>> would be stronger standing alone without the debatable >>>> clauses being >>>> included in the doc. >>>> >>>> As it stands now, the document does not have my support. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> > Thanks, folks. I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten >>>> up the >>>> > lingo on the doc. The statement looks great to me and >>>> ready to go. >>>> > And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors! Well >>>> > done! >>>> > >>>> > Thank you, Robin >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Hi Niels, >>>> >> >>>> >> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and >>>> comments >>>> >> and I think that is partly done. since were are late for >>>> >> submission NCSG policy committee should proceed swiftly so >>>> we can >>>> >> submit the comment. the comment link >>>> >> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly? >>>> >> >>>> >> Best, >>>> >> >>>> >> Rafik >>>> >> >>>> >> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever >>>> >> >>> >: >>>> >> >>>> > Dear Rafik, >>>> > >>>> > Has this been submitted? >>>> > >>>> > Best, >>>> > >>>> > Niels >>>> > >>>> > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital >>>> > >>>> > Article 19 www.article19.org >>>> > >>>> > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >>>> > 68E9 >>>> > >>>> > On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Gabrielle, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at >>>> >>>>> perfect time just before IGF and the session there >>>> >>>>> organized by council of europe about the report (Details >>>> >>>>> shared by Bill few days ago) >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Best, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin >>>> >>>>> >: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Hi all >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a >>>> >>>>>> go at summarising the various comments that have been >>>> >>>>>> made by various NCSG members about the COE report on >>>> >>>>>> human rights. Here is a draft: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> > >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is >>>> anything else I >>>> >>>>>> can do to help. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> All the best, >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Gabrielle >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy >>>> [mailto:joy at apc.org ] >>>> >>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin; >>>> >>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: COE Doc open >>>> >>>>>> to comments >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee >>>> >>>>>> Hibbard at Council of Europe on the deadline for >>>> >>>>>> comments. He's noted they are aiming for a compilation of >>>> >>>>>> comments by 8 September. We should try to finalise sooner >>>> >>>>>> if we can, though, and I'll aim to take another look at >>>> >>>>>> the shared document later this week. Cheers Joy On >>>> >>>>>> 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when >>>> >>>>>>> the comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On >>>> >>>>>>> 23/07/2014 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the >>>> >>>>>>>> comments on the COE >>>> >>>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too >>>> >>>>>> but I won't be able to do so until mid-/late August. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us >>>> >>>>>>>> going if we have a >>>> >>>>>> document that others can start working on based on >>>> >>>>>> comments already received, so here is a link to a >>>> >>>>>> googledoc where I have just reproduced Ed, Joy and >>>> >>>>>> Milton's contributions. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems >>>> >>>>>>>> with the document. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> All best, >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ >>>> >>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> ] on >>>> >>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG ] >>>> Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 >>>> >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: COE >>>> >>>>>>>> Doc open to comments >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work >>>> >>>>>>>> through of the document in detail - that is extremely >>>> >>>>>>>> helpful! Shall we start a shared document and begin >>>> >>>>>>>> building the submission based on these and >>>> >>>>>> other inputs? >>>> >>>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and >>>> >>>>>>>> develop a response soon .. also, i am still mulling >>>> >>>>>>>> over your points, Ed, but a few responses below .... >>>> >>>>>>>> thanks again! Joy >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and >>>> >>>>>>>>> erudite analysis. A few things I'd like to offer >>>> >>>>>>>>> for consideration, in response both to Joy's post >>>> >>>>>>>>> and to the CoE document itself: >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of >>>> >>>>>>>>> Joy's recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join >>>> >>>>>>>>> the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I probably >>>> >>>>>>>>> still am. However, I'm a bit concerned about the >>>> >>>>>>>>> resignation of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation >>>> >>>>>>>>> (EFF) >>>> >>>>>> from the GNI in October of last year. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> join the GNI, I'd suggest that we reach out to our >>>> >>>>>>>>> EFF members and determine their views on the >>>> >>>>>>>>> matter, given the action of their parent >>>> >>>>>>>>> organization. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I >>>> >>>>>>>> can also ask Katitza Rodriguez >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both >>>> >>>>>>>>> for their work on this report and for the overall >>>> >>>>>>>>> effort of the CoE in promoting the inclusion of >>>> >>>>>>>>> human rights considerations within internet >>>> >>>>>>>>> governance generally, and within ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this >>>> >>>>>>>>> report. I want to particularly commend the authors >>>> >>>>>>>>> on recognizing that domain names such as .sucks >>>> >>>>>>>>> "ordinarily come within the scope of protection >>>> >>>>>>>>> offered by the right of freedom of >>>> >>>>>> expression"(?117). >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author's suggestion that a >>>> >>>>>>>>> human rights advisory panel be created within ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> (?134). NCSG member Roy Balleste has done some >>>> >>>>>>>>> excellent work in this area and I'd suggest he be >>>> >>>>>>>>> consulted as to whether the specific composition of >>>> >>>>>>>>> the panel suggested in this report is an optimal >>>> >>>>>>>>> one. >>>> >>>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC >>>> >>>>>>>> submission about 18months ago on human rights and >>>> >>>>>>>> ICANN - it's still relevant imho. >>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is >>>> >>>>>>>>> the "sole voice of human rights" within ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> (?125). We should politely remind the Council of >>>> >>>>>>>>> Europe that the leading voice for human rights >>>> >>>>>>>>> within ICANN has never been GAC but rather has been >>>> >>>>>>>>> the NCSG, it's predecessor, and it's member >>>> >>>>>>>>> constituencies. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for >>>> >>>>>>>> governments, but certainly not for human rights! >>>> >>>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating >>>> >>>>>>>>> the American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> (?9). As a corporation, it is likely that ICANN is >>>> >>>>>>>>> not obligated to follow the precepts of the Bill of >>>> >>>>>>>>> Rights in it's relationships with others. I say >>>> >>>>>>>>> likely, because if ICANN were construed by the >>>> >>>>>>>>> courts to be a U.S. government contractor, which in >>>> >>>>>>>>> some ways it currently is, ICANN could be construed >>>> >>>>>>>>> as participating in state action and then would be >>>> >>>>>>>>> obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a >>>> >>>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights >>>> >>>>>>>>> would apply to ICANN in its >>>> >>>>>> relationship with others. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under >>>> >>>>>>>>> American law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a >>>> >>>>>>>>> non-natural person, and does benefit from the >>>> >>>>>>>>> protections offered by Bill of Rights. It is bound >>>> >>>>>>>>> to the Bill of Rights in this way. Further, ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> is also protected from government interference >>>> >>>>>>>>> through the Declaration of Rights of the >>>> >>>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1), one of the most comprehensive statutory grants >>>> >>>>>>>>> of rights that exist in the world. These are >>>> >>>>>>>>> important considerations as we debate the future >>>> >>>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate. >>>> >>>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law >>>> >>>>>>>> dragons, i think a key question is also how the >>>> >>>>>>>> international obligations of the US goverment relate >>>> >>>>>>>> to a corporation such as ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than >>>> >>>>>>>>> trademark law be considered to "address speech >>>> >>>>>>>>> rights" (?117) is welcome, with the caveat that any >>>> >>>>>>>>> such model must expand freedom of expression and >>>> >>>>>>>>> not further restrict it. As bad as the trademark >>>> >>>>>>>>> maximalist model we now have is, there are many >>>> >>>>>>>>> legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to >>>> >>>>>>>>> adhere to, and open-ended recommendations in this >>>> >>>>>>>>> regard should best be avoided lest they be used by >>>> >>>>>>>>> those favoring a more restrictive >>>> >>>>>> speech model. >>>> >>>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas >>>> >>>>>>>> here ... via the shared doc? >>>> >>>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining >>>> >>>>>>>>> and actualizing in policy the term "public >>>> >>>>>>>>> interest" (?115). As they acknowledge, it is a >>>> >>>>>>>>> vague term "providing neither guidance nor >>>> >>>>>>>>> constraint on ICANN's >>>> >>>>>> actions" >>>> >>>>>>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to "flesh out >>>> >>>>>>>>> the concept" of global public interest to >>>> >>>>>>>>> strengthen accountability and transparency within >>>> >>>>>>>>> ICANN (?115). >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd suggest we move away from use of the term >>>> >>>>>>>>> "public interest" in all regards, as it's imprecise >>>> >>>>>>>>> definition leads to more problems than it solves. >>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm particularly nonplused by the positioning of >>>> >>>>>>>>> the concepts of accountability and transparency as >>>> >>>>>>>>> a seeming subset of >>>> >>>>>> "public interest" >>>> >>>>>>>>> (115). >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> needs to embrace regardless of the "public >>>> >>>>>>>>> interest", whatever it is. These twin concepts >>>> >>>>>>>>> strengthen both the ICANN community and ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> corporate. An attitude that transparency and >>>> >>>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to >>>> >>>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public >>>> >>>>>>>>> interest) should be rejected in favor of an >>>> >>>>>>>>> acknowledgement that such processes strengthen >>>> >>>>>>>>> ICANN internally. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous "public interest" is >>>> >>>>>>>>> welcome, but the principle reason for ICANN to >>>> >>>>>>>>> conduct it's affairs in a transparent and >>>> >>>>>>>>> accountable manner is that it strengthens both >>>> >>>>>>>>> ICANN the institution and ICANN the community. It >>>> >>>>>>>>> is self-interest, not public interest, which should >>>> >>>>>>>>> drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent >>>> >>>>>>>>> and accountable as possible. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that >>>> >>>>>>>>> accountability and transparency are dependent >>>> >>>>>>>>> variables subject to whatever it is that "public >>>> >>>>>>>>> interest" is determined to be. They stand on their >>>> >>>>>>>>> own. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and >>>> >>>>>>>> accountable as possible and I agree that transparency >>>> >>>>>>>> and accountability should not be dependent variables, >>>> >>>>>>>> but I don't have the same negative reaction to >>>> >>>>>>>> "public interest" - on the contrary, I find it a >>>> >>>>>>>> useful concept, especially in administrative law as a >>>> >>>>>>>> way to counter the power imbalances between private >>>> >>>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which >>>> >>>>>>>> States have obligations to protect - also because the >>>> >>>>>>>> notion of public law and State obligations in the >>>> >>>>>>>> public arena is a core component of the international >>>> >>>>>>>> human rights framework (which distinguishes between >>>> >>>>>>>> public and private law for example). So I would not >>>> >>>>>>>> want to negate it in the context of responding to the >>>> >>>>>>>> CoE paper nor in thinking through how this is >>>> >>>>>>>> relevant to ICANN. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors >>>> >>>>>>>>> to position "hate speech" as an accepted derogation >>>> >>>>>>>>> from free expression norms. This is not something >>>> >>>>>>>>> that is generally accepted in the human rights >>>> >>>>>>>>> community, but rather is a controversial notion >>>> >>>>>>>>> that provokes rather heated and emotional >>>> >>>>>>>>> argumentation amongst erstwhile allies. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the >>>> >>>>>>>>> guise of obeying human rights norms, should police >>>> >>>>>>>>> speech or in any way deny domain name applications >>>> >>>>>>>>> because they may run afoul of 'hate speech' >>>> >>>>>> principles. >>>> >>>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition >>>> >>>>>>>>> of this SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate >>>> >>>>>>>>> content or speech. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not >>>> >>>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any >>>> >>>>>>>>> sort of serious commitment to the principles of >>>> >>>>>>>>> free speech. I know that there are many within our >>>> >>>>>>>>> SG supportive of my views in this regard; I suspect >>>> >>>>>>>>> there may be members that differ. Regardless of >>>> >>>>>>>>> specific views on the issue, I hope we can all >>>> >>>>>>>>> agree that ICANN is not the institution that should >>>> >>>>>>>>> be determining what 'hate speech' is and then >>>> >>>>>>>>> enforcing its >>>> >>>>>> determination. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that "despite its frequent >>>> >>>>>>>>> use, there is no clear or unique understanding of >>>> >>>>>>>>> what is 'hate speech', and the definitions and >>>> >>>>>>>>> conceptions vary in different countries" (?45). >>>> >>>>>>>>> They then recognize that the European Court of >>>> >>>>>>>>> Human Rights has not defined the term in order that >>>> >>>>>>>>> it's reasoning, "is not confined within definitions >>>> >>>>>>>>> that could limit its action in future cases"(?46). >>>> >>>>>>>>> Given the complexity of the issues, the authors >>>> >>>>>>>>> suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with >>>> >>>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I'd suggest that ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> should only do so if the same opportunity is given >>>> >>>>>>>>> to intergovernmental organizations from all the >>>> >>>>>> world's regions. Europe should not receive special >>>> >>>>>> consideration. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to >>>> >>>>>>>>> create unity out of the plurality of opinions and >>>> >>>>>>>>> views relating to the proposed hate speech >>>> >>>>>>>>> derogation from the universally recognized right of >>>> >>>>>>>>> free expression. Upon close scrutiny, though, they >>>> >>>>>>>>> cannot be said to have >>>> >>>>>> accomplished their goal. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two >>>> >>>>>>>>> of the Additional Protocol to the Budapest >>>> >>>>>>>>> Convention on Cybercrime, as they attempted to >>>> >>>>>>>>> define some portion of 'hate crime'. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part >>>> >>>>>>>>> of the universal human rights acquis. The numbers >>>> >>>>>>>>> are pretty stark: Of the seventeen non Council of >>>> >>>>>>>>> Europe signatories to the Cybercrime Convention >>>> >>>>>>>>> only two have ratified the Additional Protocol. Of >>>> >>>>>>>>> even greater significance, of the forty-seven >>>> >>>>>>>>> members of the Council of Europe only twenty have >>>> >>>>>>>>> signed the Additional Protocol (?45). >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the 'hate >>>> >>>>>>>>> speech' derogation, the lack of ratification of the >>>> >>>>>>>>> Additional Protocol suggests severe reservations >>>> >>>>>>>>> about the concept. Certainly the proposed >>>> >>>>>>>>> definition is suspect. This is true even in Europe, >>>> >>>>>>>>> the area of the world where the hate speech >>>> >>>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, >>>> >>>>>>>>> and within the Council of Europe itself. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a >>>> >>>>>>>>> "balancing" test, the authors recommend that ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> "should ensure that 'hate speech' is not tolerated >>>> >>>>>>>>> in the applied-for gTlds" (?60). >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this >>>> >>>>>>>>> recommendation. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating >>>> >>>>>>>>> speech. It certainly should not be in the business >>>> >>>>>>>>> of deciding what is or is not hate speech, a >>>> >>>>>>>>> concept with limited international acceptance and a >>>> >>>>>>>>> variable definition, and then prohibiting it. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that >>>> >>>>>>>>> puts ICANN in the position of being a censor. This >>>> >>>>>>>>> particular recommendation within this Council Of >>>> >>>>>>>>> Europe report does just that and needs to be >>>> >>>>>>>>> rejected. >>>> >>>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist >>>> >>>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some >>>> >>>>>>>> of which does not - we could talk more offlist about >>>> >>>>>>>> it. I agree on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, >>>> >>>>>>>> but this begs the question of how should human >>>> >>>>>>>> rights, ALL rights, be balanced in the >>>> >>>>>>>> decision-making - on this I would point back to the >>>> >>>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting >>>> >>>>>>>> the rights arguments looked at there and getting GAC >>>> >>>>>>>> members involved in that process, which is one of our >>>> >>>>>>>> longstanding SG positions). maybe there are other >>>> >>>>>>>> ideas here as well ... >>>> >>>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any >>>> >>>>>>>>> suggestion of giving ICANN "international or >>>> >>>>>>>>> quasi-international status" (?136) and I hope >>>> >>>>>>>>> others will join me, as an SG and individually, in >>>> >>>>>>>>> this >>>> >>>>>> opposition. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Joy "shudders'" at the authors suggestion that the >>>> >>>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red >>>> >>>>>>>>> Crescent societies should serve as a "source of >>>> >>>>>>>>> inspiration" for ICANN's future organizational >>>> >>>>>>>>> legal position (?137). I shudder with her. Joy then >>>> >>>>>>>>> suggests that the ILO might "be a better model". It >>>> >>>>>>>>> might be, but if ICANN received a status similar to >>>> >>>>>>>>> that of the ILO I respectfully suggest that shudder >>>> >>>>>>>>> rather than support would still be an appropriate >>>> >>>>>>>>> response. >>>> >>>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was >>>> >>>>>>>> simply surprised that the CoE paper did not even >>>> >>>>>>>> mention it - I know some governments are looking at >>>> >>>>>>>> the ILO becuase it is tri-partite (government, >>>> >>>>>>>> employers and worker representation) - and therefore >>>> >>>>>>>> using it to try and persuade other governments that >>>> >>>>>>>> other multi-stakeholder options do exist >>>> >>>>>>>> internationally >>>> >>>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of >>>> >>>>>>>>> privileges and legal immunities. The ILO is >>>> >>>>>>>>> actually a pretty good place to see what these >>>> >>>>>>>>> entail. As a specialized agency of the United >>>> >>>>>>>>> Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947 Convention >>>> >>>>>>>>> on Privileges and Immunities which grants, amongst >>>> >>>>>>>>> other benefits: >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization >>>> >>>>>>>>> and for its officials in its official acts, with >>>> >>>>>>>>> even greater immunity for executive officials, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical >>>> >>>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special >>>> >>>>>>>>> protection for its communications, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and >>>> >>>>>>>>> its employees, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given >>>> >>>>>>>>> diplomats for those attending organizational >>>> >>>>>>>>> meetings. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The >>>> >>>>>>>>> agreement between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal >>>> >>>>>>>>> Council mandates that the Red Cross receives, >>>> >>>>>>>>> amongst other benefits: >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. >>>> >>>>>>>>> This immunity extends to both the organization and >>>> >>>>>>>>> to officials and continues with respect to >>>> >>>>>>>>> officials even after they leave office, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Inviolability of its premises and archives, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited >>>> >>>>>>>>> about proposals to give it international status. It >>>> >>>>>>>>> is less easy to understand why anyone who is not a >>>> >>>>>>>>> member of the ICANN staff thinks that this is a >>>> >>>>>> good idea. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> international legal status the authors write, >>>> >>>>>>>>> "ICANN should be free from risk of dominance by >>>> >>>>>>>>> states, other stakeholders, or even its own staff" >>>> >>>>>>>>> (?136). I agree with the principle but fail to see >>>> >>>>>>>>> how granting ICANN international legal status does >>>> >>>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony >>>> >>>>>>>>> of ICANN staff, making their actions less >>>> >>>>>> transparent and less accountable. >>>> >>>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :) >>>> >>>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of >>>> >>>>>>>>> definite external accountability for ICANN are 1) >>>> >>>>>>>>> the NTIA, 2) the attorney general of the State of >>>> >>>>>>>>> California (AG) and the 3) courts, principally >>>> >>>>>>>>> those located in California. As the NTIA withdraws >>>> >>>>>>>>> from oversight the two remaining sources of >>>> >>>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the >>>> >>>>>>>>> courts. Should this CoE proposal for international >>>> >>>>>>>>> status be accepted, in lieu of other changes, there >>>> >>>>>>>>> will be no external control over ICANN. We cannot >>>> >>>>>>>>> support this proposition. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as >>>> >>>>>>>>> a private, not for profit corporation. The authors >>>> >>>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to >>>> >>>>>>>>> this structure. In stating that ICANN has >>>> >>>>>>>>> "flexibly" met the "changing needs of the >>>> >>>>>>>>> internet"(?1) the authors implicitly recognize a >>>> >>>>>>>>> value associated more with private corporations >>>> >>>>>>>>> than with those institutions accorded international >>>> >>>>>>>>> status. In using the .XXX decision as an example >>>> >>>>>>>>> where the values of free expression trumped >>>> >>>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should >>>> >>>>>>>>> be noted that some observers, myself included, >>>> >>>>>>>>> believe the Board's decision in this matter was >>>> >>>>>>>>> caused by fear of losing a lawsuit threatened by >>>> >>>>>>>>> ICM Registry. Immunity from legal process >>>> >>>>>>>>> eliminates this control >>>> >>>>>> mechanism. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily >>>> >>>>>>>>> mean supporting ICANN's continued corporate >>>> >>>>>>>>> residence in California. I reject the notion, >>>> >>>>>>>>> though, that leaving California necessarily would >>>> >>>>>>>>> make things better from the perspective of civil >>>> >>>>>>>>> society or of the individual user. It would depend >>>> >>>>>>>>> upon the legal structure of the >>>> >>>>>> receiving jurisdiction. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is >>>> >>>>>>>>> a corporate reorganization that would better help >>>> >>>>>>>>> ICANN meet the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: >>>> >>>>>>>>> the cration of membership within ICANN. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Changing ICANN's corporate structure from that of >>>> >>>>>>>>> a California public benefit corporation without >>>> >>>>>>>>> members to that of a California public benefits >>>> >>>>>>>>> corporation with members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the >>>> >>>>>>>>> California Corporations Code, would do a far better >>>> >>>>>>>>> job of creating a truly responsive and democratic >>>> >>>>>>>>> ICANN than granting ICANN international status >>>> >>>>>>>>> would. A more comprehensive discussion of this >>>> >>>>>>>>> concept can be found in my 27 June post on >>>> >>>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on >>>> >>>>>> this list. >>>> >>>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look >>>> >>>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special >>>> >>>>>>>>> international legal status for ICANN would somewhat >>>> >>>>>>>>> entrench the organization, and not in a good way. >>>> >>>>>>>>> None of us know what the communications landscape >>>> >>>>>>>>> will >>>> >>>>>> look like in a decade. >>>> >>>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block >>>> >>>>>>>>> chain technology, or technologies not yet dreamt >>>> >>>>>>>>> of, will obviate the need for a central naming and >>>> >>>>>>>>> addressing authority. It is reasonable to think >>>> >>>>>>>>> that an entity with international legal status >>>> >>>>>>>>> would be more likely to try to cling to it's >>>> >>>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private >>>> >>>>>>>>> corporation responsive to its members. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they >>>> >>>>>>>>> will provide a further basis for discussion. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed ! >>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Ed ? >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy >>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jul >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2014 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to >>>> >>>>>>>>> comments >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary >>>> >>>>>>>>> thoughts after some discussion in APC >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically >>>> >>>>>>>>> saying that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling >>>> >>>>>>>>> human rights obligations and that private sector, >>>> >>>>>>>>> intellectual property and and law enforcement >>>> >>>>>>>>> interests have been weighed too heavily in the >>>> >>>>>>>>> balance of decision-making to the detriment of >>>> >>>>>>>>> human rights and other stakeholders, including >>>> >>>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not >>>> >>>>>>>>> entirely new) points - some reflections for working >>>> >>>>>>>>> up to a possible submission: + I think this paper >>>> >>>>>>>>> is evidence that discourse is moving beyond >>>> >>>>>> "whether" >>>> >>>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making >>>> >>>>>>>>> (the previous paper I contributed to) and more >>>> >>>>>>>>> specifically into "how" in a very practical way - >>>> >>>>>>>>> that is excellent and should be welcomed - the >>>> >>>>>>>>> clear link to human rights in NETMundial and >>>> >>>>>>>>> related documents seems to be tipping the human >>>> >>>>>>>>> rights discussion - that is also really positive + >>>> >>>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in >>>> >>>>>>>>> specific ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up >>>> >>>>>>>>> deficiencies in both the standards and processes >>>> >>>>>>>>> ICANN is using - The paper does mention social and >>>> >>>>>>>>> cultural rights but only in passing in relation to >>>> >>>>>>>>> the community application dotgay, so I think this >>>> >>>>>>>>> makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights >>>> >>>>>>>>> timely and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + >>>> >>>>>>>>> several parts of the analysis and of the >>>> >>>>>>>>> recommendations were + already made by the Non >>>> >>>>>>>>> Commercial Users Constituency in a submission >>>> >>>>>>>>> developed in 2013 (one >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> on human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see >>>> >>>>>>>>> that paper cited - we should point out this >>>> >>>>>>>>> connection in making comments + clearly governments >>>> >>>>>>>>> are reaching for the human rights framework to >>>> >>>>>>>>> challenge the behaviour of other governments (as in >>>> >>>>>>>>> relation the law enforcement and the registrar >>>> >>>>>>>>> accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is >>>> >>>>>>>>> directed at ICANN, it is also squarely directed >>>> >>>>>>>>> between and among governments - it suggests there >>>> >>>>>>>>> is a lot of discussion going on behind GAC's closed >>>> >>>>>>>>> doors on this.... I really like the references to >>>> >>>>>>>>> the UN resolutions internet rights - it is good to >>>> >>>>>>>>> see this jurisprudence emerging. + there is >>>> >>>>>>>>> inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies to >>>> >>>>>>>>> + business - not just business interests in ICANN >>>> >>>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such >>>> >>>>>>>>> as registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator - >>>> >>>>>>>>> Anriette raised these points and I think we need to >>>> >>>>>>>>> think through how to respond on this - especially >>>> >>>>>>>>> on the human rights and business rules that were >>>> >>>>>>>>> developed in the UN + the analysis and >>>> >>>>>>>>> recommendations on community applications is very >>>> >>>>>>>>> + useful and I strongly support this aspect + the >>>> >>>>>>>>> paper recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal >>>> >>>>>>>>> basis to + include human rights in its bylaws - >>>> >>>>>>>>> that is good - but they should also become a member >>>> >>>>>>>>> of the GNI: Rafik Dammak and others have been >>>> >>>>>>>>> calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN board has >>>> >>>>>>>>> actively opposed that step. so we can raise that + >>>> >>>>>>>>> also recommends looking at the Red Cross as >>>> >>>>>>>>> possible inspiration + for a model - that made me >>>> >>>>>>>>> shudder give how the RC has behaved in policy >>>> >>>>>>>>> making in >>>> >>>>>> ICANN. >>>> >>>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must >>>> >>>>>>>>> respond on that specific >>>> >>>>>> point. >>>> >>>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and >>>> >>>>>>>>> challenging issues is + trying to define the public >>>> >>>>>>>>> interest aspects of ICANN's role and also GAC's >>>> >>>>>>>>> responsibilities - i think it's useful to raise >>>> >>>>>>>>> this again and try to squarely address it and there >>>> >>>>>>>>> are some options (the paper recommends an expert >>>> >>>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights >>>> >>>>>>>>> impact assessment of policy proposals - i think we >>>> >>>>>>>>> could also revive that idea..... >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Joy >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi >>>> >>>>>>>>> all, Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few >>>> >>>>>>>>> others volunteered to work on a draft contribution >>>> >>>>>>>>> with comments and suggestions about CoE document. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Joy, your involvement is super important. Shall we >>>> >>>>>>>>> start to get it going? Best, Mar?lia >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy >>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment >>>> >>>>>>>>> period- and great that they took it up. And a >>>> >>>>>>>>> follow up event in LA would be excellent - I am >>>> >>>>>>>>> sure APC would want to support it. I do hope it >>>> >>>>>>>>> hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely! Joy >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi >>>> >>>>>>>>> Joy >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm glad Lee did this, as it's not COE's normal >>>> >>>>>>>>> procedure at all. We suggested they try it at our >>>> >>>>>>>>> meeting with them in London. We also agreed to >>>> >>>>>>>>> propose a follow up event for LA. It'd be good to >>>> >>>>>>>>> have our own position on paper prior. Since the >>>> >>>>>>>>> paper may have screwed Thomas' campaign for GAC >>>> >>>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Bill >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy >>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - >>>> >>>>>>>>> sorry it has taken me a while to get back on this, >>>> >>>>>>>>> I've been away from the office a while and it's >>>> >>>>>>>>> taken a while to catch up .... Thanks also Milton >>>> >>>>>>>>> for your blog post about the paper - I agree with >>>> >>>>>>>>> most of your comments. There are quite a few >>>> >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any >>>> >>>>>>>>> discussion at the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG >>>> >>>>>>>>> response? I note that some of the points and >>>> >>>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper were previously >>>> >>>>>>>>> covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work >>>> >>>>>>>>> in any follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to >>>> >>>>>>>>> help with). Cheers Joy >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human >>>> >>>>>>>>> Rights >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Is on line and open to comments. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> avri >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>>>>>>>> William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> >>>>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University >>>> >>>>>>>>> of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users >>>> >>>>>>>>> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>>> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >>>> >>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 25 10:27:55 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:27:55 +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> Message-ID: <72D44FAB-8770-4326-9DDD-10A59D9E3C8D@isoc.be> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSGCommentonCOEICANNreport2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 192553 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Sep 25 10:34:25 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:34:25 +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, thanks for this, can we shorten the period? I think the document was reviewed for a while and people here had enough time to comment. I think we don't need 6 days to make decision for a final consensus call. what do you think? 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 rafik.dammak Thu Sep 25 16:40:12 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:40:12 +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, btw I endorse the comment Rafik 2014-09-25 16:34 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Rudi, > > thanks for this, can we shorten the period? I think the document was > reviewed for a while and people here had enough time to comment. I think we > don't need 6 days to make decision for a final consensus call. what do you > think? > > > 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 robin Thu Sep 25 16:54:28 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:54:28 -0700 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: Haven't folks already weighed in on this for the last several weeks? Aren't we just trying to get the thing actually sent now? Robin On Sep 25, 2014, at 12:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Rudi, > > thanks for this, can we shorten the period? I think the document was reviewed for a while and people here had enough time to comment. I think we don't need 6 days to make decision for a final consensus call. what do you think? > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Sep 25 17:03:55 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:03:55 +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: there was comments made and resolved, so we have ready to sent statement, waiting for PC to endorse. Rafik 2014-09-25 22:54 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross : > Haven't folks already weighed in on this for the last several weeks? > Aren't we just trying to get the thing actually sent now? > > Robin > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 12:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Rudi, > > thanks for this, can we shorten the period? I think the document was > reviewed for a while and people here had enough time to comment. I think we > don't need 6 days to make decision for a final consensus call. what do you > think? > > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Thu Sep 25 17:11:18 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:11:18 +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: Hi, I already endorsed the statement, but just in case I need to do so again; I endorse it. Thanks. Amr On Sep 25, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > there was comments made and resolved, so we have ready to sent statement, waiting for PC to endorse. > > Rafik > 2014-09-25 22:54 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross : > Haven't folks already weighed in on this for the last several weeks? Aren't we just trying to get the thing actually sent now? > > Robin > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 12:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Rudi, >> >> thanks for this, can we shorten the period? I think the document was reviewed for a while and people here had enough time to comment. I think we don't need 6 days to make decision for a final consensus call. what do you think? >> >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Sep 25 17:09:46 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:09:46 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments Message-ID: Hi everyone, you find attached the comment from registries SG for the accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a joint SO/AC/SG statement. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN RySG Accountability Response v10 23 2014 Clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 27251 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Thu Sep 25 17:21:57 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:21:57 -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> <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: <54242505.3000400@acm.org> hi, i think it changed again after the last few time i endorsed it. and last time i checked i was no longer happy and just decided to give up and let happened whatever happen. I pass but do not object. avri On 25-Sep-14 10:11, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I already endorsed the statement, but just in case I need to do so again; I endorse it. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> there was comments made and resolved, so we have ready to sent statement, waiting for PC to endorse. >> >> Rafik >> 2014-09-25 22:54 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross : >> Haven't folks already weighed in on this for the last several weeks? Aren't we just trying to get the thing actually sent now? >> >> Robin >> >> On Sep 25, 2014, at 12:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Rudi, >>> >>> thanks for this, can we shorten the period? I think the document was reviewed for a while and people here had enough time to comment. I think we don't need 6 days to make decision for a final consensus call. what do you think? >>> >>> >>> 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 > From lanfran Thu Sep 25 17:23:45 2014 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:23:45 -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: <54242571.5030701@yorku.ca> I too endorse the comment, cleaned up with the proposed wording changes highlighted in the https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/ version. I would note in passing that the issue of human rights and the Internet is gaining increased attention on the agendas of a number of international and multilateral organizations. That is good but will also call for increased vigilance here since there is likely to be a "land grab" as significant players try to take control of the process, in order to take credit for what is arrived at. In my view ICANN is not the organization to take the lead in framing something for the Internet like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHDR), which in that case was passed by the UN. What ICANN can do, within its remit, is champion and become a best-in-class organization incorporating the human rights issues into its policies and practices. Doing so would be to ICANN's credit and give it a strong seat at any venue where the broader framing of Internet rights and human rights is taking place. It is my view that this is the strategy ICANN should initiate earlier rather than later. Sam L. -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 From stephanie.perrin Thu Sep 25 17:52:31 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:52:31 -0400 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> <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: <54242C2F.1060101@mail.utoronto.ca> I am not sure how my comments were treated, but I must reiterate this one....it does not make sense: Our comments are divided into two parts. Part I sets out what we regard as the positive features of the report. Part II lays down more specifically our areas of concern with some sections *of the authors* of the report. I had deleted " of the authors" (because surely we have no concern with the authors of the report) and replaced it by some sections of the report. With that change I can support the draft as attached. Stephanie On 14-09-25 3:27 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > 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 stephanie.perrin Thu Sep 25 18:19:11 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:19:11 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <54242571.5030701@yorku.ca> References: <53B97089.4010306@acm.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> <54242571.5030701@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <5424326F.1040203@mail.utoronto.ca> I don't think anybody would trust ICANN to take the lead on human rights issues, all we are looking for is compliance with generally accepted public policy principles. WE have a long way to go in that regard, in my view. I do share your concern about the grab...but at the moment, on the privacy front, we are still fighting off a "risk-based approach" to privacy. This has been what ICANN appears to have been practising for quite some time... Stephanie On 14-09-25 10:23 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > I too endorse the comment, cleaned up with the proposed wording > changes highlighted in the > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/ > version. > > I would note in passing that the issue of human rights and the > Internet is gaining increased attention on the agendas of a number of > international and multilateral organizations. That is good but will > also call for increased vigilance here since there is likely to be a > "land grab" as significant players try to take control of the process, > in order to take credit for what is arrived at. > > In my view ICANN is not the organization to take the lead in framing > something for the Internet like the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights (UNHDR), which in that case was passed by the UN. What ICANN > can do, within its remit, is champion and become a best-in-class > organization incorporating the human rights issues into its policies > and practices. Doing so would be to ICANN's credit and give it a > strong seat at any venue where the broader framing of Internet rights > and human rights is taking place. It is my view that this is the > strategy ICANN should initiate earlier rather than later. > > Sam L. > From avri Thu Sep 25 19:50:12 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:50:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <5424326F.1040203@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> <54242571.5030701@yorku.ca> <5424326F.1040203@mail.utoron! to.ca> Message-ID: <542447C4.6040907@acm.org> Hi, I think the point is to have some way to advise on the human rights impact of the things we decide and do. Of course ICANN should not be making human rights policy, but is MUST makes its policies in accordance to human rights requirements. And to do that it needs to understand these requirements and have some process in the ICANN structure for making sure they are alwasy adequately considered. avri On 25-Sep-14 11:19, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I don't think anybody would trust ICANN to take the lead on human rights > issues, all we are looking for is compliance with generally accepted > public policy principles. WE have a long way to go in that regard, in > my view. I do share your concern about the grab...but at the moment, on > the privacy front, we are still fighting off a "risk-based approach" to > privacy. This has been what ICANN appears to have been practising for > quite some time... > Stephanie > On 14-09-25 10:23 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> I too endorse the comment, cleaned up with the proposed wording >> changes highlighted in the >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/ >> version. >> >> I would note in passing that the issue of human rights and the >> Internet is gaining increased attention on the agendas of a number of >> international and multilateral organizations. That is good but will >> also call for increased vigilance here since there is likely to be a >> "land grab" as significant players try to take control of the process, >> in order to take credit for what is arrived at. >> >> In my view ICANN is not the organization to take the lead in framing >> something for the Internet like the Universal Declaration of Human >> Rights (UNHDR), which in that case was passed by the UN. What ICANN >> can do, within its remit, is champion and become a best-in-class >> organization incorporating the human rights issues into its policies >> and practices. Doing so would be to ICANN's credit and give it a >> strong seat at any venue where the broader framing of Internet rights >> and human rights is taking place. It is my view that this is the >> strategy ICANN should initiate earlier rather than later. >> >> Sam L. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > From director-general Thu Sep 25 19:45:20 2014 From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:45:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <542447C4.6040907@acm.org> Message-ID: <9813528.15031411663520478.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> Well said, we cannot work without ensuring we respect these fundamental charters. Dorothy K. Gordon Director-General Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT Mobile: 233 265005712 Direct Line: 233 302 683579 Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Avri Doria" To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2014 4:50:12 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN Hi, I think the point is to have some way to advise on the human rights impact of the things we decide and do. Of course ICANN should not be making human rights policy, but is MUST makes its policies in accordance to human rights requirements. And to do that it needs to understand these requirements and have some process in the ICANN structure for making sure they are alwasy adequately considered. avri On 25-Sep-14 11:19, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I don't think anybody would trust ICANN to take the lead on human rights > issues, all we are looking for is compliance with generally accepted > public policy principles. WE have a long way to go in that regard, in > my view. I do share your concern about the grab...but at the moment, on > the privacy front, we are still fighting off a "risk-based approach" to > privacy. This has been what ICANN appears to have been practising for > quite some time... > Stephanie > On 14-09-25 10:23 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> I too endorse the comment, cleaned up with the proposed wording >> changes highlighted in the >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/ >> version. >> >> I would note in passing that the issue of human rights and the >> Internet is gaining increased attention on the agendas of a number of >> international and multilateral organizations. That is good but will >> also call for increased vigilance here since there is likely to be a >> "land grab" as significant players try to take control of the process, >> in order to take credit for what is arrived at. >> >> In my view ICANN is not the organization to take the lead in framing >> something for the Internet like the Universal Declaration of Human >> Rights (UNHDR), which in that case was passed by the UN. What ICANN >> can do, within its remit, is champion and become a best-in-class >> organization incorporating the human rights issues into its policies >> and practices. Doing so would be to ICANN's credit and give it a >> strong seat at any venue where the broader framing of Internet rights >> and human rights is taking place. It is my view that this is the >> strategy ICANN should initiate earlier rather than later. >> >> Sam L. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Thu Sep 25 20:35:27 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:35:27 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: current CWG membership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5424525F.8010405@acm.org> The list of members and observers is available on the Wiki at From avri Thu Sep 25 21:35:00 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:35:00 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: current CWG membership In-Reply-To: <5424525F.8010405@acm.org> References: <5424525F.8010405@acm.org> Message-ID: <54246054.2030802@acm.org> Hi, Being a bit pushy, but have i been chosen? If so, the sooner Jonathan and the GNSO secretariat can be informed the better. Things are starting. cheers avri On 25-Sep-14 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > > The list of members and > observers is available on the Wiki at > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > From aelsadr Thu Sep 25 22:57:21 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:57:21 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] current CWG membership In-Reply-To: <54246054.2030802@acm.org> References: <5424525F.8010405@acm.org> <54246054.2030802@acm.org> Message-ID: I believe we?re getting there. Amr On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:35 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Being a bit pushy, but have i been chosen? > > If so, the sooner Jonathan and the GNSO secretariat can be informed the > better. Things are starting. > > cheers > > avri > > > On 25-Sep-14 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> The list of members and >> observers is available on the Wiki at >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Fri Sep 26 01:31:23 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:31:23 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments References: Message-ID: Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. Is there support from others as well? Thanks, Robin Begin forwarded message: > From: Rafik Dammak > Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments > Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT > To: NCSG-Policy > > Hi everyone, > > you find attached the comment from registries SG for the accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations > Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a joint SO/AC/SG statement. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN RySG Accountability Response v10 23 2014 Clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 27251 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 joy Fri Sep 26 03:02:42 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:02:42 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <9813528.15031411663520478.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> References: <9813528.15031411663520478.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> Message-ID: <5424AD22.5070705@apc.org> Hi - I endorse the document Thanks also for the comments - I certainly agree that ICANN is not a human rights standards making body, but that is must take account of human rights in making policies. Joy On 26/09/2014 4:45 a.m., Dorothy K. Gordon wrote: > Well said, we cannot work without ensuring we respect these fundamental charters. > > Dorothy K. Gordon > Director-General > Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT > Mobile: 233 265005712 > Direct Line: 233 302 683579 > Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh > Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Avri Doria" > To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2014 4:50:12 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN > > Hi, > > I think the point is to have some way to advise on the human rights > impact of the things we decide and do. > > Of course ICANN should not be making human rights policy, but is MUST > makes its policies in accordance to human rights requirements. And to > do that it needs to understand these requirements and have some process > in the ICANN structure for making sure they are alwasy adequately > considered. > > avri > > > On 25-Sep-14 11:19, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> I don't think anybody would trust ICANN to take the lead on human rights >> issues, all we are looking for is compliance with generally accepted >> public policy principles. WE have a long way to go in that regard, in >> my view. I do share your concern about the grab...but at the moment, on >> the privacy front, we are still fighting off a "risk-based approach" to >> privacy. This has been what ICANN appears to have been practising for >> quite some time... >> Stephanie >> On 14-09-25 10:23 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> I too endorse the comment, cleaned up with the proposed wording >>> changes highlighted in the >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/ >>> version. >>> >>> I would note in passing that the issue of human rights and the >>> Internet is gaining increased attention on the agendas of a number of >>> international and multilateral organizations. That is good but will >>> also call for increased vigilance here since there is likely to be a >>> "land grab" as significant players try to take control of the process, >>> in order to take credit for what is arrived at. >>> >>> In my view ICANN is not the organization to take the lead in framing >>> something for the Internet like the Universal Declaration of Human >>> Rights (UNHDR), which in that case was passed by the UN. What ICANN >>> can do, within its remit, is champion and become a best-in-class >>> organization incorporating the human rights issues into its policies >>> and practices. Doing so would be to ICANN's credit and give it a >>> strong seat at any venue where the broader framing of Internet rights >>> and human rights is taking place. It is my view that this is the >>> strategy ICANN should initiate earlier rather than later. >>> >>> Sam L. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Fri Sep 26 03:34:35 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:34:35 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: current CWG membership In-Reply-To: <54246054.2030802@acm.org> References: <5424525F.8010405@acm.org> <54246054.2030802@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, I think we are close, when the consensus call deadline is passed I will send the info to Jonathan and Glen. Rafik 2014-09-26 3:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > Being a bit pushy, but have i been chosen? > > If so, the sooner Jonathan and the GNSO secretariat can be informed the > better. Things are starting. > > cheers > > avri > > > On 25-Sep-14 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > The list of members and > > observers is available on the Wiki at > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Fri Sep 26 04:06:27 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:06:27 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report Human Rights and ICANN In-Reply-To: <5424AD22.5070705@apc.org> References: <9813528.15031411663520478.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> <5424AD22.5070705@apc.org> Message-ID: Yes to the document. Thanks Mar?lia On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:02 PM, joy wrote: > Hi - I endorse the document > Thanks also for the comments - I certainly agree that ICANN is not a > human rights standards making body, but that is must take account of > human rights in making policies. > Joy > > On 26/09/2014 4:45 a.m., Dorothy K. Gordon wrote: > > Well said, we cannot work without ensuring we respect these fundamental > charters. > > > > Dorothy K. Gordon > > Director-General > > Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT > > Mobile: 233 265005712 > > Direct Line: 233 302 683579 > > Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh > > Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Avri Doria" > > To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > > Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2014 4:50:12 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / > Monrovia > > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call on NCSG comments on the COE report > Human Rights and ICANN > > > > Hi, > > > > I think the point is to have some way to advise on the human rights > > impact of the things we decide and do. > > > > Of course ICANN should not be making human rights policy, but is MUST > > makes its policies in accordance to human rights requirements. And to > > do that it needs to understand these requirements and have some process > > in the ICANN structure for making sure they are alwasy adequately > > considered. > > > > avri > > > > > > On 25-Sep-14 11:19, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> I don't think anybody would trust ICANN to take the lead on human rights > >> issues, all we are looking for is compliance with generally accepted > >> public policy principles. WE have a long way to go in that regard, in > >> my view. I do share your concern about the grab...but at the moment, on > >> the privacy front, we are still fighting off a "risk-based approach" to > >> privacy. This has been what ICANN appears to have been practising for > >> quite some time... > >> Stephanie > >> On 14-09-25 10:23 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > >>> I too endorse the comment, cleaned up with the proposed wording > >>> changes highlighted in the > >>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/ > >>> version. > >>> > >>> I would note in passing that the issue of human rights and the > >>> Internet is gaining increased attention on the agendas of a number of > >>> international and multilateral organizations. That is good but will > >>> also call for increased vigilance here since there is likely to be a > >>> "land grab" as significant players try to take control of the process, > >>> in order to take credit for what is arrived at. > >>> > >>> In my view ICANN is not the organization to take the lead in framing > >>> something for the Internet like the Universal Declaration of Human > >>> Rights (UNHDR), which in that case was passed by the UN. What ICANN > >>> can do, within its remit, is champion and become a best-in-class > >>> organization incorporating the human rights issues into its policies > >>> and practices. Doing so would be to ICANN's credit and give it a > >>> strong seat at any venue where the broader framing of Internet rights > >>> and human rights is taking place. It is my view that this is the > >>> strategy ICANN should initiate earlier rather than later. > >>> > >>> Sam L. > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Sep 26 06:09:36 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:09:36 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NEW Doodle Poll: Start discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair Elections Message-ID: Hi everyone, it was not possible to get call for this week and so postponed to next week. please fill the doodle poll again and hopefully we will settle out the topic for GNSO leadership election. regarding our position, I think that is clear and we should be ready to argue for it. any thought? Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brenda Brewer Date: 2014-09-26 11:54 GMT+09:00 Subject: NEW Doodle Poll: Start discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair Elections To: "met at msk.com" , Rafik Dammak Cc: Elisa Cooper , "Rosette, Kristina" < krosette at cov.com>, Tony Holmes , Marilyn Cade < marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "harris at cabase.org.ar" , " petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu" Hello all, Please find below the *NEW* link to a Doodle poll for the upcoming call taking place next week regarding ?starting the discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair elections?. http://doodle.com/vbqe7vwtwm888qem Thank you for completing the poll as soon as possible so I can proceed to book the call for the week of Sept 29 ? Oct 3, 2014. With kind regards, *B**renda **B**rewer * * ---* *Brenda Brewer* *Secretariat** - BC, IPC, and ISPCP* Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *Email:* brenda.brewer at icann.org *Skype ID:* brenda.brewer.icann ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *From:* Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com] Due to circumstances beyond our control we will have to push this call back to next week. By copy I ask Brenda to launch a new poll for next week. Rafik, I assume you will circulate the link to those on NCSG side who need to know. Alternatively you can send Brenda all the relevant e-mail addresses. In any case, apologies for needing to re-start and look forward to speaking with you next week. Steve Metalitz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Sep 26 15:06:09 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:06:09 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <542556B1.3030108@acm.org> Hi, I find I do not share the same zeal others have for some of the points on the joint statement list. I wish it focused more on Scope and Approval and less on varying formulas for building open community efforts. I have lots of issues with what is written. I agree with Adam in thinking the claim that we have figured out how to do Cross Community Working Groups (CCWG) is a bit premature. Beyond what Adam has said, we do not have a good method for initiating such a group. This one is Board initiated; why is that so bad? I think that while a working group (WG) should have change control of their charter, starting with a draft charter someone else prepares is ok. And I think having the chartering organization(s) approve the charter is also ok. In this case, I would recommend that the Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committees (SOAC) & the Board can approve any charter, if they wish. But CCWGs should be the ones that have change control of their charters. I will possibly send in an individual comment to that effect. Others who have their own points of view should consider their own brief comments. But I also see value in working with the other Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committees (SOAC) & GNSO Stakeholder groups (SG). Given that the NCSG has not prepared its own comment, and has been working with the rest of SOAC & SGs this far on statements, not doing so now is probably a political statement we don't want to make. We should probably join the rest of them in this too. As time runs out today/tomorrow, I think we should sign on. avri On 26-Sep-14 07:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > lets go back to some basics here, > Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if > we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such > document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. > We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no > decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the > next 2 hours!! > > I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different > groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and > found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell > other ICANN groups. > > Rafik > > 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam : > >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month >> before that. >> >> >> It's a new statement. >> >> Adam >> >> >>> Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion >> before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which >> raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? >>> >>> If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume we >> can't and should just walk away. >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bill, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Adam >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse >> statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. >>>>> >>>>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything >> that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic >> interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or >> otherwise of concern? If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and >> ask for tweaks before signing on. If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign >> on? >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign? >>>> >>>> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair >> interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? >>>> >>>> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we >> hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not with >> what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems >> lacking. >>>> >>>> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. Appreciated, >> shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. >>>>> >>>>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody else >> commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. >>>>> >>>>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly >> SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at >>>>> >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. >> They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an >> off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this >> then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side. The >> below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> ------- >>>>> >>>>> Bill Drake: >>>>> >>>>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the >> intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much >> welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and >> opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible >> misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really >> constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it >> could be useful. >>>>> >>>>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, >> particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. >> There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about >> the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of >> interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- >> what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do >> other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to >> what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal >> coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, >> with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. >>>>> >>>>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, maybe, >> sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue >> with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these >> roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to >> consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just >> Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with >> the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of >> people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, >> what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how >> does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I >> hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Fadi Chehad?: >>>>> >>>>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me guidance, >> tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share with >> people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and maybe >> before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you to >> certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you >> want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then >> we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things >> completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly >> we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just >> think the dynamic will be different. >>>>> >>>>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and >> you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So >> guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid >> finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, >> which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we >> would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. >> And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and >> you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are >> not hearing each other. >>>>> >>>>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, >> so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs >> happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" wrote: >>>>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line with >> our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join all the >> others with the present text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Norbert Klein >>>>>>> Cambodia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> = >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder >> Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP >> Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only other part of >> the GNSO. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Robin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross >> community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had >> previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also >> proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope >> NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not >> cross constituency. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there support from others as well? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Robin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing >> ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >>>>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT >>>>>>> To: NCSG-Policy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the >> accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations >>>>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a >> joint SO/AC/SG statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *********************************************** >>>>> William J. Drake >>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>> >> > From rafik.dammak Fri Sep 26 18:05:35 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 00:05:35 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NEW Doodle Poll: Start discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, we are still have fun with doodle poll, this the new one with possibility to set your timezone. crossing fingers to be the last http://doodle.com/8uwmkspqyasqgamz Rafik Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users" 2014-09-26 12:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi everyone, > > it was not possible to get call for this week and so postponed to next > week. please fill the doodle poll again and hopefully we will settle out > the topic for GNSO leadership election. > regarding our position, I think that is clear and we should be ready to > argue for it. any thought? > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Brenda Brewer > Date: 2014-09-26 11:54 GMT+09:00 > Subject: NEW Doodle Poll: Start discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair > Elections > To: "met at msk.com" , Rafik Dammak > Cc: Elisa Cooper , "Rosette, Kristina" < > krosette at cov.com>, Tony Holmes , Marilyn > Cade , "harris at cabase.org.ar" < > harris at cabase.org.ar>, "petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu" < > petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu> > > > Hello all, > > > > Please find below the *NEW* link to a Doodle poll for the upcoming call > taking place next week regarding ?starting the discussion for GNSO Chair > and Vice-Chair elections?. > > > > http://doodle.com/vbqe7vwtwm888qem > > > > Thank you for completing the poll as soon as possible so I can proceed to > book the call for the week of Sept 29 ? Oct 3, 2014. > > > > With kind regards, > > *B**renda **B**rewer * > > * ---* > > *Brenda Brewer* > > *Secretariat** - BC, IPC, and ISPCP* > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > *Email:* brenda.brewer at icann.org > > *Skype ID:* brenda.brewer.icann > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > *From:* Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com] > > Due to circumstances beyond our control we will have to push this call > back to next week. By copy I ask Brenda to launch a new poll for next week. > Rafik, I assume you will circulate the link to those on NCSG side who need > to know. Alternatively you can send Brenda all the relevant e-mail > addresses. In any case, apologies for needing to re-start and look forward > to speaking with you next week. > > > > Steve Metalitz > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Fri Sep 26 20:48:46 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:48:46 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group In-Reply-To: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> References: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> Message-ID: <1F5AD37F-5595-404A-8966-A02CE85A5B9B@isoc.be> Dear all, I herewith confirm Avri Doria been selected expert candidate for the IANA Cross Community group, based on the positive result of the e-vote closed 25/9- 23:59 UTC. Rafik, do you as chair of the NCSG, communicate this ? Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Op 23-sep.-2014, om 18:06 heeft Rudi Vansnick het volgende geschreven: > Dear all, > > As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to finalize the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community Group. Deadline was 15 september. So far the only candidate who posted interest for this position is : Avri Doria > > I?m calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no other nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on 25/9 - 23:59 UTC. > > Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be able to officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate PC NCSG chair. > > > The SO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their respective communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, who will then be confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These names should be provided to the Cross Community Group and be public. Names selected by the SO/AC/SGs for the Coordination Group are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross Community Group prior to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to be a member of the Cross Community Group to be selected by the respectiveSO/AC/SGs to the Coordination Group. SO/AC/SGs may identify their own processes for selecting experts. All participants on the Coordination Group are expected to conduct the work on a consensus basis, consistent with community processes, including open, transparent, and meeting with the community at respectiveICANN meetings." > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Sep 26 21:39:30 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:39:30 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group In-Reply-To: <1F5AD37F-5595-404A-8966-A02CE85A5B9B@isoc.be> References: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> <1F5AD37F-5595-404A-8966-A02CE85A5B9B@isoc.be> Message-ID: <5425B2E2.4@acm.org> Hi, Thanks. And I promise to do my best to keep you all, and the membership, informed and as involved as you want to be. I suggest the the group of NCSG observers and I work together as a 'delegation' as much as possible/reasonable. avri On 26-Sep-14 13:48, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Dear all, > > I herewith confirm Avri Doria been selected expert candidate for the > IANA Cross Community group, based on the positive result of the > e-vote closed 25/9- 23:59 UTC. > > Rafik, do you as chair of the NCSG, communicate this ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > > > Op 23-sep.-2014, om 18:06 heeft Rudi Vansnick > het volgende geschreven: > >> Dear all, >> >> As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to >> finalize the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community >> Group. Deadline was 15 september. So far the only candidate who >> posted interest for this position is : Avri Doria >> >> I?m calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no >> other nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on >> 25/9 - 23:59 UTC. >> >> Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be >> able to officially announce our candidates before the end of the >> week. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rudi Vansnick Alternate PC NCSG chair. >> >> >> The SO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their >> respective communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, >> who will then be confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These >> names should be provided to the Cross Community Group and be >> public. Names selected by the SO/AC/SGs for the Coordination Group >> are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross Community Group prior >> to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to be a member of >> the Cross Community Group to be selected by the respectiveSO/AC/SGs >> to the Coordination Group. SO/AC/SGs may identify their own >> processes for selecting experts. All participants on the >> Coordination Group are expected to conduct the work on a consensus >> basis, consistent with community processes, including open, >> transparent, and meeting with the community at respectiveICANN >> meetings." >> >> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing >> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Fri Sep 26 22:58:14 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 04:58:14 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group In-Reply-To: <1F5AD37F-5595-404A-8966-A02CE85A5B9B@isoc.be> References: <3473377C-3FC1-407E-8D8A-2F5195D00322@isoc.be> <1F5AD37F-5595-404A-8966-A02CE85A5B9B@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hi Rudi, Thanks. Yes I will communicate this. Rafik On Sep 27, 2014 2:49 AM, "Rudi Vansnick" wrote: > Dear all, > > I herewith confirm Avri Doria been selected expert candidate for the IANA > Cross Community group, based on the positive result of the e-vote closed > 25/9- 23:59 UTC. > > Rafik, do you as chair of the NCSG, communicate this ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > > > Op 23-sep.-2014, om 18:06 heeft Rudi Vansnick het > volgende geschreven: > > Dear all, > > As we discussed today during the NCSG monthly call, we need to finalize > the selection of candidates for the IANA Cross Community Group. Deadline > was 15 september. So far the only candidate who posted interest for this > position is : Avri Doria > > I?m calling for a consensus vote on the proposed candidate if no other > nominees are willing to stand. I will close this e-vote on 25/9 - 23:59 UTC. > > Hopefully we will get enough response to this call now and will be able to > officially announce our candidates before the end of the week. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Alternate PC NCSG chair. > > > The SO/AC/SGs will identify the expert candidates from their respective > communities to be appointed to the Coordination Group, who will then be > confirmed by the Cross Community Group. These names should be provided to > the Cross Community Group and be public. Names selected by the SO/AC/SGs > for the Coordination Group are encouraged to be submitted to the Cross > Community Group prior to its 15 September meeting. One does not need to be > a member of the Cross Community Group to be selected by the respectiveSO/ > AC/SGs to the Coordination Group. SO/AC/SGs may identify their own > processes for selecting experts. All participants on the Coordination Group > are expected to conduct the work on a consensus basis, consistent with > community processes, including open, transparent, and meeting with the > community at respectiveICANN meetings." > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sat Sep 27 08:16:14 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:16:14 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, doing a quick poll, should we endorse this joint statement? if we cannot make it by today 16:00 UTC, we may send a short note to the public comment to endorse that statement. any thought? Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2014-09-26 20:39 GMT+09:00 Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments To: Adam Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" Hi, lets go back to some basics here, Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the next 2 hours!! I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell other ICANN groups. Rafik 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam : > On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > > Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month > before that. > > > It's a new statement. > > Adam > > > > Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion > before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which > raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? > > > > If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume we > can't and should just walk away. > > > > Robin > > > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: > > > >> Hi Bill, > >> > >> > >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Adam > >>> > >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam wrote: > >>> > >>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse > statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. > >>> > >>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything > that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic > interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or > otherwise of concern? If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and > ask for tweaks before signing on. If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign > on? > >> > >> > >> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign? > >> > >> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair > interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? > >> > >> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we > hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not with > what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems > lacking. > >> > >> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. Appreciated, > shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. > >>> > >>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody else > commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. > >>> > >>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly > SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at > >>> > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. > They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an > off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this > then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side. The > below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> ------- > >>> > >>> Bill Drake: > >>> > >>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the > intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much > welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and > opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible > misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really > constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it > could be useful. > >>> > >>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, > particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. > There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about > the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of > interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- > what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do > other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to > what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal > coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, > with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. > >>> > >>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, maybe, > sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue > with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these > roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to > consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just > Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with > the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of > people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, > what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how > does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I > hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. > >>> > >>> Fadi Chehad?: > >>> > >>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me guidance, > tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share with > people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and maybe > before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you to > certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you > want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then > we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things > completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly > we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just > think the dynamic will be different. > >>> > >>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and > you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So > guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid > finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, > which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we > would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. > And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and > you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are > not hearing each other. > >>> > >>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, > so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs > happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers! > >>>>> > >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 > >>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" wrote: > >>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line with > our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join all the > others with the present text. > >>>>> > >>>>> Norbert Klein > >>>>> Cambodia > >>>>> > >>>>> = > >>>>> > >>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > >>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder > Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP > Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only other part of > the GNSO. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Robin > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross > community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had > previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also > proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope > NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Robin, > >>>>> > >>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not > cross constituency. > >>>>> > >>>>> Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Is there support from others as well? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Robin > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Begin forwarded message: > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak > >>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing > ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments > >>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT > >>>>> To: NCSG-Policy > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>> > >>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the > accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations > >>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a > joint SO/AC/SG statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Rafik > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 Sat Sep 27 10:04:18 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 09:04:18 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <8E43847E-2B5A-4D58-B910-322C0BAF6309@gmail.com> I think yes, all things considered BD On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > doing a quick poll, should we endorse this joint statement? if we cannot make it by today 16:00 UTC, we may send a short note to the public comment to endorse that statement. > any thought? > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 2014-09-26 20:39 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments > To: Adam > Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" > > > Hi, > > lets go back to some basics here, > Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the next 2 hours!! > > I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell other ICANN groups. > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam : > On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > > Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month before that. > > > It's a new statement. > > Adam > > > > Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? > > > > If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume we can't and should just walk away. > > > > Robin > > > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: > > > >> Hi Bill, > >> > >> > >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Adam > >>> > >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam wrote: > >>> > >>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. > >>> > >>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or otherwise of concern? If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and ask for tweaks before signing on. If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign on? > >> > >> > >> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign? > >> > >> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? > >> > >> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not with what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems lacking. > >> > >> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. Appreciated, shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. > >>> > >>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody else commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. > >>> > >>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at > >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side. The below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> ------- > >>> > >>> Bill Drake: > >>> > >>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it could be useful. > >>> > >>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. > >>> > >>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, maybe, sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. > >>> > >>> Fadi Chehad?: > >>> > >>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me guidance, tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share with people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just think the dynamic will be different. > >>> > >>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are not hearing each other. > >>> > >>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers! > >>>>> > >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 > >>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" wrote: > >>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line with our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join all the others with the present text. > >>>>> > >>>>> Norbert Klein > >>>>> Cambodia > >>>>> > >>>>> = > >>>>> > >>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > >>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only other part of the GNSO. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Robin > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Robin, > >>>>> > >>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not cross constituency. > >>>>> > >>>>> Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Is there support from others as well? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Robin > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Begin forwarded message: > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak > >>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments > >>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT > >>>>> To: NCSG-Policy > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>> > >>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations > >>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a joint SO/AC/SG statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Rafik > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>>>> > >>> > >>> *********************************************** > >>> William J. Drake > >>> International Fellow & Lecturer > >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland > >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org > >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > >>> www.williamdrake.org > >>> *********************************************** > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg *********************************************** 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 robin Sat Sep 27 23:07:01 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:07:01 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: <8E43847E-2B5A-4D58-B910-322C0BAF6309@gmail.com> References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> <8E43847E-2B5A-4D58-B910-322C0BAF6309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <543EA04F-6F40-497D-B575-B95DF54A9691@ipjustice.org> Yes, let's do it. Thanks, Robin On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:04 AM, William Drake wrote: > I think yes, all things considered > > BD > > On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> doing a quick poll, should we endorse this joint statement? if we cannot make it by today 16:00 UTC, we may send a short note to the public comment to endorse that statement. >> any thought? >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: 2014-09-26 20:39 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >> To: Adam >> Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" >> >> >> Hi, >> >> lets go back to some basics here, >> Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the next 2 hours!! >> >> I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell other ICANN groups. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam : >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >> > Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month before that. >> >> >> It's a new statement. >> >> Adam >> >> >> > Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? >> > >> > If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume we can't and should just walk away. >> > >> > Robin >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Bill, >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Adam >> >>> >> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. >> >>> >> >>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or otherwise of concern? If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and ask for tweaks before signing on. If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign on? >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign? >> >> >> >> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? >> >> >> >> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not with what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems lacking. >> >> >> >> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. Appreciated, shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. >> >>> >> >>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody else commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. >> >>> >> >>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at >> >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side. The below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. >> >>> >> >>> Cheers >> >>> >> >>> Bill >> >>> >> >>> ------- >> >>> >> >>> Bill Drake: >> >>> >> >>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it could be useful. >> >>> >> >>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. >> >>> >> >>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, maybe, sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. >> >>> >> >>> Fadi Chehad?: >> >>> >> >>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me guidance, tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share with people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just think the dynamic will be different. >> >>> >> >>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are not hearing each other. >> >>> >> >>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Cheers! >> >>>>> >> >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >> >>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" wrote: >> >>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line with our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join all the others with the present text. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Norbert Klein >> >>>>> Cambodia >> >>>>> >> >>>>> = >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only other part of the GNSO. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best, >> >>>>> Robin >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Robin, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not cross constituency. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Adam >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Is there support from others as well? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> Robin >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >> >>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >> >>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT >> >>>>> To: NCSG-Policy >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi everyone, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations >> >>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a joint SO/AC/SG statement. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best Regards, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Rafik >> >>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>> *********************************************** >> >>> William J. Drake >> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> >>> www.williamdrake.org >> >>> *********************************************** >> >> >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From lanfran Sat Sep 27 23:19:18 2014 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 16:19:18 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: <543EA04F-6F40-497D-B575-B95DF54A9691@ipjustice.org> References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> <8E43847E-2B5A-4D58-B910-322C0BAF6309@gmail.com> <543EA04F-6F40-497D-B575-B95DF54A9691@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <54271BC6.2000203@yorku.ca> I agree with Robin, Yes, let's do it. I would like to add that I was working within NPOC to get an NPOC statement but a combination of holidays and workloads slowed things down so I would like to add a personal caveat to my suggestion that we endorse the submission. That caveat is as follows (and it is just my personal view): /I support the document on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountability Plan, but with a caveat. The caveat is based on a concern around how the accountability intentions are implemented. My view is that ICANN's efforts at implementation should be subject to further ICANN community dialogue. //This is not a cart blanche endorsement/. Sam L. On 27/09/2014 4:07 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Yes, let's do it. > > Thanks, > Robin > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Sun Sep 28 10:42:30 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:42:30 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: <543EA04F-6F40-497D-B575-B95DF54A9691@ipjustice.org> References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> <8E43847E-2B5A-4D58-B910-322C0BAF6309@gmail.com> <543EA04F-6F40-497D-B575-B95DF54A9691@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <8B406800-138A-4897-BB81-9CEDB3267433@gmail.com> Keith submitted without us. On Sep 27, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Yes, let's do it. > > Thanks, > Robin > > On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:04 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> I think yes, all things considered >> >> BD >> >> On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> doing a quick poll, should we endorse this joint statement? if we cannot make it by today 16:00 UTC, we may send a short note to the public comment to endorse that statement. >>> any thought? >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Rafik Dammak >>> Date: 2014-09-26 20:39 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >>> To: Adam >>> Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> lets go back to some basics here, >>> Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the next 2 hours!! >>> >>> I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell other ICANN groups. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam : >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>> > Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month before that. >>> >>> >>> It's a new statement. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> > Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? >>> > >>> > If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume we can't and should just walk away. >>> > >>> > Robin >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Bill, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or otherwise of concern? If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and ask for tweaks before signing on. If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign on? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign? >>> >> >>> >> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? >>> >> >>> >> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not with what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems lacking. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. Appreciated, shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. >>> >> >>> >> Adam >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. >>> >>> >>> >>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody else commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. >>> >>> >>> >>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at >>> >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side. The below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> >>> >>> Bill Drake: >>> >>> >>> >>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it could be useful. >>> >>> >>> >>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. >>> >>> >>> >>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, maybe, sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fadi Chehad?: >>> >>> >>> >>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me guidance, tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share with people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just think the dynamic will be different. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are not hearing each other. >>> >>> >>> >>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Cheers! >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> >>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" wrote: >>> >>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line with our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join all the others with the present text. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Norbert Klein >>> >>>>> Cambodia >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> = >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only other part of the GNSO. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Best, >>> >>>>> Robin >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Robin, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not cross constituency. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Adam >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Is there support from others as well? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks, >>> >>>>> Robin >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>> >>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >>> >>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT >>> >>>>> To: NCSG-Policy >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations >>> >>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a joint SO/AC/SG statement. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *********************************************** >>> >>> William J. Drake >>> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> >>> *********************************************** >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> *********************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sun Sep 28 14:34:23 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 20:34:23 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: <8B406800-138A-4897-BB81-9CEDB3267433@gmail.com> References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> <8E43847E-2B5A-4D58-B910-322C0BAF6309@gmail.com> <543EA04F-6F40-497D-B575-B95DF54A9691@ipjustice.org> <8B406800-138A-4897-BB81-9CEDB3267433@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Keith indicated that is possible to join and sign on the coming days. I am not seeing objections here I think we can proceed and endorse the letter. but the accountability process, I hope that an ad-hoc group will more functional to deliver statement and being involved in the process liaising with whom will be appointed to coordination group from NCSG and also those joining the community group. Best, Rafik 2014-09-28 16:42 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > Keith submitted without us. > > > On Sep 27, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > Yes, let's do it. > > Thanks, > Robin > > On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:04 AM, William Drake wrote: > > I think yes, all things considered > > BD > > On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > doing a quick poll, should we endorse this joint statement? if we cannot > make it by today 16:00 UTC, we may send a short note to the public comment > to endorse that statement. > any thought? > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 2014-09-26 20:39 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on > ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments > To: Adam > Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" > > > Hi, > > lets go back to some basics here, > Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if > we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such > document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. > We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no > decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the > next 2 hours!! > > I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different > groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and > found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell > other ICANN groups. > > Rafik > > > 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam : > >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >> > Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month >> before that. >> >> >> It's a new statement. >> >> Adam >> >> >> > Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion >> before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which >> raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? >> > >> > If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume >> we can't and should just walk away. >> > >> > Robin >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Bill, >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Adam >> >>> >> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse >> statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. >> >>> >> >>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything >> that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic >> interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or >> otherwise of concern? If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and >> ask for tweaks before signing on. If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign >> on? >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign? >> >> >> >> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair >> interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? >> >> >> >> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we >> hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not with >> what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems >> lacking. >> >> >> >> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. >> Appreciated, shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. >> >>> >> >>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody >> else commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. >> >>> >> >>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly >> SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at >> >>> >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. >> They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an >> off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this >> then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side. The >> below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. >> >>> >> >>> Cheers >> >>> >> >>> Bill >> >>> >> >>> ------- >> >>> >> >>> Bill Drake: >> >>> >> >>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the >> intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much >> welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and >> opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible >> misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really >> constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it >> could be useful. >> >>> >> >>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, >> particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. >> There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about >> the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of >> interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- >> what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do >> other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to >> what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal >> coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, >> with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. >> >>> >> >>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, maybe, >> sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue >> with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these >> roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to >> consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just >> Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with >> the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of >> people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, >> what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how >> does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I >> hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. >> >>> >> >>> Fadi Chehad?: >> >>> >> >>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me >> guidance, tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share >> with people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and >> maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you >> to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you >> want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then >> we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things >> completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly >> we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just >> think the dynamic will be different. >> >>> >> >>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and >> you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So >> guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid >> finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, >> which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we >> would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. >> And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and >> you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are >> not hearing each other. >> >>> >> >>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, >> so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs >> happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Cheers! >> >>>>> >> >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >> >>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" wrote: >> >>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line >> with our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join >> all the others with the present text. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Norbert Klein >> >>>>> Cambodia >> >>>>> >> >>>>> = >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder >> Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP >> Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only other part of >> the GNSO. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best, >> >>>>> Robin >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross >> community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had >> previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also >> proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope >> NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Robin, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not >> cross constituency. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Adam >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Is there support from others as well? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> Robin >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >> >>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing >> ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >> >>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT >> >>>>> To: NCSG-Policy >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi everyone, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the >> accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations >> >>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a >> joint SO/AC/SG statement. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best Regards, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Rafik >> >>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>> *********************************************** >> >>> William J. Drake >> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> >>> www.williamdrake.org >> >>> *********************************************** >> >> >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sun Sep 28 15:34:10 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:34:10 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: <8B406800-138A-4897-BB81-9CEDB3267433@gmail.com> References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> <8E43847E-2B5A-4D58-B910-322C0BAF6309@gmail.com> <543EA04F-6F40-497D-B575-B95DF54A9691@ipjustice.org> <8B406800-138A-4897-BB81-9CEDB3267433@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54280042.5040601@acm.org> Hi, Since they did not wait, I figure we might as well sit it out. avri On 28-Sep-14 03:42, William Drake wrote: > Keith submitted without us. > > On Sep 27, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Yes, let's do it. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:04 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> I think yes, all things considered >>> >>> BD >>> >>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> doing a quick poll, should we endorse this joint statement? if we cannot make it by today 16:00 UTC, we may send a short note to the public comment to endorse that statement. >>>> any thought? >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>> Date: 2014-09-26 20:39 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >>>> To: Adam >>>> Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> lets go back to some basics here, >>>> Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the next 2 hours!! >>>> >>>> I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell other ICANN groups. >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam : >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month before that. >>>> >>>> >>>> It's a new statement. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>>> Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? >>>>> >>>>> If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume we can't and should just walk away. >>>>> >>>>> Robin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Bill, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or otherwise of concern? If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and ask for tweaks before signing on. If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign on? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign? >>>>>> >>>>>> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? >>>>>> >>>>>> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not with what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems lacking. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. Appreciated, shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody else commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at >>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side. The below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bill >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bill Drake: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it could be useful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, maybe, sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fadi Chehad?: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me guidance, tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share with people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just think the dynamic will be different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are not hearing each other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" wrote: >>>>>>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line with our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join all the others with the present text. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Norbert Klein >>>>>>>>> Cambodia >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> = >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>>>>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only other part of the GNSO. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Robin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Robin, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not cross constituency. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is there support from others as well? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Robin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >>>>>>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-Policy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations >>>>>>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a joint SO/AC/SG statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *********************************************** >>>>>>> William J. Drake >>>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>>>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>>>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>>>>> *********************************************** >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> *********************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> *********************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From robin Sun Sep 28 18:21:37 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:21:37 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> <8E43847E-2B5A-4D58-B910-322C0BAF6309@gmail.com> <543EA04F-6F40-497D-B575-B95DF54A9691@ipjustice.org> <8B406800-138A-4897-BB81-9CEDB3267433@gmail.com> Message-ID: <63265F82-0215-4E89-9B85-42CAC2CB35E3@ipjustice.org> I thought we were going to send a note saying we endorse the stmt. We can probably still do that IF we do it TODAY. Thanks, Robin On Sep 28, 2014, at 4:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Keith indicated that is possible to join and sign on the coming days. I am not seeing objections here I think we can proceed and endorse the letter. > > but the accountability process, I hope that an ad-hoc group will more functional to deliver statement and being involved in the process liaising with whom will be appointed to coordination group from NCSG and also those joining the community group. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-09-28 16:42 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > Keith submitted without us. > > > On Sep 27, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Yes, let's do it. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:04 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> I think yes, all things considered >>> >>> BD >>> >>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> doing a quick poll, should we endorse this joint statement? if we cannot make it by today 16:00 UTC, we may send a short note to the public comment to endorse that statement. >>>> any thought? >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>> Date: 2014-09-26 20:39 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >>>> To: Adam >>>> Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> lets go back to some basics here, >>>> Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the next 2 hours!! >>>> >>>> I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell other ICANN groups. >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam : >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> >>>> > Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month before that. >>>> >>>> >>>> It's a new statement. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> > Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? >>>> > >>>> > If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume we can't and should just walk away. >>>> > >>>> > Robin >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Hi Bill, >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Hi Adam >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or otherwise of concern? If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and ask for tweaks before signing on. If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign on? >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign? >>>> >> >>>> >> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? >>>> >> >>>> >> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not with what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems lacking. >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. Appreciated, shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. >>>> >> >>>> >> Adam >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody else commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at >>>> >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side. The below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Cheers >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Bill >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ------- >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Bill Drake: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it could be useful. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, maybe, sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Fadi Chehad?: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me guidance, tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share with people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just think the dynamic will be different. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are not hearing each other. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Cheers! >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> >>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" wrote: >>>> >>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line with our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join all the others with the present text. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Norbert Klein >>>> >>>>> Cambodia >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> = >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> >>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only other part of the GNSO. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Best, >>>> >>>>> Robin >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Robin, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not cross constituency. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Adam >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Is there support from others as well? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>> Robin >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>> >>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >>>> >>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT >>>> >>>>> To: NCSG-Policy >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations >>>> >>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a joint SO/AC/SG statement. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> *********************************************** >>>> >>> William J. Drake >>>> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>> >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>> >>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> >>> *********************************************** >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> *********************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> *********************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Sep 29 05:04:31 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:04:31 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NEW Doodle Poll: Start discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, reminders to fill the doodle poll. only 5 persons from NCSG did so Rafik 2014-09-27 0:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi everyone, > > we are still have fun with doodle poll, this the new one with possibility > to set your timezone. crossing fingers to be the last > http://doodle.com/8uwmkspqyasqgamz > > > Rafik > > Rafik Dammak > @rafik > "fight for the users" > > 2014-09-26 12:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi everyone, >> >> it was not possible to get call for this week and so postponed to next >> week. please fill the doodle poll again and hopefully we will settle out >> the topic for GNSO leadership election. >> regarding our position, I think that is clear and we should be ready to >> argue for it. any thought? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Brenda Brewer >> Date: 2014-09-26 11:54 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: NEW Doodle Poll: Start discussion for GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair >> Elections >> To: "met at msk.com" , Rafik Dammak >> Cc: Elisa Cooper , "Rosette, Kristina" < >> krosette at cov.com>, Tony Holmes , Marilyn >> Cade , "harris at cabase.org.ar" < >> harris at cabase.org.ar>, "petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu" < >> petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu> >> >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> Please find below the *NEW* link to a Doodle poll for the upcoming call >> taking place next week regarding ?starting the discussion for GNSO Chair >> and Vice-Chair elections?. >> >> >> >> http://doodle.com/vbqe7vwtwm888qem >> >> >> >> Thank you for completing the poll as soon as possible so I can proceed to >> book the call for the week of Sept 29 ? Oct 3, 2014. >> >> >> >> With kind regards, >> >> *B**renda **B**rewer * >> >> * ---* >> >> *Brenda Brewer* >> >> *Secretariat** - BC, IPC, and ISPCP* >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> >> >> *Email:* brenda.brewer at icann.org >> >> *Skype ID:* brenda.brewer.icann >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> *From:* Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com] >> >> Due to circumstances beyond our control we will have to push this call >> back to next week. By copy I ask Brenda to launch a new poll for next week. >> Rafik, I assume you will circulate the link to those on NCSG side who need >> to know. Alternatively you can send Brenda all the relevant e-mail >> addresses. In any case, apologies for needing to re-start and look forward >> to speaking with you next week. >> >> >> >> Steve Metalitz >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Sep 29 15:24:53 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 21:24:53 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments In-Reply-To: <63265F82-0215-4E89-9B85-42CAC2CB35E3@ipjustice.org> References: <6B040E94-9720-4A8F-945E-688B20FB9DD6@IPJUSTICE.ORG> <5424D748.10505@gmx.net> <4EAC85E1-9B84-4865-A2DE-79144E3C9358@ipjustice.org> <8E43847E-2B5A-4D58-B910-322C0BAF6309@gmail.com> <543EA04F-6F40-497D-B575-B95DF54A9691@ipjustice.org> <8B406800-138A-4897-BB81-9CEDB3267433@gmail.com> <63265F82-0215-4E89-9B85-42CAC2CB35E3@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi, I will send to Keith that we are signing the statement, there is no problem here. and I will send a note to the public comment. Rafik 2014-09-29 0:21 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross : > I thought we were going to send a note saying we endorse the stmt. We can > probably still do that IF we do it TODAY. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > On Sep 28, 2014, at 4:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > Keith indicated that is possible to join and sign on the coming days. I am > not seeing objections here I think we can proceed and endorse the letter. > > but the accountability process, I hope that an ad-hoc group will more > functional to deliver statement and being involved in the process liaising > with whom will be appointed to coordination group from NCSG and also those > joining the community group. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-09-28 16:42 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > >> Keith submitted without us. >> >> >> On Sep 27, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >> Yes, let's do it. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:04 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >> I think yes, all things considered >> >> BD >> >> On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> doing a quick poll, should we endorse this joint statement? if we cannot >> make it by today 16:00 UTC, we may send a short note to the public comment >> to endorse that statement. >> any thought? >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: 2014-09-26 20:39 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on >> ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >> To: Adam >> Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" >> >> >> Hi, >> >> lets go back to some basics here, >> Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if >> we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such >> document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. >> We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no >> decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the >> next 2 hours!! >> >> I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different >> groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and >> found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell >> other ICANN groups. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam : >> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>> > Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month >>> before that. >>> >>> >>> It's a new statement. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> > Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion >>> before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which >>> raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? >>> > >>> > If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume >>> we can't and should just walk away. >>> > >>> > Robin >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Bill, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse >>> statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything >>> that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic >>> interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or >>> otherwise of concern? If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and >>> ask for tweaks before signing on. If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign >>> on? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should >>> sign? >>> >> >>> >> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair >>> interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? >>> >> >>> >> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first >>> we hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not >>> with what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems >>> lacking. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. >>> Appreciated, shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. >>> >> >>> >> Adam >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. >>> >>> >>> >>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody >>> else commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. >>> >>> >>> >>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly >>> SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at >>> >>> >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. >>> They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an >>> off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this >>> then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side. The >>> below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> >>> >>> Bill Drake: >>> >>> >>> >>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate >>> the intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very >>> much welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue >>> and opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible >>> misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really >>> constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it >>> could be useful. >>> >>> >>> >>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, >>> particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. >>> There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about >>> the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of >>> interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- >>> what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do >>> other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to >>> what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal >>> coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, >>> with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. >>> >>> >>> >>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, >>> maybe, sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to >>> continue with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do >>> these roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want >>> to consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just >>> Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with >>> the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of >>> people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, >>> what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how >>> does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I >>> hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fadi Chehad?: >>> >>> >>> >>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me >>> guidance, tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share >>> with people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and >>> maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you >>> to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you >>> want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then >>> we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things >>> completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly >>> we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just >>> think the dynamic will be different. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, >>> and you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. >>> So guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid >>> finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, >>> which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we >>> would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. >>> And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and >>> you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are >>> not hearing each other. >>> >>> >>> >>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, >>> so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs >>> happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Cheers! >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> >>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" wrote: >>> >>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line >>> with our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join >>> all the others with the present text. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Norbert Klein >>> >>>>> Cambodia >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> = >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder >>> Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP >>> Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only other part of >>> the GNSO. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Best, >>> >>>>> Robin >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross >>> community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had >>> previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It also >>> proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. I hope >>> NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Robin, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not >>> cross constituency. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Adam >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Is there support from others as well? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks, >>> >>>>> Robin >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>> >>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's >>> Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >>> >>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT >>> >>>>> To: NCSG-Policy >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the >>> accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations >>> >>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a >>> joint SO/AC/SG statement. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *********************************************** >>> >>> William J. Drake >>> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> >>> *********************************************** >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> *********************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Sep 30 09:00:31 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:00:31 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update GNSO council chair/vice-chair Message-ID: 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.? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: