From egmorris1  Sat Aug  1 00:18:54 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:18:54 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <620FB524-D91C-42F1-85E0-4FB8C6A90BFB@toast.net>

Stephanie,

Too much going on as the IPC tries at the last minute to change terms of the human rights bylaws addition before the document freeze tonight. Could you please point me to the document involved? As usual, I'm having trouble with Google Docs tonight so if it is somewhere other than there I would appreciate a link, reference, attachment etc.

Thanks for all your hard work on this. I only wish there were 36 hours on a day so I could help more.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 31, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?  
> SP
> 
>> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>> 
>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is not enough for such an important letter.
>> 
>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on a personal basis.
>> 
>> Yours
>> 
>> Klaus 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19 recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ... 
>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!! 
>>> cheers SP 
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote: 
>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if folks try.... 
>>>> cheers Steph 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: 
>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they support these as NCSG submissions? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks again. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday. 
>>>>>> Steph 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list 
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list 
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150731/a2519bd1/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Sat Aug  1 01:11:27 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:11:27 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>

Hi Stephanie,
  
 I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it. Thanks for doing it.
  
 I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge, submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the constituencies.
  
 Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
  
 Ed
  
  
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents   
Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on? 
SP
  On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
 Dear Stephanie and Friends

I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is not enough for such an important letter.

I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on a personal basis.

Yours

Klaus

  On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
 New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19 recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
cheers SP

On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote: Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if folks try....
cheers Steph

On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: Thanks Stephanie. I'm going through these now. May I ask other members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they support these as NCSG submissions?

Thanks again.

Amr
  On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
Steph

<NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg  

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150731/bbea0788/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sat Aug  1 01:22:57 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:22:57 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
Message-ID: <55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the 
methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I 
shall refer to them both.
cheers SP
On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
> I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal 
> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it. Thanks 
> for doing it.
> I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings about 
> taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point is that 
> the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge, submit 
> comments on the first draft. That was done by the constituencies.
> Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
> SP
> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>
>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on 
>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this 
>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has not 
>> been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is not 
>> enough for such an important letter.
>>
>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on a 
>> personal basis.
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits 
>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19 
>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>> cheers SP
>>>
>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal 
>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is 
>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if 
>>>> folks try....
>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other 
>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has 
>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they 
>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin 
>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. 
>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO 
>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150731/4ab9b7e0/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sat Aug  1 01:32:32 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 00:32:32 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>

Hi,

I have been too focused on other stutff.

and though i know it is too late,
I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
or whatever was already done.

thanks for doing all this.

avri


On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
> shall refer to them both.
> cheers SP
> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Hi Stephanie,
>>  
>> I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>> Thanks for doing it.
>>  
>> I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the constituencies.
>>  
>> Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>  
>> Ed
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>  
>> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on? 
>> SP
>>  
>> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>
>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>
>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>> a personal basis.
>>>
>>> Yours
>>>
>>> Klaus
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>> cheers SP
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is
>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>> folks try....
>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From stephanie.perrin  Sat Aug  1 01:37:50 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:37:50 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
Message-ID: <55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>

thanks Avri, I will put your name down.  all those who want their name 
on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
cheers steph

On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>
> and though i know it is too late,
> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
> or whatever was already done.
>
> thanks for doing all this.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>> shall refer to them both.
>> cheers SP
>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>   
>>> I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>   
>>> I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the constituencies.
>>>   
>>> Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>   
>>> Ed
>>>   
>>>   
>>>   
>>>   
>>>   
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>   
>>> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>> SP
>>>   
>>> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>
>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>
>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>
>>>> Yours
>>>>
>>>> Klaus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is
>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>   
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>   
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Sat Aug  1 01:54:32 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:54:32 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>

Ok here is the amended version.  Any other signatures?  I put down me, 
avri, ed and James.  Anybody else ready to sign on?  Looks a wee bit 
lame....
cheers SP
On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> thanks Avri, I will put your name down.  all those who want their name 
> on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
> cheers steph
>
> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>>
>> and though i know it is too late,
>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
>> or whatever was already done.
>>
>> thanks for doing all this.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>>> shall refer to them both.
>>> cheers SP
>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>   I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>>   I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the 
>>>> constituencies.
>>>>   Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>>   Ed
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>
>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>>   Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>>> SP
>>>>   On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours
>>>>>
>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is
>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________ 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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  Sat Aug  1 02:04:37 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:04:37 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca>

Off it goes then....
cheers sp

On 2015-07-31 18:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Ok here is the amended version.  Any other signatures?  I put down me, 
> avri, ed and James.  Anybody else ready to sign on?  Looks a wee bit 
> lame....
> cheers SP
> On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> thanks Avri, I will put your name down. all those who want their name 
>> on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
>> cheers steph
>>
>> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>>>
>>> and though i know it is too late,
>>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
>>> or whatever was already done.
>>>
>>> thanks for doing all this.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>>>> shall refer to them both.
>>>> cheers SP
>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>   I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>>>   I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the 
>>>>> constituencies.
>>>>>   Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>>>   Ed
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>
>>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>>>   Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>>>> SP
>>>>>   On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is
>>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________ 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 egmorris1  Sat Aug  1 03:28:45 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:28:45 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FYI: Personal Comment
Message-ID: <dedf0c1a3f4c4780822d348387c4b548@toast.net>

For information only, attached please find a copy of my personal comments 
on the GNSO Westlake Review. I regret that due to my focus on 
Accountability this was a last minute rush job and not as good as I would 
hope to normally do. It is confrontational, which is why it is a personal 
comment, and was intended to be so. I don't like being ripped off and the 
poor quality of this research is almost criminal. 
  
 I should note I have received no verification of receipt from ICANN and 
have thus also forwarded it directly to staff. Hopefully it will get posted 
and accepted.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed
  
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150731/9aaa61d5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: westlake.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 142745 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150731/9aaa61d5/attachment-0001.obj>


From aelsadr  Sat Aug  1 03:48:59 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 02:48:59 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FYI: Personal Comment
In-Reply-To: <dedf0c1a3f4c4780822d348387c4b548@toast.net>
References: <dedf0c1a3f4c4780822d348387c4b548@toast.net>
Message-ID: <C3954CC2-C141-4848-99E9-0606D2927667@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks Stephanie and Ed. I?ve also submitted the attached document containing feedback on the 36 recommendations. Also what I would consider a rush job, but it was the best I could do. Although I got a request to confirm the submission, so far, it hasn?t popped up on the comments forum. I did submit it about 30 minutes past the deadline.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Feedback on the GNSO Review Initial Report by Westlake.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 154047 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150801/0604df7d/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Aug 1, 2015, at 2:28 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> For information only, attached please find a copy of my personal comments on the GNSO Westlake Review. I regret that due to my focus on Accountability this was a last minute rush job and not as good as I would hope to normally do. It is confrontational, which is why it is a personal comment, and was intended to be so. I don't like being ripped off and the poor quality of this research is almost criminal. 
>  
> I should note I have received no verification of receipt from ICANN and have thus also forwarded it directly to staff. Hopefully it will get posted and accepted.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Ed
>  
>  
> <westlake.docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From wjdrake  Sat Aug  1 09:54:59 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 08:54:59 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
Message-ID: <EB982AD6-1695-43DB-AF76-F7950FAC26CD@gmail.com>

Morning,

+1 to all 3 points.

Thanks

Bill

> On Aug 1, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have been too focused on other stutff.
> 
> and though i know it is too late,
> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
> or whatever was already done.
> 
> thanks for doing all this.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>> shall refer to them both.
>> cheers SP
>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>> 
>>> I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>> 
>>> I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the constituencies.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>> 
>>> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on? 
>>> SP
>>> 
>>> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>> 
>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>> 
>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>> a personal basis.
>>>> 
>>>> Yours
>>>> 
>>>> Klaus
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is
>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Sat Aug  1 14:29:00 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 13:29:00 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>

Hi,

BTW if our chair and others wish we could still sumit, even late, and
endorsement of the comments that were filed by our members.

avri

On 01-Aug-15 01:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Off it goes then....
> cheers sp
>
> On 2015-07-31 18:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Ok here is the amended version.  Any other signatures?  I put down
>> me, avri, ed and James.  Anybody else ready to sign on?  Looks a wee
>> bit lame....
>> cheers SP
>> On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> thanks Avri, I will put your name down. all those who want their
>>> name on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
>>> cheers steph
>>>
>>> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>>>>
>>>> and though i know it is too late,
>>>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
>>>> or whatever was already done.
>>>>
>>>> thanks for doing all this.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>>>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>>>>> shall refer to them both.
>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>>   I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>>>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>>>>   I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the
>>>>>> constituencies.
>>>>>>   Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>>>>   Ed
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>>>>   Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>   On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is
>>>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Sat Aug  1 14:49:58 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 13:49:58 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
Message-ID: <0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>

Hi,

That is also my understanding, although I am not sure how to go about doing it. Submission of emails to the comment forum is still open. I suppose that if we decide to, Rafik (or I) could send an email to the forum stating that the NCSG endorses on or more of the three comments submitted by our members.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 1, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> BTW if our chair and others wish we could still sumit, even late, and
> endorsement of the comments that were filed by our members.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 01-Aug-15 01:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Off it goes then....
>> cheers sp
>> 
>> On 2015-07-31 18:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> Ok here is the amended version.  Any other signatures?  I put down
>>> me, avri, ed and James.  Anybody else ready to sign on?  Looks a wee
>>> bit lame....
>>> cheers SP
>>> On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> thanks Avri, I will put your name down. all those who want their
>>>> name on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
>>>> cheers steph
>>>> 
>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>>>>> 
>>>>> and though i know it is too late,
>>>>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
>>>>> or whatever was already done.
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for doing all this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>> Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>>>>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>>>>>> shall refer to them both.
>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>>>  I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>>>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>>>>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>>>>>  I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>>>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>>>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>>>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the
>>>>>>> constituencies.
>>>>>>>  Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>>>>>  Ed
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>>>>>  Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>  On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>>>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is
>>>>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From egmorris1  Sat Aug  1 14:58:34 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 07:58:34 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Minority Statements
Message-ID: <bd0a9342b8334e7c9d50b45942ee549d@toast.net>

FYI: I have just submitted to the Chairs two minority statements for 
i(hopefully) inclusion in the CCWG report that will be put out for public 
comment on Monday. I regret that I was unable to finish these and present 
them to the PC earlier for consideration, but the tight deadlines of this 
project prevented me from doing so. I hope we'll be able to discuss them 
and consider supporting them in our public comment.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Ed
  
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150801/61e033cf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MS1.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 66706 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150801/61e033cf/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MS2.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 60043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150801/61e033cf/attachment-0003.obj>


From avri  Sat Aug  1 15:00:25 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 14:00:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
	<0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>


yep, that would work.
as ong as you have buy in.

i'm in.

avri

On 01-Aug-15 13:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That is also my understanding, although I am not sure how to go about doing it. Submission of emails to the comment forum is still open. I suppose that if we decide to, Rafik (or I) could send an email to the forum stating that the NCSG endorses on or more of the three comments submitted by our members.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> BTW if our chair and others wish we could still sumit, even late, and
>> endorsement of the comments that were filed by our members.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 01-Aug-15 01:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> Off it goes then....
>>> cheers sp
>>>
>>> On 2015-07-31 18:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> Ok here is the amended version.  Any other signatures?  I put down
>>>> me, avri, ed and James.  Anybody else ready to sign on?  Looks a wee
>>>> bit lame....
>>>> cheers SP
>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> thanks Avri, I will put your name down. all those who want their
>>>>> name on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
>>>>> cheers steph
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and though i know it is too late,
>>>>>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
>>>>>> or whatever was already done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for doing all this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>>>>>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>>>>>>> shall refer to them both.
>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>  I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>>>>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>>>>>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>>>>>>  I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>>>>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>>>>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>>>>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the
>>>>>>>> constituencies.
>>>>>>>>  Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>>>>>>  Ed
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>>>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>>>>>>  Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>  On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>>>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>>>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>>>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>>>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>>>>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is
>>>>>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Sat Aug  1 15:30:41 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:30:41 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
	<0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>
	<55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>
Message-ID: <228F99D5-9A38-4D63-A741-7AE9D8C427E7@egyptig.org>

So am I. Would be good to hear from others here as well. On a personal, I thought Ed?s submission was quite provoking. Certainly worth a read. Thanks for that, Ed.

Might also be worth looking at the summary of comments from sessions at ICANN 53 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfdG81WdzuPx.pdf). As far as I can tell, transcripts of all of our interactions in BA with the Westlake team are present in a spreadsheet along with their responses. I hope those will be considered by Westlake and the working party while formulating the final report.

For the time being, can we have a show of hands indicating support or lack of for the following comments:

Stephanie?s: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00014.html

Ed?s: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html

Mine: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfjkahfPFXN2.pdf

Thanks again to everyone.

Amr

> On Aug 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> 
> yep, that would work.
> as ong as you have buy in.
> 
> i'm in.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 01-Aug-15 13:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> That is also my understanding, although I am not sure how to go about doing it. Submission of emails to the comment forum is still open. I suppose that if we decide to, Rafik (or I) could send an email to the forum stating that the NCSG endorses on or more of the three comments submitted by our members.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> BTW if our chair and others wish we could still sumit, even late, and
>>> endorsement of the comments that were filed by our members.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 01-Aug-15 01:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> Off it goes then....
>>>> cheers sp
>>>> 
>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> Ok here is the amended version.  Any other signatures?  I put down
>>>>> me, avri, ed and James.  Anybody else ready to sign on?  Looks a wee
>>>>> bit lame....
>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>> thanks Avri, I will put your name down. all those who want their
>>>>>> name on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
>>>>>> cheers steph
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> and though i know it is too late,
>>>>>>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
>>>>>>> or whatever was already done.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thanks for doing all this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank Ed, good catch.  Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>>>>>>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>>>>>>>> shall refer to them both.
>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>> I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>>>>>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>>>>>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>>>>>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>>>>>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the
>>>>>>>>> constituencies.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>>>>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>>>>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>>>>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>>>>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>>>>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>>>>>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>>>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is
>>>>>>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>>>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Sat Aug  1 15:33:41 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:33:41 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Minority Statements
In-Reply-To: <bd0a9342b8334e7c9d50b45942ee549d@toast.net>
References: <bd0a9342b8334e7c9d50b45942ee549d@toast.net>
Message-ID: <C1A56424-903E-4D9E-BFF6-BC1CA989026E@egyptig.org>

Hi Ed,

As a participant in the CCWG, I don?t believe you are required to have the PC endorse any minority statements you wish to include in the report. Thanks for the sentiment though.

I hope we can go over all of this during the NCSG webinar on August 5th.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Aug 1, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> FYI: I have just submitted to the Chairs two minority statements for i(hopefully) inclusion in the CCWG report that will be put out for public comment on Monday. I regret that I was unable to finish these and present them to the PC earlier for consideration, but the tight deadlines of this project prevented me from doing so. I hope we'll be able to discuss them and consider supporting them in our public comment.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Ed
>  
>  
> <MS1.docx><MS2.docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From egmorris1  Sun Aug  2 03:43:24 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:43:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <228F99D5-9A38-4D63-A741-7AE9D8C427E7@egyptig.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
	<0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>
	<55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>
	<228F99D5-9A38-4D63-A741-7AE9D8C427E7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <1d52b15bd5d4472a92f41d3bf45d95ec@toast.net>

Hi Amr,
  
 Thanks for the kind words. What I liked most about your comment was you pointed out the downside of increased financial support. Merely giving more people trips does not necessarily translate into superior or more diverse output. The concept of increased F2F meetings on working groups: you correctly pointed out that may not be the way to go. Speaking personally, I wasn't caught up in my personal and professional lives from Buenos Aires before I had to go to Paris for the CCWG. The more travel they dump on us, the fewer of us who will be able to participate.
  
 I fully support PC endorsement of both your and Stephanie's comments. Thank you both so much for your hard work.
  
 Equally, I do not support PC endorsement of my comments. They are a bit too "provocative" as you called them, IMHO, for a respectful group to endorse and if Mr. Westlake is litigious I want him to pick on me and not anyone else. Of course, that might just be greed on my part. People who sue me not only tend to lose but they usually wind up having to pay me money. :) 
  
 That said, if anyone wants to support the idea of a study re-do please feel free to do so on the comment forum. That, and putting Westlake Governance on the "no hire" list at ICANN, were the two objectives of my comment and DIDP request.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed 
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 1:19 PM
To: avri at acm.org
Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents   
So am I. Would be good to hear from others here as well. On a personal, I thought Ed's submission was quite provoking. Certainly worth a read. Thanks for that, Ed.

Might also be worth looking at the summary of comments from sessions at ICANN 53 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfdG81WdzuPx.pdf). As far as I can tell, transcripts of all of our interactions in BA with the Westlake team are present in a spreadsheet along with their responses. I hope those will be considered by Westlake and the working party while formulating the final report.

For the time being, can we have a show of hands indicating support or lack of for the following comments:

Stephanie's: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00014.html

Ed's: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html

Mine: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfjkahfPFXN2.pdf

Thanks again to everyone.

Amr

> On Aug 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>
> yep, that would work.
> as ong as you have buy in.
>
> i'm in.
>
> avri
>
> On 01-Aug-15 13:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> That is also my understanding, although I am not sure how to go about doing it. Submission of emails to the comment forum is still open. I suppose that if we decide to, Rafik (or I) could send an email to the forum stating that the NCSG endorses on or more of the three comments submitted by our members.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> BTW if our chair and others wish we could still sumit, even late, and
>>> endorsement of the comments that were filed by our members.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 01-Aug-15 01:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> Off it goes then....
>>>> cheers sp
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> Ok here is the amended version. Any other signatures? I put down
>>>>> me, avri, ed and James. Anybody else ready to sign on? Looks a wee
>>>>> bit lame....
>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>> thanks Avri, I will put your name down. all those who want their
>>>>>> name on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
>>>>>> cheers steph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and though i know it is too late,
>>>>>>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
>>>>>>> or whatever was already done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for doing all this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank Ed, good catch. Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>>>>>>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>>>>>>>> shall refer to them both.
>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>> I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>>>>>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>>>>>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>>>>>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>>>>>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the
>>>>>>>>> constituencies.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>>>>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>>>>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>>>>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>>>>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>>>>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>>>>>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>>>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>>>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I'm going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150801/b61f66ae/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Aug  2 13:55:22 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 12:55:22 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <1d52b15bd5d4472a92f41d3bf45d95ec@toast.net>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
	<0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>
	<55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>
	<228F99D5-9A38-4D63-A741-7AE9D8C427E7@egyptig.org>
	<1d52b15bd5d4472a92f41d3bf45d95ec@toast.net>
Message-ID: <7461907D-7319-451F-87DD-7B21277826E7@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Respectfully, Ed?, I will have to disagree with you. I?m perfectly fine with NCSG supporting your submission. Personally, I certainly agree with its intent and reasoning. If I had more time, I would have also liked to address the deficient methods used in this study, and perhaps made comparisons to other more thoroughly conducted ones, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

I?ve noted two objections to endorsements so far:

1. Ed objecting to endorsement of his own statement by the NCSG PC

2. Klaus objecting to endorsement of comments on this topic by the NCSG PC (in the absence of a broader discussion with NCSG membership).

The public comment forum seems to still be accepting email submissions, so we still have an opportunity to endorse comments. I?m not sure how long this window of opportunity will last. I am also aware that we are on a weekend in the middle of summer, which may limit participation in this discussion. Sam has already indicated that he is offline.

However, what I would like to do is propose a hard deadline to endorsements or objections to endorsements as of tomorrow (August 3rd) at UTC 20:00.

All comments are available for review here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/

So far, we have been discussing the endorsement of three comments by Stephanie, Ed and myself. I have failed to note that Klaus has also submitted a statement of his own in his personal capacity that I would also very much like to support, so I will add it to the list of comments under consideration. Apologies for not doing this sooner. It was an oversight on my part. Klaus? comment can be found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00010.html

Thanks.

Amr 

> On Aug 2, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
>  
> Thanks for the kind words. What I liked most about your comment was you pointed out the downside of increased financial support. Merely giving more people trips does not necessarily translate into superior or more diverse output. The concept of increased F2F meetings on working groups: you correctly pointed out that may not be the way to go. Speaking personally, I wasn't caught up in my personal and professional lives from Buenos Aires before I had to go to Paris for the CCWG. The more travel they dump on us, the fewer of us who will be able to participate.
>  
> I fully support PC endorsement of both your and Stephanie's comments. Thank you both so much for your hard work.
>  
> Equally, I do not support PC endorsement of my comments. They are a bit too "provocative" as you called them, IMHO, for a respectful group to endorse and if Mr. Westlake is litigious I want him to pick on me and not anyone else. Of course, that might just be greed on my part. People who sue me not only tend to lose but they usually wind up having to pay me money. :) 
>  
> That said, if anyone wants to support the idea of a study re-do please feel free to do so on the comment forum. That, and putting Westlake Governance on the "no hire" list at ICANN, were the two objectives of my comment and DIDP request.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Ed 
>  
>  
>  
> From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 1:19 PM
> To: avri at acm.org
> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>  
> So am I. Would be good to hear from others here as well. On a personal, I thought Ed?s submission was quite provoking. Certainly worth a read. Thanks for that, Ed.
> 
> Might also be worth looking at the summary of comments from sessions at ICANN 53 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfdG81WdzuPx.pdf). As far as I can tell, transcripts of all of our interactions in BA with the Westlake team are present in a spreadsheet along with their responses. I hope those will be considered by Westlake and the working party while formulating the final report.
> 
> For the time being, can we have a show of hands indicating support or lack of for the following comments:
> 
> Stephanie?s: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00014.html
> 
> Ed?s: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html
> 
> Mine: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfjkahfPFXN2.pdf
> 
> Thanks again to everyone.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Aug 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> >
> >
> > yep, that would work.
> > as ong as you have buy in.
> >
> > i'm in.
> >
> > avri
> >
> > On 01-Aug-15 13:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> That is also my understanding, although I am not sure how to go about doing it. Submission of emails to the comment forum is still open. I suppose that if we decide to, Rafik (or I) could send an email to the forum stating that the NCSG endorses on or more of the three comments submitted by our members.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >>
> >>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> BTW if our chair and others wish we could still sumit, even late, and
> >>> endorsement of the comments that were filed by our members.
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>> On 01-Aug-15 01:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>>> Off it goes then....
> >>>> cheers sp
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2015-07-31 18:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>>>> Ok here is the amended version. Any other signatures? I put down
> >>>>> me, avri, ed and James. Anybody else ready to sign on? Looks a wee
> >>>>> bit lame....
> >>>>> cheers SP
> >>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>>>>> thanks Avri, I will put your name down. all those who want their
> >>>>>> name on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
> >>>>>> cheers steph
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and though i know it is too late,
> >>>>>>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
> >>>>>>> or whatever was already done.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> thanks for doing all this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> avri
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Thank Ed, good catch. Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
> >>>>>>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
> >>>>>>>> shall refer to them both.
> >>>>>>>> cheers SP
> >>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
> >>>>>>>>> I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
> >>>>>>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for doing it.
> >>>>>>>>> I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
> >>>>>>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
> >>>>>>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
> >>>>>>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the
> >>>>>>>>> constituencies.
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
> >>>>>>>>> Ed
> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> >>>>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
> >>>>>>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
> >>>>>>>>> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
> >>>>>>>>> SP
> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
> >>>>>>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
> >>>>>>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
> >>>>>>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
> >>>>>>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
> >>>>>>>>>> a personal basis.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yours
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Klaus
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
> >>>>>>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
> >>>>>>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
> >>>>>>>>>>> cheers SP
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet. That is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
> >>>>>>>>>>>> folks try....
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Amr
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steph
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>  




From egmorris1  Sun Aug  2 14:05:46 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 12:05:46 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <7461907D-7319-451F-87DD-7B21277826E7@egyptig.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
	<0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>
	<55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>
	<228F99D5-9A38-4D63-A741-7AE9D8C427E7@egyptig.org>
	<1d52b15bd5d4472a92f41d3bf45d95ec@toast.net>
	<7461907D-7319-451F-87DD-7B21277826E7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <6716330E-8CBE-48E1-A694-F60D5DF40385@toast.net>

I also support Klaus' statement.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 2, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Respectfully, Ed?, I will have to disagree with you. I?m perfectly fine with NCSG supporting your submission. Personally, I certainly agree with its intent and reasoning. If I had more time, I would have also liked to address the deficient methods used in this study, and perhaps made comparisons to other more thoroughly conducted ones, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
> 
> I?ve noted two objections to endorsements so far:
> 
> 1. Ed objecting to endorsement of his own statement by the NCSG PC
> 
> 2. Klaus objecting to endorsement of comments on this topic by the NCSG PC (in the absence of a broader discussion with NCSG membership).
> 
> The public comment forum seems to still be accepting email submissions, so we still have an opportunity to endorse comments. I?m not sure how long this window of opportunity will last. I am also aware that we are on a weekend in the middle of summer, which may limit participation in this discussion. Sam has already indicated that he is offline.
> 
> However, what I would like to do is propose a hard deadline to endorsements or objections to endorsements as of tomorrow (August 3rd) at UTC 20:00.
> 
> All comments are available for review here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/
> 
> So far, we have been discussing the endorsement of three comments by Stephanie, Ed and myself. I have failed to note that Klaus has also submitted a statement of his own in his personal capacity that I would also very much like to support, so I will add it to the list of comments under consideration. Apologies for not doing this sooner. It was an oversight on my part. Klaus? comment can be found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00010.html
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr 
> 
>> On Aug 2, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> Thanks for the kind words. What I liked most about your comment was you pointed out the downside of increased financial support. Merely giving more people trips does not necessarily translate into superior or more diverse output. The concept of increased F2F meetings on working groups: you correctly pointed out that may not be the way to go. Speaking personally, I wasn't caught up in my personal and professional lives from Buenos Aires before I had to go to Paris for the CCWG. The more travel they dump on us, the fewer of us who will be able to participate.
>> 
>> I fully support PC endorsement of both your and Stephanie's comments. Thank you both so much for your hard work.
>> 
>> Equally, I do not support PC endorsement of my comments. They are a bit too "provocative" as you called them, IMHO, for a respectful group to endorse and if Mr. Westlake is litigious I want him to pick on me and not anyone else. Of course, that might just be greed on my part. People who sue me not only tend to lose but they usually wind up having to pay me money. :) 
>> 
>> That said, if anyone wants to support the idea of a study re-do please feel free to do so on the comment forum. That, and putting Westlake Governance on the "no hire" list at ICANN, were the two objectives of my comment and DIDP request.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ed 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 1:19 PM
>> To: avri at acm.org
>> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>> 
>> So am I. Would be good to hear from others here as well. On a personal, I thought Ed?s submission was quite provoking. Certainly worth a read. Thanks for that, Ed.
>> 
>> Might also be worth looking at the summary of comments from sessions at ICANN 53 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfdG81WdzuPx.pdf). As far as I can tell, transcripts of all of our interactions in BA with the Westlake team are present in a spreadsheet along with their responses. I hope those will be considered by Westlake and the working party while formulating the final report.
>> 
>> For the time being, can we have a show of hands indicating support or lack of for the following comments:
>> 
>> Stephanie?s: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00014.html
>> 
>> Ed?s: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html
>> 
>> Mine: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfjkahfPFXN2.pdf
>> 
>> Thanks again to everyone.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> yep, that would work.
>>> as ong as you have buy in.
>>> 
>>> i'm in.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>>> On 01-Aug-15 13:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> That is also my understanding, although I am not sure how to go about doing it. Submission of emails to the comment forum is still open. I suppose that if we decide to, Rafik (or I) could send an email to the forum stating that the NCSG endorses on or more of the three comments submitted by our members.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW if our chair and others wish we could still sumit, even late, and
>>>>> endorsement of the comments that were filed by our members.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 01:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>> Off it goes then....
>>>>>> cheers sp
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>> Ok here is the amended version. Any other signatures? I put down
>>>>>>> me, avri, ed and James. Anybody else ready to sign on? Looks a wee
>>>>>>> bit lame....
>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>> thanks Avri, I will put your name down. all those who want their
>>>>>>>> name on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
>>>>>>>> cheers steph
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> and though i know it is too late,
>>>>>>>>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
>>>>>>>>> or whatever was already done.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> thanks for doing all this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thank Ed, good catch. Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>>>>>>>>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>>>>>>>>>> shall refer to them both.
>>>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>>>>>>>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>>>>>>>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>>>>>>>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>>>>>>>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the
>>>>>>>>>>> constituencies.
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>>>>>>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>>>>>>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>>>>>>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>>>>>>>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From stephanie.perrin  Sun Aug  2 17:40:53 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 10:40:53 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <6716330E-8CBE-48E1-A694-F60D5DF40385@toast.net>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>	<0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>	<55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>	<228F99D5-9A38-4D63-A741-7AE9D8C427E7@egyptig.org>	<1d52b15bd5d4472a92f41d3bf45d95ec@toast.net>	<7461907D-7319-451F-87DD-7B21277826E7@egyptig.org>
	<6716330E-8CBE-48E1-A694-F60D5DF40385@toast.net>
Message-ID: <55BE2BF5.8080805@mail.utoronto.ca>

Me too.  I had already indicated that to Klaus, but forgot to ask if he 
were interested in endorsements.  Duh.  As you say, many  of us are in 
the middle of summer (holiday weekend here in Ontario) and are a bit 
distracted.
cheers Steph

On 2015-08-02 7:05, Edward Morris wrote:
> I also support Klaus' statement.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 2, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Respectfully, Ed?, I will have to disagree with you. I?m perfectly fine with NCSG supporting your submission. Personally, I certainly agree with its intent and reasoning. If I had more time, I would have also liked to address the deficient methods used in this study, and perhaps made comparisons to other more thoroughly conducted ones, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
>>
>> I?ve noted two objections to endorsements so far:
>>
>> 1. Ed objecting to endorsement of his own statement by the NCSG PC
>>
>> 2. Klaus objecting to endorsement of comments on this topic by the NCSG PC (in the absence of a broader discussion with NCSG membership).
>>
>> The public comment forum seems to still be accepting email submissions, so we still have an opportunity to endorse comments. I?m not sure how long this window of opportunity will last. I am also aware that we are on a weekend in the middle of summer, which may limit participation in this discussion. Sam has already indicated that he is offline.
>>
>> However, what I would like to do is propose a hard deadline to endorsements or objections to endorsements as of tomorrow (August 3rd) at UTC 20:00.
>>
>> All comments are available for review here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/
>>
>> So far, we have been discussing the endorsement of three comments by Stephanie, Ed and myself. I have failed to note that Klaus has also submitted a statement of his own in his personal capacity that I would also very much like to support, so I will add it to the list of comments under consideration. Apologies for not doing this sooner. It was an oversight on my part. Klaus? comment can be found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00010.html
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Amr,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the kind words. What I liked most about your comment was you pointed out the downside of increased financial support. Merely giving more people trips does not necessarily translate into superior or more diverse output. The concept of increased F2F meetings on working groups: you correctly pointed out that may not be the way to go. Speaking personally, I wasn't caught up in my personal and professional lives from Buenos Aires before I had to go to Paris for the CCWG. The more travel they dump on us, the fewer of us who will be able to participate.
>>>
>>> I fully support PC endorsement of both your and Stephanie's comments. Thank you both so much for your hard work.
>>>
>>> Equally, I do not support PC endorsement of my comments. They are a bit too "provocative" as you called them, IMHO, for a respectful group to endorse and if Mr. Westlake is litigious I want him to pick on me and not anyone else. Of course, that might just be greed on my part. People who sue me not only tend to lose but they usually wind up having to pay me money. :)
>>>
>>> That said, if anyone wants to support the idea of a study re-do please feel free to do so on the comment forum. That, and putting Westlake Governance on the "no hire" list at ICANN, were the two objectives of my comment and DIDP request.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 1:19 PM
>>> To: avri at acm.org
>>> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>
>>> So am I. Would be good to hear from others here as well. On a personal, I thought Ed?s submission was quite provoking. Certainly worth a read. Thanks for that, Ed.
>>>
>>> Might also be worth looking at the summary of comments from sessions at ICANN 53 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfdG81WdzuPx.pdf). As far as I can tell, transcripts of all of our interactions in BA with the Westlake team are present in a spreadsheet along with their responses. I hope those will be considered by Westlake and the working party while formulating the final report.
>>>
>>> For the time being, can we have a show of hands indicating support or lack of for the following comments:
>>>
>>> Stephanie?s: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00014.html
>>>
>>> Ed?s: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html
>>>
>>> Mine: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfjkahfPFXN2.pdf
>>>
>>> Thanks again to everyone.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yep, that would work.
>>>> as ong as you have buy in.
>>>>
>>>> i'm in.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 13:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> That is also my understanding, although I am not sure how to go about doing it. Submission of emails to the comment forum is still open. I suppose that if we decide to, Rafik (or I) could send an email to the forum stating that the NCSG endorses on or more of the three comments submitted by our members.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW if our chair and others wish we could still sumit, even late, and
>>>>>> endorsement of the comments that were filed by our members.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 01:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>> Off it goes then....
>>>>>>> cheers sp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ok here is the amended version. Any other signatures? I put down
>>>>>>>> me, avri, ed and James. Anybody else ready to sign on? Looks a wee
>>>>>>>> bit lame....
>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> thanks Avri, I will put your name down. all those who want their
>>>>>>>>> name on it please let me know, sending v soon....time is up.
>>>>>>>>> cheers steph
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have been too focused on other stutff.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and though i know it is too late,
>>>>>>>>>> I am fine with NCSG sending in an endorsement of the 2 comments.
>>>>>>>>>> or whatever was already done.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks for doing all this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 01-Aug-15 00:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank Ed, good catch. Since NCUC and I both sent comments on the
>>>>>>>>>>> methodology, and we are only doing this now as me with signatories, I
>>>>>>>>>>> shall refer to them both.
>>>>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 18:11, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd first like to thank Klaus for the work he did on his personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on this matter. First rate and I agree with most of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for doing it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to endorse this document, Steph, despite my misgivings
>>>>>>>>>>>> about taking anything Westlake does seriously. The only minor point
>>>>>>>>>>>> is that the NCSG did not previously, to the best of my knowledge,
>>>>>>>>>>>> submit comments on the first draft. That was done by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> constituencies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all of your work on this Stephanie.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:48 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on?
>>>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie and Friends
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not enough for such an important letter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a personal basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yours
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks try....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support these as NCSG submissions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Mon Aug  3 00:26:08 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:26:08 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <7461907D-7319-451F-87DD-7B21277826E7@egyptig.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
	<0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>
	<55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>
	<228F99D5-9A38-4D63-A741-7AE9D8C427E7@egyptig.org>
	<1d52b15bd5d4472a92f41d3bf45d95ec@toast.net>
	<7461907D-7319-451F-87DD-7B21277826E7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55BE8AF0.4080708@acm.org>

Hi,

Just got home.


On 02-Aug-15 06:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 1. Ed objecting to endorsement of his own statement by the NCSG PC

if Ed doesn't want his submission endorsed, that seems to be a gating
factor.
>
> 2. Klaus objecting to endorsement of comments on this topic by the NCSG PC (in the absence of a broader discussion with NCSG membership).

If Klaus is voting against endorsement, unless there is other NPOC voice
in favor I would say endorsement is a dead issue.

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From wjdrake  Mon Aug  3 10:44:52 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:44:52 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BE8AF0.4080708@acm.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
	<0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>
	<55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>
	<228F99D5-9A38-4D63-A741-7AE9D8C427E7@egyptig.org>
	<1d52b15bd5d4472a92f41d3bf45d95ec@toast.net>
	<7461907D-7319-451F-87DD-7B21277826E7@egyptig.org>
	<55BE8AF0.4080708@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6F10D5F8-69C1-4360-B580-EF8BB19474A1@gmail.com>

Hi

Under the circumstances, I for one am content to leave the comments as personal submissions.  I don?t think this undermines their effectiveness, the words speak for themselves and should be noted in the PC summary.  It would be sort of awkward to try to post hoc do an organizational endorsement of a subset of the three, and inevitably all make both great points and things someone at either the NCSG or NCUC level would think should have been put differently, so we?d have to go around and around?

Live and learn methinks?

Bill

> On Aug 2, 2015, at 11:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just got home.
> 
> 
> On 02-Aug-15 06:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 1. Ed objecting to endorsement of his own statement by the NCSG PC
> 
> if Ed doesn't want his submission endorsed, that seems to be a gating
> factor.
>> 
>> 2. Klaus objecting to endorsement of comments on this topic by the NCSG PC (in the absence of a broader discussion with NCSG membership).
> 
> If Klaus is voting against endorsement, unless there is other NPOC voice
> in favor I would say endorsement is a dead issue.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150803/ee6f89ba/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Aug  3 10:46:45 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:46:45 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents
In-Reply-To: <55BE8AF0.4080708@acm.org>
References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org>
	<55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org>
	<55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<be034f2649f74793ac899a79cb38381e@toast.net>
	<55BBF541.8050800@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBF780.6070800@acm.org>
	<55BBF8BE.9010703@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFCA8.9090506@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55BBFF05.2050100@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BCAD7C.3070609@acm.org>
	<0E7288DE-560A-453C-A961-730A4B6385E7@egyptig.org>
	<55BCB4D9.9080405@acm.org>
	<228F99D5-9A38-4D63-A741-7AE9D8C427E7@egyptig.org>
	<1d52b15bd5d4472a92f41d3bf45d95ec@toast.net>
	<7461907D-7319-451F-87DD-7B21277826E7@egyptig.org>
	<55BE8AF0.4080708@acm.org>
Message-ID: <AF18FAB9-390E-4F9E-AF13-8BFA9619D581@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Transiting in Oslo right now, but wanted to offer some thoughts.

I'm not sure we necessarily need the permission of the submitter of any comment in the comment forum to voice support for it. However, the way it's shaping up, we seem to have too equal a number of supporters/objectors, or at least cause to discuss this further (which is a luxury we may not necessarily have). 

Unless there is a clear overwhelming support expressed by the members of the PC to support the statements, I believe it would be wrong to claim that the NCSG endorses them. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Aug 2, 2015, at 11:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just got home.
> 
> 
>> On 02-Aug-15 06:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 1. Ed objecting to endorsement of his own statement by the NCSG PC
> 
> if Ed doesn't want his submission endorsed, that seems to be a gating
> factor.
>> 
>> 2. Klaus objecting to endorsement of comments on this topic by the NCSG PC (in the absence of a broader discussion with NCSG membership).
> 
> If Klaus is voting against endorsement, unless there is other NPOC voice
> in favor I would say endorsement is a dead issue.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From avri  Tue Aug  4 15:30:58 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:30:58 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] nextgen gtld rds comments
Message-ID: <55C0B082.4090907@acm.org>

Hi,

Has anyone started a drive doc for this yet?

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en

I want to add the rights issue report stuff to it.

if not, i will start one.

cheers

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Tue Aug  4 16:19:55 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:19:55 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] nextgen gtld rds comments
In-Reply-To: <55C0B082.4090907@acm.org>
References: <55C0B082.4090907@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5C0591B8-0D59-43DF-9DBA-79D208DC55D4@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

I?m not aware of anyone starting anything on this yet. Thanks for offering to get it going.

Thanks again.

Amr 

> On Aug 4, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Has anyone started a drive doc for this yet?
> 
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en
> 
> I want to add the rights issue report stuff to it.
> 
> if not, i will start one.
> 
> cheers
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Tue Aug  4 17:58:46 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:58:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] nextgen gtld rds comments
In-Reply-To: <5C0591B8-0D59-43DF-9DBA-79D208DC55D4@egyptig.org>
References: <55C0B082.4090907@acm.org>
	<5C0591B8-0D59-43DF-9DBA-79D208DC55D4@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55C0D326.5060609@acm.org>

done

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing

and put my issue in.

Set up with comment by all with url.
Amr and I are current editors.  Amr as PC boss to assign other edits if
he wishes.

cheers,

avri


On 04-Aug-15 09:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> I?m not aware of anyone starting anything on this yet. Thanks for offering to get it going.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr 
>
>> On Aug 4, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Has anyone started a drive doc for this yet?
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en
>>
>> I want to add the rights issue report stuff to it.
>>
>> if not, i will start one.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From stephanie.perrin  Wed Aug  5 02:29:57 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:29:57 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
In-Reply-To: <55C14919.9060305@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55C14919.9060305@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55C14AF5.4060809@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am sorry to pester you, folks, but I am once more agitated about the 
absolutely ridiculous (IMHO) report about to come out from the WHOIS 
conflicts with law volunteers group. I am going to have to write a 
dissent, as I am sure that my comments will be ignored as usual.  Ideas 
on how to respond from veterans would be most welcome.  It will go out 
for a 45 day comment period, and I am sorely tempted to try to muster 
another petition campaign.  All this at a time when we have a huge group 
mustering to club human rights to death in the bylaws of the new 
accountable ICANN (call me cynical, but look at the group who has joined 
the HR and accountability working group.....).  I am ccing Kathy and 
James because of course they are v active on the privacy proxy issues.....
Cheers Stephanie

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
Date: 	Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:22:01 -0400
From: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
To: 	whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org



Thanks for this Jamie.  I regret not taking a closer look earlier, but 
you know how busy we are these days.  Attached are a few redline comments.
I think the report, while recognizing that technically the policy is not 
in scope for the work of this team, should at least mention that many of 
us have repeatedly said this is a nonsense and the policy needs to be 
revisited.  To simply submit this as it stands invites all kinds of 
reaction which might not be conducive to reasonable outcomes.

Kind regards Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-08-04 18:40, Jamie Hedlund wrote:
> All,
>
> Attached please find a redlined draft report in Word and PDF. For 
> tomorrow?s call, I would propose reviewing the changes from the last 
> draft and next steps. While I regret not being able to circulate the 
> revised draft sooner, the number of changes are fairly limited.
>
> Best,
> Jamie
>
> Jamie Hedlund
> VP, Strategic Programs
> Global Domains Division
> ICANN
> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
> jamie.hedlund at icann.org
>
> From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jamie 
> Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 15:00
> To: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org 
> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>" 
> <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>>
> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
>
> All,
>
> Attached please find a draft report for the IAG?s review and 
> consideration. We propose that discussion of the draft be the sole 
> agenda item for Monday?s call. If you have any comments or edits 
> before then please feel free to send those to the mailing list. Thank you.
>
> Best,
> Jamie
>
> Jamie Hedlund
> VP, Strategic Programs
> Global Domains Division
> ICANN
> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
> jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150804/47f6086e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IAG Draft Report v3sp.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 77096 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150804/47f6086e/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Aug  5 02:57:54 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:57:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] nextgen gtld rds comments
In-Reply-To: <55C0D326.5060609@acm.org>
References: <55C0B082.4090907@acm.org>	<5C0591B8-0D59-43DF-9DBA-79D208DC55D4@egyptig.org>
	<55C0D326.5060609@acm.org>
Message-ID: <55C15182.3030204@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks for this, Yikes due awfully soon and it is a huge report. Tamir 
promised to help out, so I am ccing him as well as Kathy.
cheers Steph
On 2015-08-04 10:58, Avri Doria wrote:
> done
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
>
> and put my issue in.
>
> Set up with comment by all with url.
> Amr and I are current editors.  Amr as PC boss to assign other edits if
> he wishes.
>
> cheers,
>
> avri
>
>
> On 04-Aug-15 09:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> I?m not aware of anyone starting anything on this yet. Thanks for offering to get it going.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Has anyone started a drive doc for this yet?
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en
>>>
>>> I want to add the rights issue report stuff to it.
>>>
>>> if not, i will start one.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From egmorris1  Wed Aug  5 03:12:20 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 20:12:20 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
In-Reply-To: <55C14AF5.4060809@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55C14919.9060305@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55C14AF5.4060809@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <2339eed041ea46f4b3daaea03377126f@toast.net>

That's an interesting little document you have there Stephanie.
  
 First question: Has anyone considered the fact that in countries like Germany and the United States there are many privacy and data protection laws at the subnational level? California alone has in excess of 25 privacy laws I'm aware of. This document only references conflict with national laws. What about conflict with subnational laws? 
  
 ( If that's not a concern for those involved in the process might I suggest a friendly letter of inquiry to the California AG? I'd be very happy to assist both in the drafting and transmittal of such a letter.)
  
 Second question: The consensus alternate trigger. As hard as it might be to imagine, there are places and government departments that might not really want to spend the time writing letters to a private California public benefits corporation. In some countries the regulators and parliaments write the rules and legal advice is a function of an agreement between a private party and a lawyer. Does ICANN really expect special treatment from governments or is this just another case of ICANN telling their contractual partners to go out, if you can't get a clearance just break the law and then come to us?
  
 Who is coming up with this stuff? 
  
 Ed
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 12:30 AM
To: "NCSG-Policy" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com>, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report   
I am sorry to pester you, folks, but I am once more agitated about the absolutely ridiculous (IMHO) report about to come out from the WHOIS conflicts with law volunteers group. I am going to have to write a dissent, as I am sure that my comments will be ignored as usual.  Ideas on how to respond from veterans would be most welcome.  It will go out for a 45 day comment period, and I am sorely tempted to try to muster another petition campaign.  All this at a time when we have a huge group mustering to club human rights to death in the bylaws of the new accountable ICANN (call me cynical, but look at the group who has joined the HR and accountability working group.....).  I am ccing Kathy and James because of course they are v active on the privacy proxy issues.....  Cheers Stephanie

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 
 	 		 			Subject:	  			Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report	  		 
  			Date:	  			Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:22:01 -0400	  		 
  			From:	  			Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>	  		 
  			To:	  			whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org	  		

Thanks for this Jamie.  I regret not taking a closer look earlier, but you know how busy we are these days.  Attached are a few redline comments.
I think the report, while recognizing that technically the policy is not in scope for the work of this team, should at least mention that many of us have repeatedly said this is a nonsense and the policy needs to be revisited.  To simply submit this as it stands invites all kinds of reaction which might not be conducive to reasonable outcomes.

Kind regards Stephanie Perrin On 2015-08-04 18:40, Jamie Hedlund wrote:
   All,
  
 Attached please find a redlined draft report in Word and PDF. For tomorrow?s call, I would propose reviewing the changes from the last draft and next steps. While I regret not being able to circulate the revised draft sooner, the number of changes are fairly limited.
  
 Best,
 Jamie
   
 Jamie Hedlund  
 VP, Strategic Programs  
 Global Domains Division  
 ICANN  
 +1.202.374.3969 (m)  
 +1.202.570.7125 (d)  
 jamie.hedlund at icann.org  

  
 From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 15:00
To: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>
Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
  
   All,
  
 Attached please find a draft report for the IAG?s review and consideration. We propose that discussion of the draft be the sole agenda item for Monday?s call. If you have any comments or edits before then please feel free to send those to the mailing list. Thank you.
  
 Best,
 Jamie 
   
 Jamie Hedlund  
 VP, Strategic Programs  
 Global Domains Division  
 ICANN  
 +1.202.374.3969 (m)  
 +1.202.570.7125 (d)  
 jamie.hedlund at icann.org  

        

 _______________________________________________ Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers   
 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150804/b7945424/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Aug  5 05:39:34 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 22:39:34 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
In-Reply-To: <2339eed041ea46f4b3daaea03377126f@toast.net>
References: <55C14919.9060305@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C14AF5.4060809@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<2339eed041ea46f4b3daaea03377126f@toast.net>
Message-ID: <55C17766.3050502@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am so pleased that you are responding the way I did Ed!  First, yes 
you may rest assured I have explained (at some length) the reality of 
state jurisdiction and indeed dual jurisdiction over privacy....there is 
a question in there about whether sub-national authorities ought to be 
taken seriously.
Secondly, yup they expect authorities to write letters to them pleading 
to allow registrars to obey the law.  Failing that, they expect 
registrars to break the law and bring them the summons or fine....
drives me nuts, and I was well on the way there already....
advice welcome
PS Jamie Hedlund is leading.  The guy whose salary I have been 
complaining about for several months...

On 2015-08-04 20:12, Edward Morris wrote:
> That's an interesting little document you have there Stephanie.
> First question: Has anyone considered the fact that in countries like 
> Germany and the United States there are many privacy and data 
> protection laws at the subnational level? California alone has in 
> excess of 25 privacy laws I'm aware of. This document only references 
> conflict with national laws. What about conflict with subnational laws?
> ( If that's not a concern for those involved in the process might I 
> suggest a friendly letter of inquiry to the California AG? I'd be very 
> happy to assist both in the drafting and transmittal of such a letter.)
> Second question: The consensus alternate trigger. As hard as it might 
> be to imagine, there are places and government departments that might 
> not really want to spend the time writing letters to a private 
> California public benefits corporation. In some countries the 
> regulators and parliaments write the rules and legal advice is a 
> function of an agreement between a private party and a lawyer. Does 
> ICANN really expect special treatment from governments or is this just 
> another case of ICANN telling their contractual partners to go out, if 
> you can't get a clearance just break the law and then come to us?
> Who is coming up with this stuff?
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 12:30 AM
> *To*: "NCSG-Policy" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, "Kathy Kleiman" 
> <kathy at kathykleiman.com>, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> *Subject*: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
> I am sorry to pester you, folks, but I am once more agitated about the 
> absolutely ridiculous (IMHO) report about to come out from the WHOIS 
> conflicts with law volunteers group. I am going to have to write a 
> dissent, as I am sure that my comments will be ignored as usual.  
> Ideas on how to respond from veterans would be most welcome.  It will 
> go out for a 45 day comment period, and I am sorely tempted to try to 
> muster another petition campaign.  All this at a time when we have a 
> huge group mustering to club human rights to death in the bylaws of 
> the new accountable ICANN (call me cynical, but look at the group who 
> has joined the HR and accountability working group.....).  I am ccing 
> Kathy and James because of course they are v active on the privacy 
> proxy issues.....
> Cheers Stephanie
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
> Date: 	Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:22:01 -0400
> From: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> To: 	whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
>
>
>
> Thanks for this Jamie.  I regret not taking a closer look earlier, but 
> you know how busy we are these days.  Attached are a few redline comments.
> I think the report, while recognizing that technically the policy is 
> not in scope for the work of this team, should at least mention that 
> many of us have repeatedly said this is a nonsense and the policy 
> needs to be revisited.  To simply submit this as it stands invites all 
> kinds of reaction which might not be conducive to reasonable outcomes.
>
> Kind regards Stephanie Perrin
> On 2015-08-04 18:40, Jamie Hedlund wrote:
>> All,
>> Attached please find a redlined draft report in Word and PDF. For 
>> tomorrow?s call, I would propose reviewing the changes from the last 
>> draft and next steps. While I regret not being able to circulate the 
>> revised draft sooner, the number of changes are fairly limited.
>> Best,
>> Jamie
>> Jamie Hedlund
>> VP, Strategic Programs
>> Global Domains Division
>> ICANN
>> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
>> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
>> jamie.hedlund at icann.org
>> From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org 
>> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jamie 
>> Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 15:00
>> To: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org 
>> <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>" 
>> <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org <mailto:whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>>
>> Subject: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
>> All,
>> Attached please find a draft report for the IAG?s review and 
>> consideration. We propose that discussion of the draft be the sole 
>> agenda item for Monday?s call. If you have any comments or edits 
>> before then please feel free to send those to the mailing list. Thank 
>> you.
>> Best,
>> Jamie
>> Jamie Hedlund
>> VP, Strategic Programs
>> Global Domains Division
>> ICANN
>> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
>> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
>> jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
>> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150804/40f1bfd9/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Aug  5 06:30:44 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:30:44 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comments/issues planning/priortization
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn4SRHUSutNJXnuR3VvhyaYu3iiXbEmcjTejUBf0LLbBQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

we got several public comments for coming week and we need to do some
prioritisation and get volunteers to lead the drafting process:


   - GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy
   Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en>

Deadline: 10 Aug 2015 23:59 UTC

we made comment for the final report, shall we write something here?


   - Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS
   Preliminary Issue Report
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en>

Deadline:   6 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC

Avri created the google doc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
I can assume that she will be the lead here?


   - Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en>

Deadline:  7 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC

maybe we should give more attention to this since it may influence policy
making process, we have some members there.


   - Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments?GNSO Policy & Implementation
   Recommendations
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en>

Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC

we responded to the final report, do we need to add something here?


   - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability 2nd
   Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>

Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC

definitely the most critical to handle, I think Matt may volunteer to be
the lead for the drafting the comment?

Also: IANA stewardship proposal
https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/


Deadline: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.

we may need to comment for the plan, who want to volunteer


I am listing here the rest of comments but I don't think we should focus
on, unless we can find some rationale to do so:


   - Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .SHARP Registry Agreement
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sharp-proposed-amendment-2015-07-30-en>

Deadline:   11 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC


We can a quick poll about the priority and assigning volunteers for each
comment so we can be sure to get them in time. the working documents and
volunteers will be listed here
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015

on other hands we have some issues we have to keep discuss and get involved
soon: public interest (probably starting in Dublin meeting), UDRP review in
September, Auctions proceeds in September/October with the publication of
position paper. They are not the most urgent to discuss for now, but just
to have them in mind when time comes.

Best Regards,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150805/24ff7167/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Aug  5 14:15:29 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 07:15:29 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comments/issues planning/priortization
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn4SRHUSutNJXnuR3VvhyaYu3iiXbEmcjTejUBf0LLbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn4SRHUSutNJXnuR3VvhyaYu3iiXbEmcjTejUBf0LLbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C1F051.6010406@acm.org>

Hi,

> Avri created the google
> doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> I can assume that she will be the lead here?

Unless by lead you mean first one to do something, no, was not planning
on it.

avri


On 04-Aug-15 23:30, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> we got several public comments for coming week and we need to do some
> prioritisation and get volunteers to lead the drafting process:
>
>   * GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy
>     Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
>     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en>
>
> Deadline: 10 Aug 2015 23:59 UTC
>
> we made comment for the final report, shall we write something here?
>
>   * Next-Generation gTLDRegistration Directory Services to Replace
>     WHOISPreliminary Issue Report
>     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en>
>
> Deadline:   6 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
>
> Avri created the google
> doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> I can assume that she will be the lead here?
>
>   * Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
>     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en>
>
> Deadline:  7 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
>
> maybe we should give more attention to this since it may influence
> policy making process, we have some members there.
>
>   * Proposed ICANNBylaws Amendments?GNSOPolicy & Implementation
>     Recommendations
>     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en>
>
> Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
>
> we responded to the final report, do we need to add something here?
>
>   * Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability 2nd
>     Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
>     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>
>
> Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
>
> definitely the most critical to handle, I think Matt may volunteer to
> be the lead for the drafting the comment?
>
> Also: IANA stewardship
> proposal https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/ 
>
> Deadline: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.
>
> we may need to comment for the plan, who want to volunteer
>
>
> I am listing here the rest of comments but I don't think we should
> focus on, unless we can find some rationale to do so:
>
>   * Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .SHARP Registry Agreement
>     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sharp-proposed-amendment-2015-07-30-en>
>
> Deadline:   11 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
>
>
> We can a quick poll about the priority and assigning volunteers for
> each comment so we can be sure to get them in time. the working
> documents and volunteers will be listed
> here https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015 
>
> on other hands we have some issues we have to keep discuss and get
> involved soon: public interest (probably starting in Dublin meeting),
> UDRP review in September, Auctions proceeds in September/October with
> the publication of position paper. They are not the most urgent to
> discuss for now, but just to have them in mind when time comes.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From avri  Wed Aug  5 14:31:18 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 07:31:18 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [] Draft report
In-Reply-To: <55C17766.3050502@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55C14919.9060305@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C14AF5.4060809@mail.utoronto.ca>	<2339eed041ea46f4b3daaea03377126f@toast.net>
	<55C17766.3050502@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55C1F406.7060100@acm.org>


Hi,

On 04-Aug-15 22:39, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> All this at a time when we have a huge group mustering to club human
> rights to death in the bylaws of the new accountable ICANN (call me
> cynical, but look at the group who has joined the HR and
> accountability working group.....).

At no point can we assume we will have succeed in getting HR into the
bylaws until we see it approved and released from legal vetting.  Up to
until then, it will remain vulnerable.

There is no evidence that the Bord will be be willing to support this. 
And that is, as Stephanie points out, if we survive the gauntlet of WP4.

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From stephanie.perrin  Wed Aug  5 16:48:44 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 09:48:44 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [] Draft report
In-Reply-To: <55C1F406.7060100@acm.org>
References: <55C14919.9060305@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C14AF5.4060809@mail.utoronto.ca>	<2339eed041ea46f4b3daaea03377126f@toast.net>	<55C17766.3050502@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55C1F406.7060100@acm.org>
Message-ID: <55C2143C.3020806@mail.utoronto.ca>

yes and if there is talk of taking WHOIS out of the AOC (which I did not 
realize had come up, sorry not following closely enough to catch that) 
then for sure we will be in for a rumble when it hits the Board....
SP

On 2015-08-05 7:31, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04-Aug-15 22:39, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> All this at a time when we have a huge group mustering to club human
>> rights to death in the bylaws of the new accountable ICANN (call me
>> cynical, but look at the group who has joined the HR and
>> accountability working group.....).
> At no point can we assume we will have succeed in getting HR into the
> bylaws until we see it approved and released from legal vetting.  Up to
> until then, it will remain vulnerable.
>
> There is no evidence that the Bord will be be willing to support this.
> And that is, as Stephanie points out, if we survive the gauntlet of WP4.
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Wed Aug  5 18:41:18 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 11:41:18 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [] Draft report
In-Reply-To: <55C2143C.3020806@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55C14919.9060305@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C14AF5.4060809@mail.utoronto.ca>	<2339eed041ea46f4b3daaea03377126f@toast.net>	<55C17766.3050502@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C1F406.7060100@acm.org>
	<55C2143C.3020806@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55C22E9E.4010805@acm.org>

Hi,

It just came up with my suggestion that we need to respond fo Steve's
concerns about the wording of the current WHOIS AOC review wording.

We can revise or remove.  Don't know which, but when the Board Chair
says the current wording is an absolute non starter, we need to
respond.  And I see that as an opportunity.

avri


On 05-Aug-15 09:48, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> yes and if there is talk of taking WHOIS out of the AOC (which I did
> not realize had come up, sorry not following closely enough to catch
> that) then for sure we will be in for a rumble when it hits the Board....
> SP
>
> On 2015-08-05 7:31, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 04-Aug-15 22:39, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> All this at a time when we have a huge group mustering to club human
>>> rights to death in the bylaws of the new accountable ICANN (call me
>>> cynical, but look at the group who has joined the HR and
>>> accountability working group.....).
>> At no point can we assume we will have succeed in getting HR into the
>> bylaws until we see it approved and released from legal vetting.  Up to
>> until then, it will remain vulnerable.
>>
>> There is no evidence that the Bord will be be willing to support this.
>> And that is, as Stephanie points out, if we survive the gauntlet of WP4.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From stephanie.perrin  Wed Aug  5 18:44:37 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:44:37 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [] Draft report
In-Reply-To: <55C22E9E.4010805@acm.org>
References: <55C14919.9060305@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C14AF5.4060809@mail.utoronto.ca>	<2339eed041ea46f4b3daaea03377126f@toast.net>	<55C17766.3050502@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C1F406.7060100@acm.org>	<55C2143C.3020806@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<55C22E9E.4010805@acm.org>
Message-ID: <55C22F65.4050500@mail.utoronto.ca>

That is amazing, yes we should jump on it.  If Steve supports yanking 
it, who is likely to oppose him?
SP
On 2015-08-05 11:41, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It just came up with my suggestion that we need to respond fo Steve's
> concerns about the wording of the current WHOIS AOC review wording.
>
> We can revise or remove.  Don't know which, but when the Board Chair
> says the current wording is an absolute non starter, we need to
> respond.  And I see that as an opportunity.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 05-Aug-15 09:48, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> yes and if there is talk of taking WHOIS out of the AOC (which I did
>> not realize had come up, sorry not following closely enough to catch
>> that) then for sure we will be in for a rumble when it hits the Board....
>> SP
>>
>> On 2015-08-05 7:31, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 04-Aug-15 22:39, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> All this at a time when we have a huge group mustering to club human
>>>> rights to death in the bylaws of the new accountable ICANN (call me
>>>> cynical, but look at the group who has joined the HR and
>>>> accountability working group.....).
>>> At no point can we assume we will have succeed in getting HR into the
>>> bylaws until we see it approved and released from legal vetting.  Up to
>>> until then, it will remain vulnerable.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence that the Bord will be be willing to support this.
>>> And that is, as Stephanie points out, if we survive the gauntlet of WP4.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Wed Aug  5 19:16:27 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 12:16:27 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [] Draft report
In-Reply-To: <55C22F65.4050500@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55C14919.9060305@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C14AF5.4060809@mail.utoronto.ca>	<2339eed041ea46f4b3daaea03377126f@toast.net>	<55C17766.3050502@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C1F406.7060100@acm.org>	<55C2143C.3020806@mail.utoronto.ca>	<55C22E9E.4010805@acm.org>
	<55C22F65.4050500@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55C236DB.7000704@acm.org>

hi.

Steve has not gone that far yet.  I just says it is wrong and must be fixed.

avri


On 05-Aug-15 11:44, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> That is amazing, yes we should jump on it.  If Steve supports yanking
> it, who is likely to oppose him?
> SP
> On 2015-08-05 11:41, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It just came up with my suggestion that we need to respond fo Steve's
>> concerns about the wording of the current WHOIS AOC review wording.
>>
>> We can revise or remove.  Don't know which, but when the Board Chair
>> says the current wording is an absolute non starter, we need to
>> respond.  And I see that as an opportunity.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 05-Aug-15 09:48, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> yes and if there is talk of taking WHOIS out of the AOC (which I did
>>> not realize had come up, sorry not following closely enough to catch
>>> that) then for sure we will be in for a rumble when it hits the
>>> Board....
>>> SP
>>>
>>> On 2015-08-05 7:31, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 04-Aug-15 22:39, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> All this at a time when we have a huge group mustering to club human
>>>>> rights to death in the bylaws of the new accountable ICANN (call me
>>>>> cynical, but look at the group who has joined the HR and
>>>>> accountability working group.....).
>>>> At no point can we assume we will have succeed in getting HR into the
>>>> bylaws until we see it approved and released from legal vetting. 
>>>> Up to
>>>> until then, it will remain vulnerable.
>>>>
>>>> There is no evidence that the Bord will be be willing to support this.
>>>> And that is, as Stephanie points out, if we survive the gauntlet of
>>>> WP4.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From rafik.dammak  Wed Aug  5 21:14:08 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:14:08 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comments/issues planning/priortization
In-Reply-To: <55C1F051.6010406@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sThn4SRHUSutNJXnuR3VvhyaYu3iiXbEmcjTejUBf0LLbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C1F051.6010406@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThktZ6wH9brcVyvXByPUuVcqve37M5yWZf0sj-kTGyfGYA@mail.gmail.com>

Avri,

Thanks for the response, waiting for the rest of PC members to respond and
comment.we need to prioritize and get volunteers for each comment. The list
of comments will be shared in NCSG list (including links to working
document)

Rafik
On Aug 5, 2015 8:15 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Avri created the google
> > doc
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
>
> Unless by lead you mean first one to do something, no, was not planning
> on it.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 04-Aug-15 23:30, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > we got several public comments for coming week and we need to do some
> > prioritisation and get volunteers to lead the drafting process:
> >
> >   * GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy
> >     Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
> >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en
> >
> >
> > Deadline: 10 Aug 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > we made comment for the final report, shall we write something here?
> >
> >   * Next-Generation gTLDRegistration Directory Services to Replace
> >     WHOISPreliminary Issue Report
> >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en>
> >
> > Deadline:   6 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > Avri created the google
> > doc
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
> >
> >   * Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
> >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en
> >
> >
> > Deadline:  7 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > maybe we should give more attention to this since it may influence
> > policy making process, we have some members there.
> >
> >   * Proposed ICANNBylaws Amendments?GNSOPolicy & Implementation
> >     Recommendations
> >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en>
> >
> > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > we responded to the final report, do we need to add something here?
> >
> >   * Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability 2nd
> >     Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
> >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>
> >
> > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > definitely the most critical to handle, I think Matt may volunteer to
> > be the lead for the drafting the comment?
> >
> > Also: IANA stewardship
> > proposal
> https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/
> >
> > Deadline: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.
> >
> > we may need to comment for the plan, who want to volunteer
> >
> >
> > I am listing here the rest of comments but I don't think we should
> > focus on, unless we can find some rationale to do so:
> >
> >   * Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .SHARP Registry Agreement
> >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sharp-proposed-amendment-2015-07-30-en
> >
> >
> > Deadline:   11 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> >
> > We can a quick poll about the priority and assigning volunteers for
> > each comment so we can be sure to get them in time. the working
> > documents and volunteers will be listed
> > here
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
> >
> > on other hands we have some issues we have to keep discuss and get
> > involved soon: public interest (probably starting in Dublin meeting),
> > UDRP review in September, Auctions proceeds in September/October with
> > the publication of position paper. They are not the most urgent to
> > discuss for now, but just to have them in mind when time comes.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150806/c19b90ed/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Aug  6 11:25:29 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:25:29 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

thanks,
so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed by CSG?
looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.

Rafik

2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>:

> Hi ? I also agree
>
> Joy
>
>
>
> *From:* PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *Marilia
> Maciel
> *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
> *To:* Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* NCSG-Policy
> *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
> just what we all have time for
>
>
>
> Also agree.
>
> Mar?lia
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for candidates for
> previous elections.
>
>
>
> @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond soon ,
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> 2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>
> sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently exercise on
> this issue.
> cheers SP
>
> On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview the
> candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David prior to
> agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It may (or may not)
> come in handy at some point.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fine by me.
>
> BD
>
> On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal
> regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment.
> can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC chair
> election is coming soon.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com>
> Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
> Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what
> we all have time for
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
>
> This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we are
> prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change.  We did not
> understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round,
> i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would
> like to see least in the role.?   We think the same objective could be
> achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in
> case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round.
>
>
> With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for the
> vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and
> scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this
> relatively minor change so we can move to the next step
>
>
> The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are
> prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last
> January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution
> through rotation of nominations.
>
>
> Looking forward to your response.
>
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
> .
>
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
> To: Metalitz, Steven
> Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what
> we all have time for
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
>
> thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal to be
> discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC election.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com>:
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
>
> I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos Aires.
>
>
> As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional in
> Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the
> Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward
> for the vice chair slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check
> with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the
> counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive
> one.  Thanks!
>
>
> Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
>
> From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
> To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
> Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all
> have time for
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple procedure
> for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David
> was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just
> stalled.
>
> So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair.
> While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go,
> here it is to beat on.
>
> <
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing
> >
>
> The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the
> URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more
> than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what
> email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the
> ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except
> of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do
> not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend
> that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest changes.
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list
> Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
>
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
>
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
>
>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150806/9b3e44ac/attachment.html>


From dave  Thu Aug  6 12:00:48 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:00:48 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ABF9F5B-06A4-4A11-94FB-019868630B0B@difference.com.au>

I?m certainly OK with it. The interview process was a sensible idea, I thought.

Only one caveat I?d suggest - IF there is an NCPH candidate for chair, chair and vice-chair should be considered together.


David


> On 6 Aug 2015, at 4:25 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks,
> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed by CSG? looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>:
> Hi ? I also agree
> 
> Joy
> 
> 
> 
> From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel
> Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
> To: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: NCSG-Policy
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
> 
> 
> 
> Also agree.
> 
> Mar?lia
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for candidates for previous elections.
> 
> 
> 
> @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond soon ,
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> 2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
> 
> sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently exercise on this issue.
> cheers SP
> 
> On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Fine by me.
> 
> BD
> 
> On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment.
> can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC chair election is coming soon.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
> Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
> Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> 
> 
> Hi Rafik,
> 
> 
> This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change.  We did not understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.?   We think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round.
> 
> 
> With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to the next step
> 
> 
> The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
> 
> 
> Looking forward to your response.
> 
> 
> Steve Metalitz
> 
> 
> .
> 
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
> To: Metalitz, Steven
> Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
> 
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> 
> thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC election.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>:
> 
> Hi Rafik,
> 
> 
> I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos Aires.
> 
> 
> As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional in Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive one.  Thanks!
> 
> 
> Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
> 
> From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
> To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple procedure
> for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David
> was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just
> stalled.
> 
> So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair.
> While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go,
> here it is to beat on.
> 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing>>
> 
> The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the
> URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more
> than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what
> email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the
> ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except
> of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do
> not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend
> that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest changes.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list
> Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> *********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>    Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>    University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>    ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>    www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q <http://goo.gl/sRR01q>
> *********************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 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 <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>
> 
> 
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu/>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en <http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150806/53ef17e6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150806/53ef17e6/attachment-0001.sig>


From mshears  Thu Aug  6 12:03:15 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:03:15 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <8ABF9F5B-06A4-4A11-94FB-019868630B0B@difference.com.au>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ABF9F5B-06A4-4A11-94FB-019868630B0B@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <55C322D3.3020005@cdt.org>

I'm OK with this formulation - thanks.

On 8/6/2015 10:00 AM, David Cake wrote:
> I?m certainly OK with it. The interview process was a sensible idea, I 
> thought.
>
> Only one caveat I?d suggest - IF there is an NCPH candidate for chair, 
> chair and vice-chair should be considered together.
>
>
> David
>
>
>> On 6 Aug 2015, at 4:25 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks,
>> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed by CSG? 
>> looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz 
>> <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>:
>>
>>     Hi ? I also agree
>>
>>     Joy
>>
>>     *From:*PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>>     <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marilia Maciel
>>     *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
>>     *To:* Rafik Dammak
>>     *Cc:* NCSG-Policy
>>     *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>>     election - just what we all have time for
>>
>>     Also agree.
>>
>>     Mar?lia
>>
>>     On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for
>>     candidates for previous elections.
>>
>>     @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond
>>     soon ,
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>>
>>     sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently
>>     exercise on this issue.
>>     cheers SP
>>
>>     On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview
>>     the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David
>>     prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It
>>     may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
>>
>>     Thanks.
>>
>>     Amr
>>
>>     On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Fine by me.
>>
>>     BD
>>
>>     On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi everyone,
>>
>>     You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri
>>     counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it
>>     and offering an amendment.
>>     can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the
>>     VC chair election is coming soon.
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>     From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>     Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
>>     Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>>     just what we all have time for
>>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>     Hi Rafik,
>>
>>
>>     This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and
>>     we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. 
>>     We did not understand why the first round was structured as a
>>     ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone
>>     votes for the candidate they would like to see least in the
>>     role.?   We think the same objective could be achieved by a
>>     conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case
>>     of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round.
>>
>>
>>     With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a
>>     schedule for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for
>>     nominations, acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please
>>     let me know if NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so
>>     we can move to the next step
>>
>>
>>     The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we
>>     are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal
>>     form last January remains on the table in order to provide a
>>     permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
>>
>>
>>     Looking forward to your response.
>>
>>
>>     Steve Metalitz
>>
>>
>>     .
>>
>>     From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>]
>>     Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
>>     To: Metalitz, Steven
>>     Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>>     just what we all have time for
>>
>>
>>     Hi Steve,
>>
>>
>>     thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a
>>     counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve
>>     before the coming soon VC election.
>>
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>
>>     2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
>>     <mailto:met at msk.com>>:
>>
>>     Hi Rafik,
>>
>>
>>     I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to
>>     Buenos Aires.
>>
>>
>>     As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January
>>     intersessional in Washington committed to providing a
>>     counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG
>>     proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair
>>     slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you
>>     on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the
>>     counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to
>>     receive one.  Thanks!
>>
>>
>>     Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
>>
>>     From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>>     [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of
>>     Avri Doria
>>     Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
>>     To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
>>     Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what
>>     we all have time for
>>
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple
>>     procedure
>>     for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David
>>     was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just
>>     stalled.
>>
>>     So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair.
>>     While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go,
>>     here it is to beat on.
>>
>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>     The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the
>>     URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more
>>     than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what
>>     email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the
>>     ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so -
>>     except
>>     of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however,
>>     you do
>>     not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend
>>     that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to
>>     suggest changes.
>>
>>     avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ---
>>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list
>>     Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>     *********************************************************
>>     William J. Drake
>>     International Fellow & Lecturer
>>        Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>        University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>     Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>        ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>     william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>     wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>     www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>     Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
>>     *********************************************************
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     *Mar?lia Maciel*
>>
>>     Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV
>>     Direito Rio
>>
>>     Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society
>>     - FGV Law School
>>
>>     http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>>     DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>>     <http://www.diplomacy.edu/>
>>
>>     PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>>
>>     Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>>     http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150806/3024c558/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Aug  6 14:09:07 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 07:09:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C34053.6060201@acm.org>

Hi,

I think the amendment is unfortunate as id does not really consider the
proposal that was offered and the advantage of everyone first voicing
the candidate that would be totally unacceptable - the elephant that is
always in the room with us.

But since we operate by rough consensus, my opposition should not be
significant.

avri


On 06-Aug-15 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks,
> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed by CSG?
> looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz
> <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>:
>
>     Hi ? I also agree
>
>     Joy
>
>      
>
>     *From:*PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>     <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marilia Maciel
>     *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
>     *To:* Rafik Dammak
>     *Cc:* NCSG-Policy
>     *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>     election - just what we all have time for
>
>      
>
>     Also agree. 
>
>     Mar?lia
>
>      
>
>     On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>      
>
>     it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for
>     candidates for previous elections.
>
>      
>
>     @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond
>     soon ,
>
>      
>
>     Best,
>
>      
>
>     Rafik
>
>      
>
>     2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>
>     sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently
>     exercise on this issue.
>     cheers SP
>
>     On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview
>     the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David
>     prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It
>     may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>
>     On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>     <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Fine by me.
>
>     BD
>
>     On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri
>     counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it
>     and offering an amendment.
>     can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the
>     VC chair election is coming soon.
>
>     Best Regards,
>
>     Rafik
>
>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>     Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
>     Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>     just what we all have time for
>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>
>
>     Hi Rafik,
>
>      
>     This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and
>     we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. 
>     We did not understand why the first round was structured as a
>     ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes
>     for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.?   We
>     think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional
>     voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote
>     getters proceeding to the second round.
>
>      
>     With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule
>     for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations,
>     acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if
>     NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to
>     the next step
>
>      
>     The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we
>     are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal
>     form last January remains on the table in order to provide a
>     permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
>
>      
>     Looking forward to your response.
>
>      
>     Steve Metalitz
>
>      
>     .
>
>     From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>]
>     Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
>     To: Metalitz, Steven
>     Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>     just what we all have time for
>
>      
>     Hi Steve,
>
>      
>     thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a
>     counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve
>     before the coming soon VC election.
>
>      
>     Best,
>
>
>
>     Rafik
>
>      
>     2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
>     <mailto:met at msk.com>>:
>
>     Hi Rafik,
>
>      
>     I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to
>     Buenos Aires.
>
>      
>     As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January
>     intersessional in Washington committed to providing a
>     counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG
>     proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair
>     slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you
>     on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the
>     counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to
>     receive one.  Thanks!
>
>      
>     Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
>
>     From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>     [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri
>     Doria
>     Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
>     To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
>     Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what
>     we all have time for
>
>      
>     Hi,
>
>     Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple
>     procedure
>     for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David
>     was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just
>     stalled.
>
>     So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair.
>     While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go,
>     here it is to beat on.
>
>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing>
>
>     The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the
>     URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more
>     than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what
>     email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the
>     ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except
>     of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do
>     not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend
>     that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest
>     changes.
>
>     avri
>
>
>
>
>     ---
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list
>     Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
>
>      
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>     *********************************************************
>     William J. Drake
>     International Fellow & Lecturer
>        Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>        University of Zurich, Switzerland
>     Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>        ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
>     william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>     wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>        www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>     Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
>     *********************************************************
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>      
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>      
>
>     -- 
>
>     *Mar?lia Maciel*
>
>     Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV
>     Direito Rio
>
>     Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV
>     Law School
>
>     http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
>      
>
>     DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>     <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>
>     PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>
>     Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the
>     Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en 
>
>      
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Thu Aug  6 15:07:11 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:07:11 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comments/issues planning/priortization
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThktZ6wH9brcVyvXByPUuVcqve37M5yWZf0sj-kTGyfGYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn4SRHUSutNJXnuR3VvhyaYu3iiXbEmcjTejUBf0LLbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C1F051.6010406@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThktZ6wH9brcVyvXByPUuVcqve37M5yWZf0sj-kTGyfGYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8C201E76-EE0C-496B-9AE3-B90D8A201AE4@egyptig.org>

Hi,

If there is a need to respond to the open public comment periods regarding board actions on translation/transliteration and the policy and implementation WG recommendations, I could try to whip something brief up on them. At first glance, the action proposed from the board on both seems to be consistent with the GNSO WG(s) recommendations, so my impression is just a comment supporting the board adopting them.

I also expect to contribute to the comment on the next gen gTLD RDS comment soon. Although there may be a few suggestion missing from that issues report, it is a largely good one as far as I can tell.

Finally, I think it is important to consider the comment on the suggested removal of searchable WHOIS service from the .sharp agreement. I haven?t gone through this as thoroughly as I plan to yet, but I do have some thoughts so far. I don?t believe it is appropriate for the ICANN board to make changes to contractual obligations on contracted parties developed through consensus policies without this going through the GNSO. There may be some substantive issues to the policies that may require revision, but from a procedural perspective, I have a problem with this. This isn?t the first time the ICANN board suggest action to relieve BRG registries from obligations in the RA without going through the GNSO?s PDP.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 8:14 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Avri,
> 
> Thanks for the response, waiting for the rest of PC members to respond and comment.we need to prioritize and get volunteers for each comment. The list of comments will be shared in NCSG list (including links to working document)
> 
> Rafik
> 
> On Aug 5, 2015 8:15 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > Avri created the google
> > doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
> 
> Unless by lead you mean first one to do something, no, was not planning
> on it.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 04-Aug-15 23:30, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > we got several public comments for coming week and we need to do some
> > prioritisation and get volunteers to lead the drafting process:
> >
> >   * GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy
> >     Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
> >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en>
> >
> > Deadline: 10 Aug 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > we made comment for the final report, shall we write something here?
> >
> >   * Next-Generation gTLDRegistration Directory Services to Replace
> >     WHOISPreliminary Issue Report
> >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en>
> >
> > Deadline:   6 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > Avri created the google
> > doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
> >
> >   * Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
> >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en>
> >
> > Deadline:  7 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > maybe we should give more attention to this since it may influence
> > policy making process, we have some members there.
> >
> >   * Proposed ICANNBylaws Amendments?GNSOPolicy & Implementation
> >     Recommendations
> >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en>
> >
> > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > we responded to the final report, do we need to add something here?
> >
> >   * Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability 2nd
> >     Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
> >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>
> >
> > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> > definitely the most critical to handle, I think Matt may volunteer to
> > be the lead for the drafting the comment?
> >
> > Also: IANA stewardship
> > proposal https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/
> >
> > Deadline: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.
> >
> > we may need to comment for the plan, who want to volunteer
> >
> >
> > I am listing here the rest of comments but I don't think we should
> > focus on, unless we can find some rationale to do so:
> >
> >   * Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .SHARP Registry Agreement
> >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sharp-proposed-amendment-2015-07-30-en>
> >
> > Deadline:   11 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> >
> >
> > We can a quick poll about the priority and assigning volunteers for
> > each comment so we can be sure to get them in time. the working
> > documents and volunteers will be listed
> > here https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
> >
> > on other hands we have some issues we have to keep discuss and get
> > involved soon: public interest (probably starting in Dublin meeting),
> > UDRP review in September, Auctions proceeds in September/October with
> > the publication of position paper. They are not the most urgent to
> > discuss for now, but just to have them in mind when time comes.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Aug  6 15:08:31 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:08:31 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55C322D3.3020005@cdt.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ABF9F5B-06A4-4A11-94FB-019868630B0B@difference.com.au>
	<55C322D3.3020005@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <E68CC816-3837-45C8-A911-4EF592BED975@egyptig.org>

Me too.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> I'm OK with this formulation - thanks.
> 
> On 8/6/2015 10:00 AM, David Cake wrote:
>> I?m certainly OK with it. The interview process was a sensible idea, I thought. 
>> 
>> Only one caveat I?d suggest - IF there is an NCPH candidate for chair, chair and vice-chair should be considered together. 
>> 
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 
>>> On 6 Aug 2015, at 4:25 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed by CSG? looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>:
>>> Hi ? I also agree
>>> 
>>> Joy
>>> 
>>>  
>>> From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel
>>> Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
>>> To: Rafik Dammak
>>> Cc: NCSG-Policy
>>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Also agree. 
>>> 
>>> Mar?lia
>>> 
>>>  
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for candidates for previous elections.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond soon ,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>>> 
>>> sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently exercise on this issue.
>>> cheers SP
>>> 
>>> On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Fine by me.
>>> 
>>> BD
>>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment.
>>> can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC chair election is                                                   coming soon.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com>
>>> Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
>>> Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>> 
>>>   
>>> This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change.  We did not understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.?   We think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round.
>>> 
>>>   
>>> With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to the next step
>>> 
>>>   
>>> The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
>>> 
>>>   
>>> Looking forward to your response.
>>> 
>>>   
>>> Steve Metalitz
>>> 
>>>   
>>> .
>>> 
>>> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
>>> To: Metalitz, Steven
>>> Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
>>> 
>>>   
>>> Hi Steve,
>>> 
>>>   
>>> thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC election.
>>> 
>>>   
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com>:
>>> 
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>> 
>>>   
>>> I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos Aires.
>>> 
>>>   
>>> As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional in Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive one.  Thanks!
>>> 
>>>   
>>> Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
>>> 
>>> From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
>>> To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>> Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
>>> 
>>>   
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple procedure
>>> for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David
>>> was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just
>>> stalled.
>>> 
>>> So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair.
>>> While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go,
>>> here it is to beat on.
>>> 
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing>
>>> 
>>> The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the
>>> URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more
>>> than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what
>>> email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the
>>> ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except
>>> of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do
>>> not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend
>>> that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest changes.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list
>>> Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
>>> *********************************************************
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Mar?lia Maciel
>>> 
>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>> 
>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>> 
>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>> 
>>>  
>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>>> 
>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>>> 
>>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 (0)771 247 2987
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From lanfran  Thu Aug  6 16:38:13 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 09:38:13 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <E68CC816-3837-45C8-A911-4EF592BED975@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ABF9F5B-06A4-4A11-94FB-019868630B0B@difference.com.au>
	<55C322D3.3020005@cdt.org>
	<E68CC816-3837-45C8-A911-4EF592BED975@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55C36345.2080600@yorku.ca>

I can support the approach as now outlined, with the amendment proposed 
by CSG.

Sam

On 06/08/2015 8:08 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Me too. Thanks. Amr
>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote: 
>> I'm OK with this formulation - thanks. On 8/6/2015 10:00 AM, David 
>> Cake wrote:
>>> I?m certainly OK with it. The interview process was a sensible idea, 
>>> I thought. Only one caveat I?d suggest - IF there is an NCPH 
>>> candidate for chair, chair and vice-chair should be considered 
>>> together. David
>>>> On 6 Aug 2015, at 4:25 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote: Hi, thanks, so I can assume that we are ok with small 
>>>> amendment proposed by CSG? looking to hear from other so I can 
>>>> respond to Steve. Rafik 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat 
>>>> <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>: Hi ? I also agree Joy From: PC-NCSG 
>>>> [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel 
>>>> Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m. To: Rafik Dammak Cc: 
>>>> NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH 
>>>> v-chair election - just what we all have time for Also agree. 
>>>> Mar?lia On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak 
>>>> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: Hi, it sounds a fair request, CSG 
>>>> conducted such interviews for candidates for previous elections. 
>>>> @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond 
>>>> soon , Best, Rafik 2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin 
>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: sounds reasonable to me...but 
>>>> I am perhaps not suffficiently exercise on this issue. cheers SP On 
>>>> 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, Also fine by me. Perhaps 
>>>> also formalise the option to interview the candidate? If I recall 
>>>> correctly, they held a call with David prior to agreeing to him as 
>>>> a VC. This is only a suggestion. It may (or may not) come in handy 
>>>> at some point. Thanks. Amr On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William 
>>>> Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote: Fine by me. BD On Jul 19, 2015, at 
>>>> 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: Hi everyone, 
>>>> You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal 
>>>> regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an 
>>>> amendment. can you please review so we can move forward with this 
>>>> issue. the VC chair election is coming soon. Best Regards, Rafik 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Metalitz, Steven 
>>>> <met at msk.com> Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00 Subject: RE: FW: 
>>>> [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all 
>>>> have time for To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> Hi Rafik, 
>>>> This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we 
>>>> are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. We did 
>>>> not understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote 
>>>> against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for 
>>>> the candidate they would like to see least in the role.? We think 
>>>> the same objective could be achieved by a conventional voting 
>>>> procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote getters 
>>>> proceeding to the second round. With that change we are prepared to 
>>>> move toward setting a schedule for the vice chair election (i.e., a 
>>>> deadline for nominations, acceptances, and scheduling of the 
>>>> rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this relatively 
>>>> minor change so we can move to the next step The CSG Executive 
>>>> Committee also wished to convey that while we are prepared to 
>>>> accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last January 
>>>> remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution 
>>>> through rotation of nominations. Looking forward to your response. 
>>>> Steve Metalitz . From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Subject: 
>>>> Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we 
>>>> all have time for Hi Steve, thanks for the email, yes it can be 
>>>> considered as a counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we 
>>>> have to solve before the coming soon VC election. Best, Rafik 
>>>> 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com>: Hi Rafik, 
>>>> I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to 
>>>> Buenos Aires. As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the 
>>>> January intersessional in Washington committed to providing a 
>>>> counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG 
>>>> proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair 
>>>> slot. The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you on 
>>>> whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the 
>>>> counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to 
>>>> receive one. Thanks! Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee 
>>>> From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org 
>>>> [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri 
>>>> Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM To: 
>>>> gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH 
>>>> v-chair election - just what we all have time for Hi, Sometime in 
>>>> February, I created this first version of a simple procedure for 
>>>> NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David 
>>>> was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work 
>>>> just stalled. So here we are, one meeting away from needing to 
>>>> elect a new v-chair. While knowing that no one but me thinks this 
>>>> is a possible way to go, here it is to beat on. 
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing> 
>>>> The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with 
>>>> the URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but 
>>>> more than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me 
>>>> know what email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors 
>>>> would be the ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume 
>>>> to do so - except of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. 
>>>> Note, however, you do not need to have edit priviledge to suggest 
>>>> changes, and I recommend that even those with editor priviledge use 
>>>> suggest mode to suggest changes. avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150806/56955527/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Thu Aug  6 17:25:32 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:25:32 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
Message-ID: <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>

Avri,

I agree with rejecting the "totally unacceptable" but I don't see how a 
vote on preferences
would fail to boot that candidate off the list. The top of the "don't 
like" vote should be the
bottom of the "like vote", or am I missing something other than a chance 
to whack a bad
candidate before going on to select a good one.

Sam

On 06/08/2015 7:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the amendment is unfortunate as id does not really consider the
> proposal that was offered and the advantage of everyone first voicing
> the candidate that would be totally unacceptable - the elephant that is
> always in the room with us.
>
> But since we operate by rough consensus, my opposition should not be
> significant.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 06-Aug-15 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks,
>> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed by CSG?
>> looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz
>> <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>:
>>
>>      Hi ? I also agree
>>
>>      Joy
>>
>>       
>>
>>      *From:*PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>>      <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marilia Maciel
>>      *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
>>      *To:* Rafik Dammak
>>      *Cc:* NCSG-Policy
>>      *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>>      election - just what we all have time for
>>
>>       
>>
>>      Also agree.
>>
>>      Mar?lia
>>
>>       
>>
>>      On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>      <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Hi,
>>
>>       
>>
>>      it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for
>>      candidates for previous elections.
>>
>>       
>>
>>      @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond
>>      soon ,
>>
>>       
>>
>>      Best,
>>
>>       
>>
>>      Rafik
>>
>>       
>>
>>      2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>      <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>      <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>>
>>      sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently
>>      exercise on this issue.
>>      cheers SP
>>
>>      On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>
>>      Hi,
>>
>>      Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview
>>      the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David
>>      prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It
>>      may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
>>
>>      Thanks.
>>
>>      Amr
>>
>>      On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>      <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Fine by me.
>>
>>      BD
>>
>>      On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Hi everyone,
>>
>>      You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri
>>      counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it
>>      and offering an amendment.
>>      can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the
>>      VC chair election is coming soon.
>>
>>      Best Regards,
>>
>>      Rafik
>>
>>      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>      From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>      Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
>>      Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>>      just what we all have time for
>>      To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>      Hi Rafik,
>>
>>       
>>      This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and
>>      we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change.
>>      We did not understand why the first round was structured as a
>>      ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes
>>      for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.?   We
>>      think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional
>>      voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote
>>      getters proceeding to the second round.
>>
>>       
>>      With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule
>>      for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations,
>>      acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if
>>      NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to
>>      the next step
>>
>>       
>>      The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we
>>      are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal
>>      form last January remains on the table in order to provide a
>>      permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
>>
>>       
>>      Looking forward to your response.
>>
>>       
>>      Steve Metalitz
>>
>>       
>>      .
>>
>>      From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>]
>>      Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
>>      To: Metalitz, Steven
>>      Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>>      just what we all have time for
>>
>>       
>>      Hi Steve,
>>
>>       
>>      thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a
>>      counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve
>>      before the coming soon VC election.
>>
>>       
>>      Best,
>>
>>
>>
>>      Rafik
>>
>>       
>>      2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
>>      <mailto:met at msk.com>>:
>>
>>      Hi Rafik,
>>
>>       
>>      I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to
>>      Buenos Aires.
>>
>>       
>>      As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January
>>      intersessional in Washington committed to providing a
>>      counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG
>>      proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair
>>      slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you
>>      on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the
>>      counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to
>>      receive one.  Thanks!
>>
>>       
>>      Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
>>
>>      From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>>      [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri
>>      Doria
>>      Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
>>      To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
>>      Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what
>>      we all have time for
>>
>>       
>>      Hi,
>>
>>      Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple
>>      procedure
>>      for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David
>>      was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just
>>      stalled.
>>
>>      So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair.
>>      While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go,
>>      here it is to beat on.
>>
>>      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>      The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the
>>      URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more
>>      than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what
>>      email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the
>>      ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except
>>      of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do
>>      not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend
>>      that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest
>>      changes.
>>
>>      avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     




From aelsadr  Thu Aug  6 17:30:28 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:30:28 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <11D49A37-77EF-43BC-A39D-620A45E283F9@egyptig.org>

Hi,

That's what I figured as well. Not sure how the rejection vote makes a difference, which is why I am not opposed to the suggested change by the CSG. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Aug 6, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
> 
> Avri,
> 
> I agree with rejecting the "totally unacceptable" but I don't see how a vote on preferences
> would fail to boot that candidate off the list. The top of the "don't like" vote should be the
> bottom of the "like vote", or am I missing something other than a chance to whack a bad
> candidate before going on to select a good one.
> 
> Sam
> 
>> On 06/08/2015 7:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think the amendment is unfortunate as id does not really consider the
>> proposal that was offered and the advantage of everyone first voicing
>> the candidate that would be totally unacceptable - the elephant that is
>> always in the room with us.
>> 
>> But since we operate by rough consensus, my opposition should not be
>> significant.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>>> On 06-Aug-15 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed by CSG?
>>> looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz
>>> <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>:



From avri  Fri Aug  7 03:53:06 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 20:53:06 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <55C40172.5060502@acm.org>

Hi,

Think about it mathematically, you will see that picking preferences
does not necessarily eliminate the most despised.  I argue that the
reason we can never achieve agreement with our sisters in CSG is that we
pick our favorite, who may their most hated, and they pick their
favorite who may our most hated, and then we run the two most hated
against each other.  and then are oh so surprised when we cannot reach
agreement.

So lets get rid of the non starters from the start.

avri

On 06-Aug-15 10:25, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Avri,
>
> I agree with rejecting the "totally unacceptable" but I don't see how
> a vote on preferences
> would fail to boot that candidate off the list. The top of the "don't
> like" vote should be the
> bottom of the "like vote", or am I missing something other than a
> chance to whack a bad
> candidate before going on to select a good one.
>
> Sam
>
> On 06/08/2015 7:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think the amendment is unfortunate as id does not really consider the
>> proposal that was offered and the advantage of everyone first voicing
>> the candidate that would be totally unacceptable - the elephant that is
>> always in the room with us.
>>
>> But since we operate by rough consensus, my opposition should not be
>> significant.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 06-Aug-15 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed by CSG?
>>> looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz
>>> <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>:
>>>
>>>      Hi ? I also agree
>>>
>>>      Joy
>>>
>>>      
>>>      *From:*PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>>>      <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marilia
>>> Maciel
>>>      *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
>>>      *To:* Rafik Dammak
>>>      *Cc:* NCSG-Policy
>>>      *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>>>      election - just what we all have time for
>>>
>>>      
>>>      Also agree.
>>>
>>>      Mar?lia
>>>
>>>      
>>>      On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>      <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Hi,
>>>
>>>      
>>>      it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for
>>>      candidates for previous elections.
>>>
>>>      
>>>      @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond
>>>      soon ,
>>>
>>>      
>>>      Best,
>>>
>>>      
>>>      Rafik
>>>
>>>      
>>>      2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>>      <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>      <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>>>
>>>      sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently
>>>      exercise on this issue.
>>>      cheers SP
>>>
>>>      On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>
>>>      Hi,
>>>
>>>      Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview
>>>      the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David
>>>      prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It
>>>      may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
>>>
>>>      Thanks.
>>>
>>>      Amr
>>>
>>>      On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>      <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Fine by me.
>>>
>>>      BD
>>>
>>>      On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>      You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri
>>>      counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it
>>>      and offering an amendment.
>>>      can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the
>>>      VC chair election is coming soon.
>>>
>>>      Best Regards,
>>>
>>>      Rafik
>>>
>>>      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>      From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>      Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
>>>      Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>>>      just what we all have time for
>>>      To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>>            This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last
>>> week, and
>>>      we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change.
>>>      We did not understand why the first round was structured as a
>>>      ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes
>>>      for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.?   We
>>>      think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional
>>>      voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote
>>>      getters proceeding to the second round.
>>>
>>>            With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a
>>> schedule
>>>      for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations,
>>>      acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if
>>>      NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to
>>>      the next step
>>>
>>>            The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that
>>> while we
>>>      are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal
>>>      form last January remains on the table in order to provide a
>>>      permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
>>>
>>>            Looking forward to your response.
>>>
>>>            Steve Metalitz
>>>
>>>            .
>>>
>>>      From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>]
>>>      Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
>>>      To: Metalitz, Steven
>>>      Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>>>      just what we all have time for
>>>
>>>            Hi Steve,
>>>
>>>            thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a
>>>      counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve
>>>      before the coming soon VC election.
>>>
>>>            Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Rafik
>>>
>>>            2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
>>>      <mailto:met at msk.com>>:
>>>
>>>      Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>>            I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from
>>> travel to
>>>      Buenos Aires.
>>>
>>>            As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January
>>>      intersessional in Washington committed to providing a
>>>      counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG
>>>      proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair
>>>      slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you
>>>      on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the
>>>      counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to
>>>      receive one.  Thanks!
>>>
>>>            Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
>>>
>>>      From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>>>      [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri
>>>      Doria
>>>      Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
>>>      To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
>>>      Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what
>>>      we all have time for
>>>
>>>            Hi,
>>>
>>>      Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple
>>>      procedure
>>>      for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David.
>>> David
>>>      was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work
>>> just
>>>      stalled.
>>>
>>>      So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new
>>> v-chair.
>>>      While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way
>>> to go,
>>>      here it is to beat on.
>>>
>>>     
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>
>>>      The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone
>>> with the
>>>      URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but
>>> more
>>>      than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me
>>> know what
>>>      email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would
>>> be the
>>>      ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so -
>>> except
>>>      of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however,
>>> you do
>>>      not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I
>>> recommend
>>>      that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest
>>>      changes.
>>>
>>>      avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From rafik.dammak  Fri Aug  7 04:21:53 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:21:53 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comments/issues planning/priortization
In-Reply-To: <8C201E76-EE0C-496B-9AE3-B90D8A201AE4@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThn4SRHUSutNJXnuR3VvhyaYu3iiXbEmcjTejUBf0LLbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C1F051.6010406@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThktZ6wH9brcVyvXByPUuVcqve37M5yWZf0sj-kTGyfGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C201E76-EE0C-496B-9AE3-B90D8A201AE4@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=1rjBDc5wa_MT=DmjPy_XYGarHiYroooNpOjENT=gdkQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

thanks for the comments, can I assume that you will take the lead to draft
comment for T&T and .sharp ?

Best.

Rafik

2015-08-06 21:07 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> If there is a need to respond to the open public comment periods regarding
> board actions on translation/transliteration and the policy and
> implementation WG recommendations, I could try to whip something brief up
> on them. At first glance, the action proposed from the board on both seems
> to be consistent with the GNSO WG(s) recommendations, so my impression is
> just a comment supporting the board adopting them.
>
> I also expect to contribute to the comment on the next gen gTLD RDS
> comment soon. Although there may be a few suggestion missing from that
> issues report, it is a largely good one as far as I can tell.
>
> Finally, I think it is important to consider the comment on the suggested
> removal of searchable WHOIS service from the .sharp agreement. I haven?t
> gone through this as thoroughly as I plan to yet, but I do have some
> thoughts so far. I don?t believe it is appropriate for the ICANN board to
> make changes to contractual obligations on contracted parties developed
> through consensus policies without this going through the GNSO. There may
> be some substantive issues to the policies that may require revision, but
> from a procedural perspective, I have a problem with this. This isn?t the
> first time the ICANN board suggest action to relieve BRG registries from
> obligations in the RA without going through the GNSO?s PDP.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Aug 5, 2015, at 8:14 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > Avri,
> >
> > Thanks for the response, waiting for the rest of PC members to respond
> and comment.we need to prioritize and get volunteers for each comment. The
> list of comments will be shared in NCSG list (including links to working
> document)
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > On Aug 5, 2015 8:15 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Avri created the google
> > > doc
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
> >
> > Unless by lead you mean first one to do something, no, was not planning
> > on it.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 04-Aug-15 23:30, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > we got several public comments for coming week and we need to do some
> > > prioritisation and get volunteers to lead the drafting process:
> > >
> > >   * GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy
> > >     Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
> > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en
> >
> > >
> > > Deadline: 10 Aug 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > we made comment for the final report, shall we write something here?
> > >
> > >   * Next-Generation gTLDRegistration Directory Services to Replace
> > >     WHOISPreliminary Issue Report
> > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en>
> > >
> > > Deadline:   6 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > Avri created the google
> > > doc
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
> > >
> > >   * Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
> > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en
> >
> > >
> > > Deadline:  7 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > maybe we should give more attention to this since it may influence
> > > policy making process, we have some members there.
> > >
> > >   * Proposed ICANNBylaws Amendments?GNSOPolicy & Implementation
> > >     Recommendations
> > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en>
> > >
> > > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > we responded to the final report, do we need to add something here?
> > >
> > >   * Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability 2nd
> > >     Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
> > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>
> > >
> > > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > definitely the most critical to handle, I think Matt may volunteer to
> > > be the lead for the drafting the comment?
> > >
> > > Also: IANA stewardship
> > > proposal
> https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/
> > >
> > > Deadline: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.
> > >
> > > we may need to comment for the plan, who want to volunteer
> > >
> > >
> > > I am listing here the rest of comments but I don't think we should
> > > focus on, unless we can find some rationale to do so:
> > >
> > >   * Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .SHARP Registry Agreement
> > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sharp-proposed-amendment-2015-07-30-en
> >
> > >
> > > Deadline:   11 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > >
> > > We can a quick poll about the priority and assigning volunteers for
> > > each comment so we can be sure to get them in time. the working
> > > documents and volunteers will be listed
> > > here
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
> > >
> > > on other hands we have some issues we have to keep discuss and get
> > > involved soon: public interest (probably starting in Dublin meeting),
> > > UDRP review in September, Auctions proceeds in September/October with
> > > the publication of position paper. They are not the most urgent to
> > > discuss for now, but just to have them in mind when time comes.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150807/5447ca6d/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Aug  7 19:48:30 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:48:30 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comments/issues planning/priortization
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=1rjBDc5wa_MT=DmjPy_XYGarHiYroooNpOjENT=gdkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn4SRHUSutNJXnuR3VvhyaYu3iiXbEmcjTejUBf0LLbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C1F051.6010406@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThktZ6wH9brcVyvXByPUuVcqve37M5yWZf0sj-kTGyfGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C201E76-EE0C-496B-9AE3-B90D8A201AE4@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=1rjBDc5wa_MT=DmjPy_XYGarHiYroooNpOjENT=gdkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9C0F4B84-D4D4-47F8-99AE-ED64D48CDE00@egyptig.org>

Yes. I suppose so. I will probably also work on the policy/implementation comment as well as the data/metrics WG initial report.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:21 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> 
> thanks for the comments, can I assume that you will take the lead to draft comment for T&T and .sharp ?
> 
> Best.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-08-06 21:07 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Hi,
> 
> If there is a need to respond to the open public comment periods regarding board actions on translation/transliteration and the policy and implementation WG recommendations, I could try to whip something brief up on them. At first glance, the action proposed from the board on both seems to be consistent with the GNSO WG(s) recommendations, so my impression is just a comment supporting the board adopting them.
> 
> I also expect to contribute to the comment on the next gen gTLD RDS comment soon. Although there may be a few suggestion missing from that issues report, it is a largely good one as far as I can tell.
> 
> Finally, I think it is important to consider the comment on the suggested removal of searchable WHOIS service from the .sharp agreement. I haven?t gone through this as thoroughly as I plan to yet, but I do have some thoughts so far. I don?t believe it is appropriate for the ICANN board to make changes to contractual obligations on contracted parties developed through consensus policies without this going through the GNSO. There may be some substantive issues to the policies that may require revision, but from a procedural perspective, I have a problem with this. This isn?t the first time the ICANN board suggest action to relieve BRG registries from obligations in the RA without going through the GNSO?s PDP.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Aug 5, 2015, at 8:14 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > Avri,
> >
> > Thanks for the response, waiting for the rest of PC members to respond and comment.we need to prioritize and get volunteers for each comment. The list of comments will be shared in NCSG list (including links to working document)
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > On Aug 5, 2015 8:15 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Avri created the google
> > > doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
> >
> > Unless by lead you mean first one to do something, no, was not planning
> > on it.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 04-Aug-15 23:30, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > we got several public comments for coming week and we need to do some
> > > prioritisation and get volunteers to lead the drafting process:
> > >
> > >   * GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy
> > >     Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
> > >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en>
> > >
> > > Deadline: 10 Aug 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > we made comment for the final report, shall we write something here?
> > >
> > >   * Next-Generation gTLDRegistration Directory Services to Replace
> > >     WHOISPreliminary Issue Report
> > >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en>
> > >
> > > Deadline:   6 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > Avri created the google
> > > doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
> > >
> > >   * Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
> > >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en>
> > >
> > > Deadline:  7 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > maybe we should give more attention to this since it may influence
> > > policy making process, we have some members there.
> > >
> > >   * Proposed ICANNBylaws Amendments?GNSOPolicy & Implementation
> > >     Recommendations
> > >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en>
> > >
> > > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > we responded to the final report, do we need to add something here?
> > >
> > >   * Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability 2nd
> > >     Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
> > >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>
> > >
> > > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > > definitely the most critical to handle, I think Matt may volunteer to
> > > be the lead for the drafting the comment?
> > >
> > > Also: IANA stewardship
> > > proposal https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/
> > >
> > > Deadline: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.
> > >
> > > we may need to comment for the plan, who want to volunteer
> > >
> > >
> > > I am listing here the rest of comments but I don't think we should
> > > focus on, unless we can find some rationale to do so:
> > >
> > >   * Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .SHARP Registry Agreement
> > >     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sharp-proposed-amendment-2015-07-30-en>
> > >
> > > Deadline:   11 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > >
> > >
> > > We can a quick poll about the priority and assigning volunteers for
> > > each comment so we can be sure to get them in time. the working
> > > documents and volunteers will be listed
> > > here https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
> > >
> > > on other hands we have some issues we have to keep discuss and get
> > > involved soon: public interest (probably starting in Dublin meeting),
> > > UDRP review in September, Auctions proceeds in September/October with
> > > the publication of position paper. They are not the most urgent to
> > > discuss for now, but just to have them in mind when time comes.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Aug  8 15:30:28 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 14:30:28 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact
	Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations
	for Board Consideration
Message-ID: <36BCB276-7DEC-4024-8B8C-5B803E14CA0E@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Rafik had indicated that we may wish to submit a comment on the ICANN board?s adoption of the recommendations of the GNSO translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. These recommendations have already been unanimously adopted by the GNSO council.

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en

I would recommend something short and simple as an NCSG comment, perhaps like this:

> ?The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) appreciates the work done by the members of the GNSO translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG, as well as the commendable support provided to the working group by ICANN staff.
> 
> The NCSG fully supports the ICANN board adopting these recommendations, and further recommends that the ICANN board instructs staff to coordinate implementation of these policy recommendations with an Implementation Review Team (IRT) as per the GNSO Council motion to adopt this PDP working group?s final report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150624-3).?

We have until August 10th to submit this, which is in a couple of days. Thoughts?

Thanks.

Amr


From lanfran  Sat Aug  8 16:03:22 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 09:03:22 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact
 Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board
 Consideration
In-Reply-To: <36BCB276-7DEC-4024-8B8C-5B803E14CA0E@egyptig.org>
References: <36BCB276-7DEC-4024-8B8C-5B803E14CA0E@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55C5FE1A.7020201@yorku.ca>

I am in full agreement with Amr here. This group worked very hard and 
kept quite focused on the T&T issues.
Both thanking them and supporting the recommendations are the proper 
things to do here.

Sam L.

On 08/08/2015 8:30 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Rafik had indicated that we may wish to submit a comment on the ICANN board?s adoption of the recommendations of the GNSO translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. These recommendations have already been unanimously adopted by the GNSO council.
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en
>
> I would recommend something short and simple as an NCSG comment, perhaps like this:
>
>> ?The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) appreciates the work done by the members of the GNSO translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG, as well as the commendable support provided to the working group by ICANN staff.
>>
>> The NCSG fully supports the ICANN board adopting these recommendations, and further recommends that the ICANN board instructs staff to coordinate implementation of these policy recommendations with an Implementation Review Team (IRT) as per the GNSO Council motion to adopt this PDP working group?s final report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150624-3).?
> We have until August 10th to submit this, which is in a couple of days. Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> 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




From klaus.stoll  Sat Aug  8 16:11:14 2015
From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 09:11:14 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact
 Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board
 Consideration
In-Reply-To: <55C5FE1A.7020201@yorku.ca>
References: <36BCB276-7DEC-4024-8B8C-5B803E14CA0E@egyptig.org>
	<55C5FE1A.7020201@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <55C5FFF2.2090803@gkpfoundation.org>

I second that!

Klaus

On 8/8/2015 9:03 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> I am in full agreement with Amr here. This group worked very hard and 
> kept quite focused on the T&T issues.
> Both thanking them and supporting the recommendations are the proper 
> things to do here.
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 08/08/2015 8:30 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Rafik had indicated that we may wish to submit a comment on the ICANN 
>> board?s adoption of the recommendations of the GNSO translation and 
>> transliteration of contact information PDP WG. These recommendations 
>> have already been unanimously adopted by the GNSO council.
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en 
>>
>>
>> I would recommend something short and simple as an NCSG comment, 
>> perhaps like this:
>>
>>> ?The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) appreciates the work 
>>> done by the members of the GNSO translation and transliteration of 
>>> contact information PDP WG, as well as the commendable support 
>>> provided to the working group by ICANN staff.
>>>
>>> The NCSG fully supports the ICANN board adopting these 
>>> recommendations, and further recommends that the ICANN board 
>>> instructs staff to coordinate implementation of these policy 
>>> recommendations with an Implementation Review Team (IRT) as per the 
>>> GNSO Council motion to adopt this PDP working group?s final report 
>>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150624-3).?
>> We have until August 10th to submit this, which is in a couple of 
>> days. Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>




From rafik.dammak  Mon Aug 10 02:58:51 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:58:51 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact
 Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board
 Consideration
In-Reply-To: <36BCB276-7DEC-4024-8B8C-5B803E14CA0E@egyptig.org>
References: <36BCB276-7DEC-4024-8B8C-5B803E14CA0E@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmVTOhNmmUTsXswFJbugvFhE42CiBW9c=3L8ifV93-2cg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

thanks for this. we have less than 24 hours to submit the comment . I don't
see objections and we can wait for few hours to confirm.

Best,

Rafik

2015-08-08 21:30 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Rafik had indicated that we may wish to submit a comment on the ICANN
> board?s adoption of the recommendations of the GNSO translation and
> transliteration of contact information PDP WG. These recommendations have
> already been unanimously adopted by the GNSO council.
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en
>
> I would recommend something short and simple as an NCSG comment, perhaps
> like this:
>
> > ?The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) appreciates the work done
> by the members of the GNSO translation and transliteration of contact
> information PDP WG, as well as the commendable support provided to the
> working group by ICANN staff.
> >
> > The NCSG fully supports the ICANN board adopting these recommendations,
> and further recommends that the ICANN board instructs staff to coordinate
> implementation of these policy recommendations with an Implementation
> Review Team (IRT) as per the GNSO Council motion to adopt this PDP working
> group?s final report (
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150624-3).?
>
> We have until August 10th to submit this, which is in a couple of days.
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150810/265d0683/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Aug 10 03:47:51 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:47:51 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comments/issues planning/priortization
In-Reply-To: <9C0F4B84-D4D4-47F8-99AE-ED64D48CDE00@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThn4SRHUSutNJXnuR3VvhyaYu3iiXbEmcjTejUBf0LLbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C1F051.6010406@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThktZ6wH9brcVyvXByPUuVcqve37M5yWZf0sj-kTGyfGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C201E76-EE0C-496B-9AE3-B90D8A201AE4@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=1rjBDc5wa_MT=DmjPy_XYGarHiYroooNpOjENT=gdkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9C0F4B84-D4D4-47F8-99AE-ED64D48CDE00@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkLpkU4jkRygwJHJyxiCBHyuZyuvQk0k48rgMPMuLdyvA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

to summarise:

   - GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy
   Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en>

Deadline: 10 Aug 2015 23:59 UTC

statement drafted by Amr, to be submitted this Monday if there is no
objection


   - Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to
   Replace WHOIS Preliminary Issue Report
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en>

Deadline:   6 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing

we still need a volunteer here to lead the drafting


   - Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en>

Deadline:  7 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC

Amr volunteered for the draft


   - Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments?GNSO Policy & Implementation
   Recommendations
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en>

Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC



Amr volunteered for the draft


   - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability 2nd
   Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>

Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC

definitely the most critical to handle, I think Matt may volunteer to be
the lead for the drafting the comment?

Also: IANA stewardship proposal
https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/


Deadline: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.

We need volunteers for both, Matt?


   - Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .SHARP Registry Agreement
   <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sharp-proposed-amendment-2015-07-30-en>

I can assume Amr volunteering for this too

we need more hands and participation here , please consider to volunteer.

we will have an online board where we can track the comments and do better
project management.

Best,

Rafik


2015-08-08 1:48 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Yes. I suppose so. I will probably also work on the policy/implementation
> comment as well as the data/metrics WG initial report.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:21 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Amr,
> >
> > thanks for the comments, can I assume that you will take the lead to
> draft comment for T&T and .sharp ?
> >
> > Best.
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2015-08-06 21:07 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If there is a need to respond to the open public comment periods
> regarding board actions on translation/transliteration and the policy and
> implementation WG recommendations, I could try to whip something brief up
> on them. At first glance, the action proposed from the board on both seems
> to be consistent with the GNSO WG(s) recommendations, so my impression is
> just a comment supporting the board adopting them.
> >
> > I also expect to contribute to the comment on the next gen gTLD RDS
> comment soon. Although there may be a few suggestion missing from that
> issues report, it is a largely good one as far as I can tell.
> >
> > Finally, I think it is important to consider the comment on the
> suggested removal of searchable WHOIS service from the .sharp agreement. I
> haven?t gone through this as thoroughly as I plan to yet, but I do have
> some thoughts so far. I don?t believe it is appropriate for the ICANN board
> to make changes to contractual obligations on contracted parties developed
> through consensus policies without this going through the GNSO. There may
> be some substantive issues to the policies that may require revision, but
> from a procedural perspective, I have a problem with this. This isn?t the
> first time the ICANN board suggest action to relieve BRG registries from
> obligations in the RA without going through the GNSO?s PDP.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > > On Aug 5, 2015, at 8:14 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Avri,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the response, waiting for the rest of PC members to respond
> and comment.we need to prioritize and get volunteers for each comment. The
> list of comments will be shared in NCSG list (including links to working
> document)
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > > On Aug 5, 2015 8:15 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > Avri created the google
> > > > doc
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
> > >
> > > Unless by lead you mean first one to do something, no, was not planning
> > > on it.
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > >
> > > On 04-Aug-15 23:30, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > we got several public comments for coming week and we need to do some
> > > > prioritisation and get volunteers to lead the drafting process:
> > > >
> > > >   * GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
> Policy
> > > >     Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
> > > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en
> >
> > > >
> > > > Deadline: 10 Aug 2015 23:59 UTC
> > > >
> > > > we made comment for the final report, shall we write something here?
> > > >
> > > >   * Next-Generation gTLDRegistration Directory Services to Replace
> > > >     WHOISPreliminary Issue Report
> > > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en>
> > > >
> > > > Deadline:   6 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > > >
> > > > Avri created the google
> > > > doc
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > I can assume that she will be the lead here?
> > > >
> > > >   * Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
> > > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en
> >
> > > >
> > > > Deadline:  7 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > > >
> > > > maybe we should give more attention to this since it may influence
> > > > policy making process, we have some members there.
> > > >
> > > >   * Proposed ICANNBylaws Amendments?GNSOPolicy & Implementation
> > > >     Recommendations
> > > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en>
> > > >
> > > > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > > >
> > > > we responded to the final report, do we need to add something here?
> > > >
> > > >   * Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability
> 2nd
> > > >     Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
> > > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>
> > > >
> > > > Deadline:  12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > > >
> > > > definitely the most critical to handle, I think Matt may volunteer to
> > > > be the lead for the drafting the comment?
> > > >
> > > > Also: IANA stewardship
> > > > proposal
> https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/
> > > >
> > > > Deadline: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.
> > > >
> > > > we may need to comment for the plan, who want to volunteer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am listing here the rest of comments but I don't think we should
> > > > focus on, unless we can find some rationale to do so:
> > > >
> > > >   * Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .SHARP Registry
> Agreement
> > > >     <
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sharp-proposed-amendment-2015-07-30-en
> >
> > > >
> > > > Deadline:   11 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We can a quick poll about the priority and assigning volunteers for
> > > > each comment so we can be sure to get them in time. the working
> > > > documents and volunteers will be listed
> > > > here
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
> > > >
> > > > on other hands we have some issues we have to keep discuss and get
> > > > involved soon: public interest (probably starting in Dublin meeting),
> > > > UDRP review in September, Auctions proceeds in September/October with
> > > > the publication of position paper. They are not the most urgent to
> > > > discuss for now, but just to have them in mind when time comes.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rafik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150810/b1addb4a/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Aug 10 04:24:59 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:24:59 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I understand that we are trying to figure out how election dynamics (maybe
we are dealing with arrow impossibility theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem ?) will work
here but remember :
"The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are
prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last
January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution
through rotation of nominations"

they are proposing rotation for future elections after this year one.

Best,

Rafik

2015-08-07 9:53 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Think about it mathematically, you will see that picking preferences
> does not necessarily eliminate the most despised.  I argue that the
> reason we can never achieve agreement with our sisters in CSG is that we
> pick our favorite, who may their most hated, and they pick their
> favorite who may our most hated, and then we run the two most hated
> against each other.  and then are oh so surprised when we cannot reach
> agreement.
>
> So lets get rid of the non starters from the start.
>
> avri
>
> On 06-Aug-15 10:25, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> > Avri,
> >
> > I agree with rejecting the "totally unacceptable" but I don't see how
> > a vote on preferences
> > would fail to boot that candidate off the list. The top of the "don't
> > like" vote should be the
> > bottom of the "like vote", or am I missing something other than a
> > chance to whack a bad
> > candidate before going on to select a good one.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On 06/08/2015 7:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I think the amendment is unfortunate as id does not really consider the
> >> proposal that was offered and the advantage of everyone first voicing
> >> the candidate that would be totally unacceptable - the elephant that is
> >> always in the room with us.
> >>
> >> But since we operate by rough consensus, my opposition should not be
> >> significant.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06-Aug-15 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed by CSG?
> >>> looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
> >>>
> >>> Rafik
> >>>
> >>> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz
> >>> <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>:
> >>>
> >>>      Hi ? I also agree
> >>>
> >>>      Joy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      *From:*PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
> >>>      <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marilia
> >>> Maciel
> >>>      *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
> >>>      *To:* Rafik Dammak
> >>>      *Cc:* NCSG-Policy
> >>>      *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
> >>>      election - just what we all have time for
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      Also agree.
> >>>
> >>>      Mar?lia
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak
> >>>      <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      Hi,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for
> >>>      candidates for previous elections.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond
> >>>      soon ,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      Best,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      Rafik
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
> >>>      <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> >>>      <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
> >>>
> >>>      sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently
> >>>      exercise on this issue.
> >>>      cheers SP
> >>>
> >>>      On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      Hi,
> >>>
> >>>      Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview
> >>>      the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David
> >>>      prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It
> >>>      may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
> >>>
> >>>      Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>      Amr
> >>>
> >>>      On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> >>>      <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      Fine by me.
> >>>
> >>>      BD
> >>>
> >>>      On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>>      You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri
> >>>      counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it
> >>>      and offering an amendment.
> >>>      can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the
> >>>      VC chair election is coming soon.
> >>>
> >>>      Best Regards,
> >>>
> >>>      Rafik
> >>>
> >>>      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>      From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
> >>>      Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
> >>>      Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
> >>>      just what we all have time for
> >>>      To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      Hi Rafik,
> >>>
> >>>            This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last
> >>> week, and
> >>>      we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change.
> >>>      We did not understand why the first round was structured as a
> >>>      ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes
> >>>      for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.?   We
> >>>      think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional
> >>>      voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote
> >>>      getters proceeding to the second round.
> >>>
> >>>            With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a
> >>> schedule
> >>>      for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations,
> >>>      acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if
> >>>      NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to
> >>>      the next step
> >>>
> >>>            The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that
> >>> while we
> >>>      are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal
> >>>      form last January remains on the table in order to provide a
> >>>      permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
> >>>
> >>>            Looking forward to your response.
> >>>
> >>>            Steve Metalitz
> >>>
> >>>            .
> >>>
> >>>      From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>]
> >>>      Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
> >>>      To: Metalitz, Steven
> >>>      Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
> >>>      just what we all have time for
> >>>
> >>>            Hi Steve,
> >>>
> >>>            thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a
> >>>      counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve
> >>>      before the coming soon VC election.
> >>>
> >>>            Best,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      Rafik
> >>>
> >>>            2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
> >>>      <mailto:met at msk.com>>:
> >>>
> >>>      Hi Rafik,
> >>>
> >>>            I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from
> >>> travel to
> >>>      Buenos Aires.
> >>>
> >>>            As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January
> >>>      intersessional in Washington committed to providing a
> >>>      counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG
> >>>      proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair
> >>>      slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you
> >>>      on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the
> >>>      counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to
> >>>      receive one.  Thanks!
> >>>
> >>>            Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
> >>>
> >>>      From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
> >>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
> >>>      [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
> >>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of
> Avri
> >>>      Doria
> >>>      Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
> >>>      To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
> >>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
> >>>      Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what
> >>>      we all have time for
> >>>
> >>>            Hi,
> >>>
> >>>      Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple
> >>>      procedure
> >>>      for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David.
> >>> David
> >>>      was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work
> >>> just
> >>>      stalled.
> >>>
> >>>      So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new
> >>> v-chair.
> >>>      While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way
> >>> to go,
> >>>      here it is to beat on.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> >>>
> >>>      The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone
> >>> with the
> >>>      URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but
> >>> more
> >>>      than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me
> >>> know what
> >>>      email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would
> >>> be the
> >>>      ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so -
> >>> except
> >>>      of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however,
> >>> you do
> >>>      not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I
> >>> recommend
> >>>      that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest
> >>>      changes.
> >>>
> >>>      avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150810/b6a6ea4d/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Mon Aug 10 05:01:46 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:01:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact
 Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board
 Consideration
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmVTOhNmmUTsXswFJbugvFhE42CiBW9c=3L8ifV93-2cg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <36BCB276-7DEC-4024-8B8C-5B803E14CA0E@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmVTOhNmmUTsXswFJbugvFhE42CiBW9c=3L8ifV93-2cg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C8060A.8030301@acm.org>

seems fine to me.

avri


On 09-Aug-15 19:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Amr,
>
> thanks for this. we have less than 24 hours to submit the comment . I
> don't see objections and we can wait for few hours to confirm.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-08-08 21:30 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Rafik had indicated that we may wish to submit a comment on the
>     ICANN board?s adoption of the recommendations of the GNSO
>     translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG.
>     These recommendations have already been unanimously adopted by the
>     GNSO council.
>
>     https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en
>
>     I would recommend something short and simple as an NCSG comment,
>     perhaps like this:
>
>     > ?The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) appreciates the
>     work done by the members of the GNSO translation and
>     transliteration of contact information PDP WG, as well as the
>     commendable support provided to the working group by ICANN staff.
>     >
>     > The NCSG fully supports the ICANN board adopting these
>     recommendations, and further recommends that the ICANN board
>     instructs staff to coordinate implementation of these policy
>     recommendations with an Implementation Review Team (IRT) as per
>     the GNSO Council motion to adopt this PDP working group?s final
>     report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150624-3).
>     <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150624-3%29.>?
>
>     We have until August 10th to submit this, which is in a couple of
>     days. Thoughts?
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From avri  Mon Aug 10 05:04:14 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:04:14 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
	<55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>

Hi,

I do not recommend alternation.  Did not work last time and I do not see
what has changed to make it work this time.
Remember what they did to Wendy when we tried to have her stand in an
alternative year.

avri


On 09-Aug-15 21:24, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I understand that we are trying to figure out how election dynamics
> (maybe we are dealing with arrow impossibility theorem
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem ?) will
> work here but remember :
> "The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are
> prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last
> January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution
> through rotation of nominations"
>
> they are proposing rotation for future elections after this year one.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-08-07 9:53 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Think about it mathematically, you will see that picking preferences
>     does not necessarily eliminate the most despised.  I argue that the
>     reason we can never achieve agreement with our sisters in CSG is
>     that we
>     pick our favorite, who may their most hated, and they pick their
>     favorite who may our most hated, and then we run the two most hated
>     against each other.  and then are oh so surprised when we cannot reach
>     agreement.
>
>     So lets get rid of the non starters from the start.
>
>     avri
>
>     On 06-Aug-15 10:25, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>     > Avri,
>     >
>     > I agree with rejecting the "totally unacceptable" but I don't
>     see how
>     > a vote on preferences
>     > would fail to boot that candidate off the list. The top of the
>     "don't
>     > like" vote should be the
>     > bottom of the "like vote", or am I missing something other than a
>     > chance to whack a bad
>     > candidate before going on to select a good one.
>     >
>     > Sam
>     >
>     > On 06/08/2015 7:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> I think the amendment is unfortunate as id does not really
>     consider the
>     >> proposal that was offered and the advantage of everyone first
>     voicing
>     >> the candidate that would be totally unacceptable - the elephant
>     that is
>     >> always in the room with us.
>     >>
>     >> But since we operate by rough consensus, my opposition should
>     not be
>     >> significant.
>     >>
>     >> avri
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On 06-Aug-15 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>     >>> Hi,
>     >>>
>     >>> thanks,
>     >>> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed
>     by CSG?
>     >>> looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
>     >>>
>     >>> Rafik
>     >>>
>     >>> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat
>     <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
>     >>> <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>>:
>     >>>
>     >>>      Hi ? I also agree
>     >>>
>     >>>      Joy
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      *From:*PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>     <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>
>     >>>      <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>     <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>>] *On Behalf Of *Marilia
>     >>> Maciel
>     >>>      *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
>     >>>      *To:* Rafik Dammak
>     >>>      *Cc:* NCSG-Policy
>     >>>      *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>     >>>      election - just what we all have time for
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      Also agree.
>     >>>
>     >>>      Mar?lia
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak
>     >>>      <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
>     wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>      Hi,
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for
>     >>>      candidates for previous elections.
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should
>     respond
>     >>>      soon ,
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      Best,
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      Rafik
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>     >>>      <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>     >>>      <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>>:
>     >>>
>     >>>      sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently
>     >>>      exercise on this issue.
>     >>>      cheers SP
>     >>>
>     >>>      On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>      Hi,
>     >>>
>     >>>      Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to
>     interview
>     >>>      the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call
>     with David
>     >>>      prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a
>     suggestion. It
>     >>>      may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
>     >>>
>     >>>      Thanks.
>     >>>
>     >>>      Amr
>     >>>
>     >>>      On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake
>     <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>     >>>      <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>      Fine by me.
>     >>>
>     >>>      BD
>     >>>
>     >>>      On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>     >>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>      Hi everyone,
>     >>>
>     >>>      You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri
>     >>>      counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will
>     accept it
>     >>>      and offering an amendment.
>     >>>      can you please review so we can move forward with this
>     issue. the
>     >>>      VC chair election is coming soon.
>     >>>
>     >>>      Best Regards,
>     >>>
>     >>>      Rafik
>     >>>
>     >>>      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     >>>      From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>     <mailto:met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>>
>     >>>      Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
>     >>>      Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>     election -
>     >>>      just what we all have time for
>     >>>      To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>     >>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      Hi Rafik,
>     >>>
>     >>>            This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last
>     >>> week, and
>     >>>      we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one
>     change.
>     >>>      We did not understand why the first round was structured as a
>     >>>      ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where
>     everyone votes
>     >>>      for the candidate they would like to see least in the
>     role.?   We
>     >>>      think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional
>     >>>      voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a
>     tie) vote
>     >>>      getters proceeding to the second round.
>     >>>
>     >>>            With that change we are prepared to move toward
>     setting a
>     >>> schedule
>     >>>      for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for
>     nominations,
>     >>>      acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me
>     know if
>     >>>      NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can
>     move to
>     >>>      the next step
>     >>>
>     >>>            The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that
>     >>> while we
>     >>>      are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our
>     proposal
>     >>>      form last January remains on the table in order to provide a
>     >>>      permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
>     >>>
>     >>>            Looking forward to your response.
>     >>>
>     >>>            Steve Metalitz
>     >>>
>     >>>            .
>     >>>
>     >>>      From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>     >>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>]
>     >>>      Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
>     >>>      To: Metalitz, Steven
>     >>>      Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>     election -
>     >>>      just what we all have time for
>     >>>
>     >>>            Hi Steve,
>     >>>
>     >>>            thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a
>     >>>      counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve
>     >>>      before the coming soon VC election.
>     >>>
>     >>>            Best,
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>      Rafik
>     >>>
>     >>>            2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven
>     <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>     >>>      <mailto:met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>>:
>     >>>
>     >>>      Hi Rafik,
>     >>>
>     >>>            I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from
>     >>> travel to
>     >>>      Buenos Aires.
>     >>>
>     >>>            As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January
>     >>>      intersessional in Washington committed to providing a
>     >>>      counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to
>     the CSG
>     >>>      proposal on election procedures going forward for the
>     vice chair
>     >>>      slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check
>     with you
>     >>>      on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the
>     >>>      counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could
>     expect to
>     >>>      receive one.  Thanks!
>     >>>
>     >>>            Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
>     >>>
>     >>>      From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>     >>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>>
>     >>>      [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>     >>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Avri
>     >>>      Doria
>     >>>      Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
>     >>>      To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
>     >>>      <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>>
>     >>>      Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>     just what
>     >>>      we all have time for
>     >>>
>     >>>            Hi,
>     >>>
>     >>>      Sometime in February, I created this first version of a
>     simple
>     >>>      procedure
>     >>>      for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and
>     David.
>     >>> David
>     >>>      was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and
>     further work
>     >>> just
>     >>>      stalled.
>     >>>
>     >>>      So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new
>     >>> v-chair.
>     >>>      While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a
>     possible way
>     >>> to go,
>     >>>      here it is to beat on.
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing>
>     >>>
>     >>>      The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone
>     >>> with the
>     >>>      URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only
>     editors, but
>     >>> more
>     >>>      than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me
>     >>> know what
>     >>>      email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would
>     >>> be the
>     >>>      ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to
>     do so -
>     >>> except
>     >>>      of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note,
>     however,
>     >>> you do
>     >>>      not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I
>     >>> recommend
>     >>>      that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode
>     to suggest
>     >>>      changes.
>     >>>
>     >>>      avri
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>     ---
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Mon Aug 10 12:11:04 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:11:04 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comments/issues planning/priortization
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkLpkU4jkRygwJHJyxiCBHyuZyuvQk0k48rgMPMuLdyvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn4SRHUSutNJXnuR3VvhyaYu3iiXbEmcjTejUBf0LLbBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C1F051.6010406@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThktZ6wH9brcVyvXByPUuVcqve37M5yWZf0sj-kTGyfGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C201E76-EE0C-496B-9AE3-B90D8A201AE4@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=1rjBDc5wa_MT=DmjPy_XYGarHiYroooNpOjENT=gdkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9C0F4B84-D4D4-47F8-99AE-ED64D48CDE00@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThkLpkU4jkRygwJHJyxiCBHyuZyuvQk0k48rgMPMuLdyvA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A97F0F0F-C0F0-4AFE-975D-24A731CA2A0A@egyptig.org>

Hi

> On Aug 10, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

[SNIP]

> 	? Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .SHARP Registry Agreement
> I can assume Amr volunteering for this too

Yup. I?d like to try to take a stab at this.

Thanks.

Amr


From aelsadr  Mon Aug 10 12:17:27 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:17:27 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I haven?t been paying attention to council VC elections long enough to realise we had a problem in the past. I?m assuming that the last time that did not work and what they did with Wendy?s nomination are the same thing. Could someone please fill me in?

If they give us trouble with rotation of nominations, maybe we can try to only agree to this if certain conditions are also committed to by both SGs. Conditions that may mitigate whatever difficulties we have experienced in the past?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 10, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I do not recommend alternation.  Did not work last time and I do not see
> what has changed to make it work this time.
> Remember what they did to Wendy when we tried to have her stand in an
> alternative year.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 09-Aug-15 21:24, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I understand that we are trying to figure out how election dynamics
>> (maybe we are dealing with arrow impossibility theorem
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem ?) will
>> work here but remember :
>> "The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are
>> prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last
>> January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution
>> through rotation of nominations"
>> 
>> they are proposing rotation for future elections after this year one.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2015-08-07 9:53 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>> 
>>    Hi,
>> 
>>    Think about it mathematically, you will see that picking preferences
>>    does not necessarily eliminate the most despised.  I argue that the
>>    reason we can never achieve agreement with our sisters in CSG is
>>    that we
>>    pick our favorite, who may their most hated, and they pick their
>>    favorite who may our most hated, and then we run the two most hated
>>    against each other.  and then are oh so surprised when we cannot reach
>>    agreement.
>> 
>>    So lets get rid of the non starters from the start.
>> 
>>    avri
>> 
>>    On 06-Aug-15 10:25, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>>> Avri,
>>> 
>>> I agree with rejecting the "totally unacceptable" but I don't
>>    see how
>>> a vote on preferences
>>> would fail to boot that candidate off the list. The top of the
>>    "don't
>>> like" vote should be the
>>> bottom of the "like vote", or am I missing something other than a
>>> chance to whack a bad
>>> candidate before going on to select a good one.
>>> 
>>> Sam
>>> 
>>> On 06/08/2015 7:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I think the amendment is unfortunate as id does not really
>>    consider the
>>>> proposal that was offered and the advantage of everyone first
>>    voicing
>>>> the candidate that would be totally unacceptable - the elephant
>>    that is
>>>> always in the room with us.
>>>> 
>>>> But since we operate by rough consensus, my opposition should
>>    not be
>>>> significant.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 06-Aug-15 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed
>>    by CSG?
>>>>> looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat
>>    <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
>>>>> <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Hi ? I also agree
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Joy
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     *From:*PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>>    <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>     <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>>    <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>>] *On Behalf Of *Marilia
>>>>> Maciel
>>>>>     *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
>>>>>     *To:* Rafik Dammak
>>>>>     *Cc:* NCSG-Policy
>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>>>>>     election - just what we all have time for
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Also agree.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Mar?lia
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
>>    wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for
>>>>>     candidates for previous elections.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should
>>    respond
>>>>>     soon ,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>    <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>    <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently
>>>>>     exercise on this issue.
>>>>>     cheers SP
>>>>> 
>>>>>     On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to
>>    interview
>>>>>     the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call
>>    with David
>>>>>     prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a
>>    suggestion. It
>>>>>     may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>>     On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake
>>    <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>>>>     <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Fine by me.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     BD
>>>>> 
>>>>>     On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>>     You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri
>>>>>     counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will
>>    accept it
>>>>>     and offering an amendment.
>>>>>     can you please review so we can move forward with this
>>    issue. the
>>>>>     VC chair election is coming soon.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Best Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>     From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>>    <mailto:met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>>
>>>>>     Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
>>>>>     Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>>    election -
>>>>>     just what we all have time for
>>>>>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>> 
>>>>>           This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last
>>>>> week, and
>>>>>     we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one
>>    change.
>>>>>     We did not understand why the first round was structured as a
>>>>>     ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where
>>    everyone votes
>>>>>     for the candidate they would like to see least in the
>>    role.?   We
>>>>>     think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional
>>>>>     voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a
>>    tie) vote
>>>>>     getters proceeding to the second round.
>>>>> 
>>>>>           With that change we are prepared to move toward
>>    setting a
>>>>> schedule
>>>>>     for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for
>>    nominations,
>>>>>     acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me
>>    know if
>>>>>     NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can
>>    move to
>>>>>     the next step
>>>>> 
>>>>>           The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that
>>>>> while we
>>>>>     are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our
>>    proposal
>>>>>     form last January remains on the table in order to provide a
>>>>>     permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
>>>>> 
>>>>>           Looking forward to your response.
>>>>> 
>>>>>           Steve Metalitz
>>>>> 
>>>>>           .
>>>>> 
>>>>>     From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>]
>>>>>     Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
>>>>>     To: Metalitz, Steven
>>>>>     Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>>    election -
>>>>>     just what we all have time for
>>>>> 
>>>>>           Hi Steve,
>>>>> 
>>>>>           thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a
>>>>>     counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve
>>>>>     before the coming soon VC election.
>>>>> 
>>>>>           Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>>           2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven
>>    <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>>>>>     <mailto:met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>> 
>>>>>           I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from
>>>>> travel to
>>>>>     Buenos Aires.
>>>>> 
>>>>>           As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January
>>>>>     intersessional in Washington committed to providing a
>>>>>     counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to
>>    the CSG
>>>>>     proposal on election procedures going forward for the
>>    vice chair
>>>>>     slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check
>>    with you
>>>>>     on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the
>>>>>     counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could
>>    expect to
>>>>>     receive one.  Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>>           Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
>>>>> 
>>>>>     From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>>
>>>>>     [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Avri
>>>>>     Doria
>>>>>     Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
>>>>>     To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
>>>>>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>>
>>>>>     Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>>    just what
>>>>>     we all have time for
>>>>> 
>>>>>           Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Sometime in February, I created this first version of a
>>    simple
>>>>>     procedure
>>>>>     for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and
>>    David.
>>>>> David
>>>>>     was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and
>>    further work
>>>>> just
>>>>>     stalled.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new
>>>>> v-chair.
>>>>>     While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a
>>    possible way
>>>>> to go,
>>>>>     here it is to beat on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>> 
>>>>>     The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone
>>>>> with the
>>>>>     URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only
>>    editors, but
>>>>> more
>>>>>     than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me
>>>>> know what
>>>>>     email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would
>>>>> be the
>>>>>     ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to
>>    do so -
>>>>> except
>>>>>     of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note,
>>    however,
>>>>> you do
>>>>>     not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I
>>>>> recommend
>>>>>     that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode
>>    to suggest
>>>>>     changes.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    ---
>>    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>    https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> 
>> 
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Mon Aug 10 16:25:09 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:25:09 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>

Hi,

They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
anodyne candidate the year after.

BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
reasonable candidate to propose?

avri




On 10-Aug-15 05:17, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven?t been paying attention to council VC elections long enough to realise we had a problem in the past. I?m assuming that the last time that did not work and what they did with Wendy?s nomination are the same thing. Could someone please fill me in?
>
> If they give us trouble with rotation of nominations, maybe we can try to only agree to this if certain conditions are also committed to by both SGs. Conditions that may mitigate whatever difficulties we have experienced in the past?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I do not recommend alternation.  Did not work last time and I do not see
>> what has changed to make it work this time.
>> Remember what they did to Wendy when we tried to have her stand in an
>> alternative year.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 09-Aug-15 21:24, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I understand that we are trying to figure out how election dynamics
>>> (maybe we are dealing with arrow impossibility theorem
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem ?) will
>>> work here but remember :
>>> "The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are
>>> prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last
>>> January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution
>>> through rotation of nominations"
>>>
>>> they are proposing rotation for future elections after this year one.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2015-08-07 9:53 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>>
>>>    Hi,
>>>
>>>    Think about it mathematically, you will see that picking preferences
>>>    does not necessarily eliminate the most despised.  I argue that the
>>>    reason we can never achieve agreement with our sisters in CSG is
>>>    that we
>>>    pick our favorite, who may their most hated, and they pick their
>>>    favorite who may our most hated, and then we run the two most hated
>>>    against each other.  and then are oh so surprised when we cannot reach
>>>    agreement.
>>>
>>>    So lets get rid of the non starters from the start.
>>>
>>>    avri
>>>
>>>    On 06-Aug-15 10:25, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>>>> Avri,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with rejecting the "totally unacceptable" but I don't
>>>    see how
>>>> a vote on preferences
>>>> would fail to boot that candidate off the list. The top of the
>>>    "don't
>>>> like" vote should be the
>>>> bottom of the "like vote", or am I missing something other than a
>>>> chance to whack a bad
>>>> candidate before going on to select a good one.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>> On 06/08/2015 7:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the amendment is unfortunate as id does not really
>>>    consider the
>>>>> proposal that was offered and the advantage of everyone first
>>>    voicing
>>>>> the candidate that would be totally unacceptable - the elephant
>>>    that is
>>>>> always in the room with us.
>>>>>
>>>>> But since we operate by rough consensus, my opposition should
>>>    not be
>>>>> significant.
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06-Aug-15 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> so I can assume that we are ok with small amendment proposed
>>>    by CSG?
>>>>>> looking to hear from other so I can respond to Steve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-07-26 6:10 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat
>>>    <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
>>>>>> <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz <mailto:joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Hi ? I also agree
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Joy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     *From:*PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>>>    <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>     <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>>>    <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>>] *On Behalf Of *Marilia
>>>>>> Maciel
>>>>>>     *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m.
>>>>>>     *To:* Rafik Dammak
>>>>>>     *Cc:* NCSG-Policy
>>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>>>>>>     election - just what we all have time for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Also agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Mar?lia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for
>>>>>>     candidates for previous elections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should
>>>    respond
>>>>>>     soon ,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>    <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>    <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>>:
>>>>>>     sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently
>>>>>>     exercise on this issue.
>>>>>>     cheers SP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to
>>>    interview
>>>>>>     the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call
>>>    with David
>>>>>>     prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a
>>>    suggestion. It
>>>>>>     may (or may not) come in handy at some point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Amr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake
>>>    <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>>>>>     <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Fine by me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     BD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>>     Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri
>>>>>>     counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will
>>>    accept it
>>>>>>     and offering an amendment.
>>>>>>     can you please review so we can move forward with this
>>>    issue. the
>>>>>>     VC chair election is coming soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Best Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>     From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>>>    <mailto:met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>>
>>>>>>     Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00
>>>>>>     Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>>>    election -
>>>>>>     just what we all have time for
>>>>>>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last
>>>>>> week, and
>>>>>>     we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one
>>>    change.
>>>>>>     We did not understand why the first round was structured as a
>>>>>>     ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where
>>>    everyone votes
>>>>>>     for the candidate they would like to see least in the
>>>    role.?   We
>>>>>>     think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional
>>>>>>     voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a
>>>    tie) vote
>>>>>>     getters proceeding to the second round.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           With that change we are prepared to move toward
>>>    setting a
>>>>>> schedule
>>>>>>     for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for
>>>    nominations,
>>>>>>     acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me
>>>    know if
>>>>>>     NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can
>>>    move to
>>>>>>     the next step
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that
>>>>>> while we
>>>>>>     are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our
>>>    proposal
>>>>>>     form last January remains on the table in order to provide a
>>>>>>     permanent solution through rotation of nominations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Looking forward to your response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Steve Metalitz
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>]
>>>>>>     Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM
>>>>>>     To: Metalitz, Steven
>>>>>>     Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair
>>>    election -
>>>>>>     just what we all have time for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Hi Steve,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a
>>>>>>     counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve
>>>>>>     before the coming soon VC election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven
>>>    <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>>>>>>     <mailto:met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from
>>>>>> travel to
>>>>>>     Buenos Aires.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January
>>>>>>     intersessional in Washington committed to providing a
>>>>>>     counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to
>>>    the CSG
>>>>>>     proposal on election procedures going forward for the
>>>    vice chair
>>>>>>     slot.  The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check
>>>    with you
>>>>>>     on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the
>>>>>>     counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could
>>>    expect to
>>>>>>     receive one.  Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>>
>>>>>>     [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org
>>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Avri
>>>>>>     Doria
>>>>>>     Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM
>>>>>>     To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>
>>>>>>     <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org
>>>    <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org>>
>>>>>>     Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election -
>>>    just what
>>>>>>     we all have time for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Sometime in February, I created this first version of a
>>>    simple
>>>>>>     procedure
>>>>>>     for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and
>>>    David.
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>     was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and
>>>    further work
>>>>>> just
>>>>>>     stalled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new
>>>>>> v-chair.
>>>>>>     While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a
>>>    possible way
>>>>>> to go,
>>>>>>     here it is to beat on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>     The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone
>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>     URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only
>>>    editors, but
>>>>>> more
>>>>>>     than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me
>>>>>> know what
>>>>>>     email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would
>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>     ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to
>>>    do so -
>>>>>> except
>>>>>>     of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note,
>>>    however,
>>>>>> you do
>>>>>>     not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I
>>>>>> recommend
>>>>>>     that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode
>>>    to suggest
>>>>>>     changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>    ---
>>>    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>    https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Mon Aug 10 16:54:39 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:54:39 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C478F4@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
Message-ID: <BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>

Hi,

> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
> anodyne candidate the year after.

OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.

> 
> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
> reasonable candidate to propose?

That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.

If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.

Thanks.

Amr


From avri  Mon Aug 10 16:49:24 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:49:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>

Hi,

I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
chair and think she is good at it.

At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
people as their reps.

avri

On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
>> anodyne candidate the year after.
> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>
>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
>> reasonable candidate to propose?
> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>
> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Mon Aug 10 20:55:27 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:55:27 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThnnAUsrTN63ZZAKJQCUanzPu5pf0sDES=xozF1bEs5L4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>

Yeah?, like I said, I like Heather a lot too. I?ve also attended a GNSO WG newcomers webinar that she presented in, and she really does know the PDP manual backwards.

Which is kinda why I was surprised she took a strange position on the motion to request an issues report for the new gTLD round (and the suggested amendment to that motion). It seemed inconsistent with what I believe her to know about what issue reports are, and what should go into them.

My concern is that in situations like this (or others), being an IPC rep with a special interest in how the GNSO is managed will trump the individual councillor?s knowledge of what may or may not be the best course of action to take.

I may be reading too much into this, but just sayin?.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
> chair and think she is good at it.
> 
> At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
> people as their reps.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
>>> anodyne candidate the year after.
>> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>> 
>>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
>>> reasonable candidate to propose?
>> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>> 
>> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 




From avri  Mon Aug 10 22:36:06 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:36:06 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55C8FD26.4060009@acm.org>

Hi,

I guess i trust her ability to be neutral.  And while I know that may a
mortal flaw in an NCSG representative, I think she is as trustworthy as
anyone who might be electable from our house.

avri


On 10-Aug-15 13:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Yeah?, like I said, I like Heather a lot too. I?ve also attended a GNSO WG newcomers webinar that she presented in, and she really does know the PDP manual backwards.
>
> Which is kinda why I was surprised she took a strange position on the motion to request an issues report for the new gTLD round (and the suggested amendment to that motion). It seemed inconsistent with what I believe her to know about what issue reports are, and what should go into them.
>
> My concern is that in situations like this (or others), being an IPC rep with a special interest in how the GNSO is managed will trump the individual councillor?s knowledge of what may or may not be the best course of action to take.
>
> I may be reading too much into this, but just sayin?.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
>> chair and think she is good at it.
>>
>> At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
>> people as their reps.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>>>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
>>>> anodyne candidate the year after.
>>> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>>>
>>>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
>>>> reasonable candidate to propose?
>>> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>>>
>>> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From stephanie.perrin  Mon Aug 10 23:56:19 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:56:19 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
	<55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>

I agree, for what it is worth.  I think it is going to be especially 
difficult for her, as a relative newcomer, to stay neutral.  However I 
do agree with Avri's assessment and if it came down to having Heather, 
we could do a lot worse.  and given that risk we need to ponder any 
rejection of her very carefully.
I also factor in the fact that she is very strong, and a lawyer.  If I 
am going to pick a fight with a potentially non-neutral Chair, I would 
prefer a weaker one, if you follow my somewhat convoluted logic.
Cheers Steph

On 2015-08-10 13:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Yeah?, like I said, I like Heather a lot too. I?ve also attended a GNSO WG newcomers webinar that she presented in, and she really does know the PDP manual backwards.
>
> Which is kinda why I was surprised she took a strange position on the motion to request an issues report for the new gTLD round (and the suggested amendment to that motion). It seemed inconsistent with what I believe her to know about what issue reports are, and what should go into them.
>
> My concern is that in situations like this (or others), being an IPC rep with a special interest in how the GNSO is managed will trump the individual councillor?s knowledge of what may or may not be the best course of action to take.
>
> I may be reading too much into this, but just sayin?.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
>> chair and think she is good at it.
>>
>> At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
>> people as their reps.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>>>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
>>>> anodyne candidate the year after.
>>> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>>>
>>>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
>>>> reasonable candidate to propose?
>>> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>>>
>>> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From wjdrake  Tue Aug 11 09:59:39 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:59:39 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>

What about Tony Holmes, who has always been a straight shooter, neutral and friendly to us?  Too retired-feeling for your tastes?

I don?t know Heather well and yes she did seem reasonable but given all the history with IPC I do have trouble getting my head around this. It is absolutely inconceivable that they in turn would ever support a NCSG person for chair?

BD

> On Aug 10, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> I agree, for what it is worth.  I think it is going to be especially difficult for her, as a relative newcomer, to stay neutral.  However I do agree with Avri's assessment and if it came down to having Heather, we could do a lot worse.  and given that risk we need to ponder any rejection of her very carefully.
> I also factor in the fact that she is very strong, and a lawyer.  If I am going to pick a fight with a potentially non-neutral Chair, I would prefer a weaker one, if you follow my somewhat convoluted logic.
> Cheers Steph
> 
> On 2015-08-10 13:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Yeah?, like I said, I like Heather a lot too. I?ve also attended a GNSO WG newcomers webinar that she presented in, and she really does know the PDP manual backwards.
>> 
>> Which is kinda why I was surprised she took a strange position on the motion to request an issues report for the new gTLD round (and the suggested amendment to that motion). It seemed inconsistent with what I believe her to know about what issue reports are, and what should go into them.
>> 
>> My concern is that in situations like this (or others), being an IPC rep with a special interest in how the GNSO is managed will trump the individual councillor?s knowledge of what may or may not be the best course of action to take.
>> 
>> I may be reading too much into this, but just sayin?.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
>>> chair and think she is good at it.
>>> 
>>> At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
>>> people as their reps.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>>>>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
>>>>> anodyne candidate the year after.
>>>> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
>>>>> reasonable candidate to propose?
>>>> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>>>> 
>>>> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150811/054020a5/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Aug 11 10:35:07 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:35:07 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BC2A0ED3-4A55-47C4-93C1-5856992ADE57@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Tony seems like a reasonable candidate to me. I think he?s up for reelection. If he gets another term, and is willing to serve as Chair, I wouldn?t mind exploring that option.

I also wouldn?t write off a CPH candidate either. I guess it depends on who it is. I?m sure there are potentials from the other house who I would find appealing. I?ve always really liked Volker, although I doubt he would want the job.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 11, 2015, at 8:59 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What about Tony Holmes, who has always been a straight shooter, neutral and friendly to us?  Too retired-feeling for your tastes?
> 
> I don?t know Heather well and yes she did seem reasonable but given all the history with IPC I do have trouble getting my head around this. It is absolutely inconceivable that they in turn would ever support a NCSG person for chair?
> 
> BD
> 
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> I agree, for what it is worth.  I think it is going to be especially difficult for her, as a relative newcomer, to stay neutral.  However I do agree with Avri's assessment and if it came down to having Heather, we could do a lot worse.  and given that risk we need to ponder any rejection of her very carefully.
>> I also factor in the fact that she is very strong, and a lawyer.  If I am going to pick a fight with a potentially non-neutral Chair, I would prefer a weaker one, if you follow my somewhat convoluted logic.
>> Cheers Steph
>> 
>> On 2015-08-10 13:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Yeah?, like I said, I like Heather a lot too. I?ve also attended a GNSO WG newcomers webinar that she presented in, and she really does know the PDP manual backwards.
>>> 
>>> Which is kinda why I was surprised she took a strange position on the motion to request an issues report for the new gTLD round (and the suggested amendment to that motion). It seemed inconsistent with what I believe her to know about what issue reports are, and what should go into them.
>>> 
>>> My concern is that in situations like this (or others), being an IPC rep with a special interest in how the GNSO is managed will trump the individual councillor?s knowledge of what may or may not be the best course of action to take.
>>> 
>>> I may be reading too much into this, but just sayin?.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
>>>> chair and think she is good at it.
>>>> 
>>>> At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
>>>> people as their reps.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>>>>>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
>>>>>> anodyne candidate the year after.
>>>>> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
>>>>>> reasonable candidate to propose?
>>>>> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
> 




From egmorris1  Tue Aug 11 11:32:04 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:32:04 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>

Tony was just a fill in this year and, as I understand it, is not interested in Chair and may not be returning to Council next year.

I like Heather personally and the idea of taking away one of two IPC Council voices during the upcoming debates (Chairs have to at least pretend to be neutral) is appealing but I feel Heather is far too narrow in terms of personality and perspective to be an effective Council leader in this time of change. I'd encourage people to wait for elections in the other House to see who exactly will be on Council next year. I'm expecting someone will emerge who both would be willing to be a candidate and I believe would be more than acceptable to most, if not all, of us but it's premature to name him or her on a public list. I see no reason to prefer someone from the NCPH out of House loyalty: the day one of our members is acceptable to the IPC as Chair is the day we can all go home because Hell will hath frozen over and the end is near.

That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than a few CSG and CPH members. Although I certainly wouldn't wish the responsibilities of the job on any sane and personable individual if he were willing to stand as a placeholder he would find some support elsewhere, although I expect not enough to get the job. Failure to reach agreement on a candidate from amongst those returning to Council I believe would lead to the emergence of a candidate from new, although ICANN experienced, Council members that would be in our best interest.

Sorry for being so cryptic - I don't want to put a name out there and be accused of interfering in an ongoing election process in another SG group.  Happy to discuss off list until the election results are final.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 11, 2015, at 7:59 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What about Tony Holmes, who has always been a straight shooter, neutral and friendly to us?  Too retired-feeling for your tastes?
> 
> I don?t know Heather well and yes she did seem reasonable but given all the history with IPC I do have trouble getting my head around this. It is absolutely inconceivable that they in turn would ever support a NCSG person for chair?
> 
> BD
> 
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> I agree, for what it is worth.  I think it is going to be especially difficult for her, as a relative newcomer, to stay neutral.  However I do agree with Avri's assessment and if it came down to having Heather, we could do a lot worse.  and given that risk we need to ponder any rejection of her very carefully.
>> I also factor in the fact that she is very strong, and a lawyer.  If I am going to pick a fight with a potentially non-neutral Chair, I would prefer a weaker one, if you follow my somewhat convoluted logic.
>> Cheers Steph
>> 
>>> On 2015-08-10 13:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Yeah?, like I said, I like Heather a lot too. I?ve also attended a GNSO WG newcomers webinar that she presented in, and she really does know the PDP manual backwards.
>>> 
>>> Which is kinda why I was surprised she took a strange position on the motion to request an issues report for the new gTLD round (and the suggested amendment to that motion). It seemed inconsistent with what I believe her to know about what issue reports are, and what should go into them.
>>> 
>>> My concern is that in situations like this (or others), being an IPC rep with a special interest in how the GNSO is managed will trump the individual councillor?s knowledge of what may or may not be the best course of action to take.
>>> 
>>> I may be reading too much into this, but just sayin?.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
>>>> chair and think she is good at it.
>>>> 
>>>> At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
>>>> people as their reps.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>>>>>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
>>>>>> anodyne candidate the year after.
>>>>> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
>>>>>> reasonable candidate to propose?
>>>>> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150811/e5367ffd/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Tue Aug 11 11:41:28 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:41:28 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229C4E0A3@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
Message-ID: <4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>


> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than a few CSG and CPH members.

If so then voila, no?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150811/6005e11f/attachment.html>


From mshears  Tue Aug 11 13:54:35 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:54:35 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <BC2A0ED3-4A55-47C4-93C1-5856992ADE57@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<BC2A0ED3-4A55-47C4-93C1-5856992ADE57@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55C9D46B.3030204@cdt.org>

I agree with Tony as a good candidate.

On 8/11/2015 8:35 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Tony seems like a reasonable candidate to me. I think he?s up for reelection. If he gets another term, and is willing to serve as Chair, I wouldn?t mind exploring that option.
>
> I also wouldn?t write off a CPH candidate either. I guess it depends on who it is. I?m sure there are potentials from the other house who I would find appealing. I?ve always really liked Volker, although I doubt he would want the job.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 8:59 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What about Tony Holmes, who has always been a straight shooter, neutral and friendly to us?  Too retired-feeling for your tastes?
>>
>> I don?t know Heather well and yes she did seem reasonable but given all the history with IPC I do have trouble getting my head around this. It is absolutely inconceivable that they in turn would ever support a NCSG person for chair?
>>
>> BD
>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree, for what it is worth.  I think it is going to be especially difficult for her, as a relative newcomer, to stay neutral.  However I do agree with Avri's assessment and if it came down to having Heather, we could do a lot worse.  and given that risk we need to ponder any rejection of her very carefully.
>>> I also factor in the fact that she is very strong, and a lawyer.  If I am going to pick a fight with a potentially non-neutral Chair, I would prefer a weaker one, if you follow my somewhat convoluted logic.
>>> Cheers Steph
>>>
>>> On 2015-08-10 13:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Yeah?, like I said, I like Heather a lot too. I?ve also attended a GNSO WG newcomers webinar that she presented in, and she really does know the PDP manual backwards.
>>>>
>>>> Which is kinda why I was surprised she took a strange position on the motion to request an issues report for the new gTLD round (and the suggested amendment to that motion). It seemed inconsistent with what I believe her to know about what issue reports are, and what should go into them.
>>>>
>>>> My concern is that in situations like this (or others), being an IPC rep with a special interest in how the GNSO is managed will trump the individual councillor?s knowledge of what may or may not be the best course of action to take.
>>>>
>>>> I may be reading too much into this, but just sayin?.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
>>>>> chair and think she is good at it.
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
>>>>> people as their reps.
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>>>>>>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
>>>>>>> anodyne candidate the year after.
>>>>>> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
>>>>>>> reasonable candidate to propose?
>>>>>> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
>> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
>> *********************************************************
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987




From stephanie.perrin  Tue Aug 11 17:11:26 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:11:26 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55CA028E.6020707@mail.utoronto.ca>

He gets my vote.  I like him and he seems v fair
SP
On 2015-08-11 2:59, William Drake wrote:
> What about Tony Holmes, who has always been a straight shooter, 
> neutral and friendly to us?  Too retired-feeling for your tastes?
>
> I don?t know Heather well and yes she did seem reasonable but given 
> all the history with IPC I do have trouble getting my head around 
> this. It is absolutely inconceivable that they in turn would ever 
> support a NCSG person for chair?
>
> BD
>
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin 
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree, for what it is worth.  I think it is going to be especially 
>> difficult for her, as a relative newcomer, to stay neutral.  However 
>> I do agree with Avri's assessment and if it came down to having 
>> Heather, we could do a lot worse.  and given that risk we need to 
>> ponder any rejection of her very carefully.
>> I also factor in the fact that she is very strong, and a lawyer.  If 
>> I am going to pick a fight with a potentially non-neutral Chair, I 
>> would prefer a weaker one, if you follow my somewhat convoluted logic.
>> Cheers Steph
>>
>> On 2015-08-10 13:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Yeah?, like I said, I like Heather a lot too. I?ve also attended a 
>>> GNSO WG newcomers webinar that she presented in, and she really does 
>>> know the PDP manual backwards.
>>>
>>> Which is kinda why I was surprised she took a strange position on 
>>> the motion to request an issues report for the new gTLD round (and 
>>> the suggested amendment to that motion). It seemed inconsistent with 
>>> what I believe her to know about what issue reports are, and what 
>>> should go into them.
>>>
>>> My concern is that in situations like this (or others), being an IPC 
>>> rep with a special interest in how the GNSO is managed will trump 
>>> the individual councillor?s knowledge of what may or may not be the 
>>> best course of action to take.
>>>
>>> I may be reading too much into this, but just sayin?.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG 
>>>> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
>>>> chair and think she is good at it.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
>>>> people as their reps.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>> On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG 
>>>>>> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>>>>>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in 
>>>>>> David as an
>>>>>> anodyne candidate the year after.
>>>>> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what 
>>>>> circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we 
>>>>>> have a
>>>>>> reasonable candidate to propose?
>>>>> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my 
>>>>> knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be 
>>>>> surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that 
>>>>> Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but 
>>>>> can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the 
>>>>> council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> *********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), 
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> /Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap /http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150811/fcb69b0e/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Tue Aug 11 17:15:53 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:15:53 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55CA028E.6020707@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThmoxHX6MXRXiq1FzYkdc3NS+=XrDmWd10WSoAtPuj7owA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<55CA028E.6020707@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4CD92102-2ED5-4C2B-B15C-FE6D97450E7F@gmail.com>

Given the multiple expressions of potential interest I shot him a note to informally inquire whether he might potentially maybe want to think about possible...

Will let you know

BD

> On Aug 11, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> He gets my vote.  I like him and he seems v fair
> SP
> On 2015-08-11 2:59, William Drake wrote:
>> What about Tony Holmes, who has always been a straight shooter, neutral and friendly to us?  Too retired-feeling for your tastes?
>> 
>> I don?t know Heather well and yes she did seem reasonable but given all the history with IPC I do have trouble getting my head around this. It is absolutely inconceivable that         they in turn would ever support a NCSG person for chair?
>> 
>> BD
>> 
>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I agree, for what it is worth.  I think it is going to be especially difficult for her, as a relative newcomer, to stay neutral.  However I do agree with Avri's assessment and if it came down to having Heather, we could do a lot worse.  and given that risk we need to ponder any rejection of her very carefully.
>>> I also factor in the fact that she is very strong, and a lawyer.  If I am going to pick a fight with a potentially non-neutral Chair, I would prefer a weaker one, if you follow my somewhat convoluted logic.
>>> Cheers Steph
>>> 
>>> On 2015-08-10 13:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Yeah?, like I said, I like Heather a lot too. I?ve also attended a GNSO WG newcomers webinar that she presented in, and she really does know the PDP manual backwards.
>>>> 
>>>> Which is kinda why I was surprised she took a strange position on the motion to request an issues report for the new gTLD round (and the suggested amendment to that motion). It seemed inconsistent with what I believe her to know about what issue reports are, and what should go into them.
>>>> 
>>>> My concern is that in situations like this (or others), being an IPC rep with a special interest in how the GNSO is managed will trump the individual councillor?s knowledge of what may or may not be the best course of action to take.
>>>> 
>>>> I may be reading too much into this, but just sayin?.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I support Heather as a candidate.  I have seen her operate as a neutral
>>>>> chair and think she is good at it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> At this point, despite IPC being IPC, they do have very reasonable
>>>>> people as their reps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10-Aug-15 09:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> They refused to honor it and it became an ombudsman issue.  We then
>>>>>>> agreed to let them keep the seat for another year and put in David as an
>>>>>>> anodyne candidate the year after.
>>>>>> OK. Thanks. That will give (at least) me some guidance on what circumstances I would agree to if we go ahead with rotations.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> BTW, have you all been discussing the chair candidacy?  Will we have a
>>>>>>> reasonable candidate to propose?
>>>>>> That?s a good question. The NCPH can make one nomination. To my knowledge, NCSG and CSG have not agreed on one. I wouldn?t be surprised if we have a new chair from the CPH.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If I?m not mistaken, there has been an informal suggestion that Heather Forrest be a NCPH nominee. I really do like her a lot, but can?t say I would feel too good about an IPC member chairing the council. I suspect they feel the same way about us.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
>> *********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q <http://goo.gl/sRR01q>
>> *********************************************************
>> 
> 

*********************************************************
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
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150811/925c4c02/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Aug 11 18:30:55 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:30:55 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
	<55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>

Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best guys right 
when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running the ranch (yeah 
yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
SP
Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>
>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>
>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than a few 
>> CSG and CPH members.
>
> If so then voila, no?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150811/ba542098/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Tue Aug 11 18:51:00 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:51:00 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>

Hi

So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick back more.

Bill


> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
> SP
> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than a few CSG and CPH members.
>> 
>> If so then voila, no?
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150811/d496f3bd/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Aug 12 04:42:58 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:42:58 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>

 Hi,

lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer to CWG about
the proposal. can I understand we can accept the amendment and acknowledge
the concerns raised by Avri. the proposal is for this year, after that we
will have to discuss about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their
commitments, maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.

for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is becoming a
tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree first on what we
see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
I should answer Steve soon about our position.

Best,

Rafik

2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

> Hi
>
> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick back more.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best guys right
> when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running the ranch (yeah yeah
> I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
> SP
> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than a few CSG
> and CPH members.
>
>
> If so then voila, no?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150812/95741484/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Aug 12 12:00:15 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:00:15 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
	<55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55CB0B1F.9010405@acm.org>

Hi,

I am a lame duck, feel free to ignore my viewpoint.

avri


On 12-Aug-15 03:42, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>  Hi,
>
> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer to CWG
> about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the amendment and
> acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the proposal is for this
> year, after that we will have to discuss about rotation proposal and
> how we need to keep their commitments, maybe by including the
> ombudsman in the process.
>
> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is becoming
> a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree first on
> what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik 
>
> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi
>
>     So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick back
>     more.
>
>     Bill
>
>
>>     On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>     Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>     guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>     the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a
>>     newbie...)
>>     SP
>>     Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>     On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>>     On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>>     <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than
>>>>     a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>
>>>     If so then voila, no?
>>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Wed Aug 12 12:17:18 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:17:18 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>

Hi,

That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope we can start on that sooner rather than later.

May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?

And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH counterparts.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
> 
> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments, maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
> 
> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:
> Hi
> 
> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick back more.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>> SP
>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>> 
>>> If so then voila, no?
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From rafik.dammak  Wed Aug 12 12:17:16 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:17:16 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s election
of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we still need to talk
more about how the rotations would work. I hope we can start on that sooner
rather than later.

That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>
> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using the NCPH
leadership list to hold this conversation?
>
I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the list sounds
dead for now (while they get the proposal from the message Avri sent to
that list)

> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election,
our agreement to a formal process should be provisional, and only finalised
after we hold a discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do
need to be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
counterparts.

Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep records. For
NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the lead to do so and
conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how to conduct consultation
about positions on more systematic manner.

Rafik
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
wrote:
> >
> >  Hi,
> >
> > lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer to CWG
about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the amendment and
acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the proposal is for this year,
after that we will have to discuss about rotation proposal and how we need
to keep their commitments, maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
> >
> > for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is becoming a
tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree first on what we
see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
> > I should answer Steve soon about our position.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:
> > Hi
> >
> > So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick back more.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best guys
right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running the ranch (yeah
yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
> >> SP
> >> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
> >> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than a few
CSG and CPH members.
> >>>
> >>> If so then voila, no?
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150812/6dd9a351/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Aug 14 03:48:29 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:48:29 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to send
to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only, discussing about
alternation for next years and working to let them commit to that. also I
will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .

for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct consultation
within NCSG membership, managed by PC.

Best,

Rafik

2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we still need to
> talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope we can start on that
> sooner rather than later.
>
> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
> >
> > May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using the
> NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
> >
> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the list sounds
> dead for now (while they get the proposal from the message Avri sent to
> that list)
>
> > And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s
> election, our agreement to a formal process should be provisional, and only
> finalised after we hold a discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members
> really do need to be made aware that we are working these issues out with
> our NCPH counterparts.
>
> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep records.
> For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the lead to do so and
> conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how to conduct consultation
> about positions on more systematic manner.
>
> Rafik
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Hi,
> > >
> > > lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer to CWG
> about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the amendment and
> acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the proposal is for this year,
> after that we will have to discuss about rotation proposal and how we need
> to keep their commitments, maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
> > >
> > > for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is becoming
> a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree first on what we
> see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
> > > I should answer Steve soon about our position.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > > 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick back more.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best guys
> right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running the ranch (yeah
> yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
> > >> SP
> > >> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
> > >> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than a
> few CSG and CPH members.
> > >>>
> > >>> If so then voila, no?
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150814/93ee04a9/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Aug 14 07:28:41 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:28:41 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
	<55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55CD6E79.1030200@mail.utoronto.ca>

sounds right to me..
Steph

On 2015-08-13 20:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to 
> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only, 
> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them 
> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>
> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct 
> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>     election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>     still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>     we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>
>     That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>     >
>     > May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>     the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>     >
>     I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>     list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>     message Avri sent to that list)
>
>     > And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>     process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>     discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>     be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>     counterparts.
>
>     Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>     records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>     lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>     to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>
>     Rafik
>
>     >
>     > Thanks.
>     >
>     > Amr
>     >
>     > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > >  Hi,
>     > >
>     > > lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>     to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>     amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>     proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>     about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>     maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>     > >
>     > > for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>     becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>     first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>     > > I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>     > >
>     > > Best,
>     > >
>     > > Rafik
>     > >
>     > > 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>     <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>     > > Hi
>     > >
>     > > So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>     back more.
>     > >
>     > > Bill
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>     > >>
>     > >> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>     guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>     the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>     > >> SP
>     > >> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>     > >> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>     > >>>
>     > >>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>     <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>     than a few CSG and CPH members.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> If so then voila, no?
>     > >>
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > _______________________________________________
>     > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > _______________________________________________
>     > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150814/c598d1d9/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Fri Aug 14 12:06:59 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:06:59 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<A20A588D-61C8-48F4-B004-D7ED4552FAE1@egyptig.org>
	<55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=0c1XnrkuWUB1=omP9wYdMk96TP9rpry0K0j32QTQGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2ye1DjnD6NEsA4dweWzdyfQHZZK772b_XtHdsMMkQUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<CAH5sThkTiZVFyHNq8Gt_x2owGFMAz3QxP=SX8eoQZkjyfzQq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org> <55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>
	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5657E42F-A9F9-420E-A58F-BB679F6C5D75@gmail.com>

Hi

Yes, to be discussed again at the next NCPH meeting.

Best

Bill

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:48 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only, discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
> 
> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> Hi,
> 
> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope we can start on that sooner rather than later.
> 
> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG 
> >
> > May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
> >
> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the message Avri sent to that list)
> 
> > And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH counterparts.
> 
> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Hi,
> > >
> > > lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments, maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
> > >
> > > for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
> > > I should answer Steve soon about our position.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > > 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick back more.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
> > >> SP
> > >> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
> > >> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more than a few CSG and CPH members.
> > >>>
> > >>> If so then voila, no?
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> >
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150814/14d4f781/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Aug 14 15:17:03 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:17:03 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>	<55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
	<55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca>	<55C40172.5060502@acm.org>	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org>

i think i am the only dissenting voice.

avri


On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>
> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>     election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>     still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>     we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>
>     That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>     >
>     > May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>     the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>     >
>     I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>     list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>     message Avri sent to that list)
>
>     > And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>     process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>     discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>     be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>     counterparts.
>
>     Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>     records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>     lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>     to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>
>     Rafik
>
>     >
>     > Thanks.
>     >
>     > Amr
>     >
>     > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > >  Hi,
>     > >
>     > > lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>     to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>     amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>     proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>     about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>     maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>     > >
>     > > for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>     becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>     first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>     > > I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>     > >
>     > > Best,
>     > >
>     > > Rafik
>     > >
>     > > 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>     <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>     > > Hi
>     > >
>     > > So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>     back more.
>     > >
>     > > Bill
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>     > >>
>     > >> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>     guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>     the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>     > >> SP
>     > >> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>     > >> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>     > >>>
>     > >>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>     <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>     than a few CSG and CPH members.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> If so then voila, no?
>     > >>
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > _______________________________________________
>     > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > _______________________________________________
>     > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From egmorris1  Fri Aug 14 15:41:41 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:41:41 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org> <55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
	<55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca> <55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org>
Message-ID: <45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>

This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.

As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>> 
>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>> 
>>    Hi,
>> 
>>    On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>    <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>>    election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>>    still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>>    we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>> 
>>    That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>> 
>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>>    the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>    I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>>    list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>>    message Avri sent to that list)
>> 
>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>    process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>>    discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>>    be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>>    counterparts.
>> 
>>    Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>>    records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>>    lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>>    to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>> 
>>    Rafik
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>    <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>>    to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>>    amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>    proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>>    about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>>    maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>> 
>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>>    becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>>    first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>>    back more.
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>    <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>    <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>    guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>    the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>>>>> SP
>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>    <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>>    than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Fri Aug 14 16:54:13 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:54:13 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org> <55C34053.6060201@acm.org>
	<55C36E5C.7040309@yorku.ca> <55C40172.5060502@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org>
	<45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>
Message-ID: <D76B3878-BAAE-4FB7-8CB1-B00600B82FD4@egyptig.org>

Hi,

To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
> 
> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>>> 
>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>> 
>>>   Hi,
>>> 
>>>   On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>   <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>>>   election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>>>   still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>>>   we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>>> 
>>>   That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>>> 
>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>>>   the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>>   I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>>>   list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>>>   message Avri sent to that list)
>>> 
>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>>   process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>>>   discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>>>   be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>>>   counterparts.
>>> 
>>>   Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>>>   records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>>>   lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>>>   to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>>> 
>>>   Rafik
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>   <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>>>   to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>>>   amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>>   proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>>>   about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>>>   maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>>>   becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>>>   first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>   <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>>>   back more.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>   <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>   <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>>   guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>>   the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>>>>>> SP
>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>   <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>>>   than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Aug 14 17:11:45 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:11:45 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <D76B3878-BAAE-4FB7-8CB1-B00600B82FD4@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8
	019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>
	<D76B3878-BAAE-4FB7-8CB1-B00600B82FD4@egypti! g.org>
Message-ID: <55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>

Hi,

I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
the two methods is not apparent

A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated

A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind

In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
supermajority needed.
In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
someone might get the supermajority

And if you need to go the third round

In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
supermajority.

We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
deadlocked.
 
good luck

avri


On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>>
>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>>>>
>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>   Hi,
>>>>
>>>>   On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>   <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>>>>   election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>>>>   still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>>>>   we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>>>>
>>>>   That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>>>>   the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>>>   I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>>>>   list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>>>>   message Avri sent to that list)
>>>>
>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>>>   process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>>>>   discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>>>>   be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>>>>   counterparts.
>>>>
>>>>   Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>>>>   records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>>>>   lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>>>>   to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>>>>
>>>>   Rafik
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>   <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>>>>   to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>>>>   amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>>>   proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>>>>   about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>>>>   maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>>>>   becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>>>>   first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>>   <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>>>>   back more.
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>   <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>   <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>>>   guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>>>   the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>>   <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>>>>   than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From egmorris1  Fri Aug 14 17:55:50 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:55:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8
	019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>
	<D76B3878-BAAE-4FB7-8CB1-B00600B82FD4@egypti! g.org>
	<55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
Message-ID: <E92C55A8-F571-496C-9EE3-C105E9314E0B@toast.net>

Thanks for clarifying this Avri. I was hesitant to comment because to me your proposal made so much sense I had trouble understanding the opposition. I figured I did not understand something but apparently that is not the case.

It doesn't make much sense to me to continue with a method that has not worked too well in the past when this logical alternative has been proposed. Can't we at least try it or propose the same?

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
> the two methods is not apparent
> 
> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
> 
> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
> 
> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
> supermajority needed.
> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
> someone might get the supermajority
> 
> And if you need to go the third round
> 
> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
> supermajority.
> 
> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
> deadlocked.
> 
> good luck
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>>> 
>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>>>>> 
>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>  <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>>>>>  election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>>>>>  still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>>>>>  we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>>>>>  the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>>>>  I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>>>>>  list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>>>>>  message Avri sent to that list)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>>>>  process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>>>>>  discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>>>>>  be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>>>>>  counterparts.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>>>>>  records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>>>>>  lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>>>>>  to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>  <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>>>>>  to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>>>>>  amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>>>>  proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>>>>>  about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>>>>>  maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>>>>>  becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>>>>>  first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>>>  <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>>>>>  back more.
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>  <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>  <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>>>>  guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>>>>  the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>>>  <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>>>>>  than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Fri Aug 14 18:31:53 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:31:53 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8
	019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>
	<D76B3878-BAAE-4FB7-8CB1-B00600B82FD4@egypti! g.org>
	<55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
Message-ID: <BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)

The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.

I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
> the two methods is not apparent
> 
> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
> 
> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
> 
> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
> supermajority needed.
> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
> someone might get the supermajority
> 
> And if you need to go the third round
> 
> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
> supermajority.
> 
> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
> deadlocked.
> 
> good luck
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>>> 
>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>>>>> 
>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>  <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>>>>>  election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>>>>>  still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>>>>>  we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>>>>>  the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>>>>  I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>>>>>  list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>>>>>  message Avri sent to that list)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>>>>  process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>>>>>  discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>>>>>  be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>>>>>  counterparts.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>>>>>  records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>>>>>  lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>>>>>  to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>  <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>>>>>  to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>>>>>  amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>>>>  proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>>>>>  about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>>>>>  maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>>>>>  becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>>>>>  first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>>>  <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>>>>>  back more.
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>  <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>  <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>>>>  guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>>>>  the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>>>  <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>>>>>  than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From egmorris1  Fri Aug 14 18:53:41 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:53:41 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8
	019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>
	<D76B3878-BAAE-4FB7-8CB1-B00600B82FD4@egypti! g.org>
	<55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>

No objection here.

I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so we might want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)
> 
> The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
> 
> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
>> the two methods is not apparent
>> 
>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
>> 
>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
>> 
>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
>> supermajority needed.
>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
>> someone might get the supermajority
>> 
>> And if you need to go the third round
>> 
>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
>> supermajority.
>> 
>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
>> deadlocked.
>> 
>> good luck
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>>>> 
>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>>>>>> counterparts.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>>>>>> back more.
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Aug 14 18:59:15 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:59:15 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8
	019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>
	<D76B3878-BAAE-4FB7-8CB1-B00600B82FD4@egypti! g.org>
	<55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
	<E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>
Message-ID: <96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.

Rafik 



Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> a ?crit :

> No objection here.
> 
> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so we might want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)
>> 
>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
>> 
>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
>>> the two methods is not apparent
>>> 
>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
>>> 
>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
>>> 
>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
>>> supermajority needed.
>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
>>> someone might get the supermajority
>>> 
>>> And if you need to go the third round
>>> 
>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
>>> supermajority.
>>> 
>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
>>> deadlocked.
>>> 
>>> good luck
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ed
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>>>>>>> counterparts.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>>>>>>> back more.
>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 egmorris1  Fri Aug 14 19:10:17 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:10:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8
	019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>
	<D76B3878-BAAE-4FB7-8CB1-B00600B82FD4@egypti! g.org>
	<55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
	<E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>
	<96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <18391476-539A-4592-BB17-9E98D1C359D6@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

Thanks for clarifying. 

Doesn't surprise me. The man probably did his own stress test on surgical outcomes and how his operation would impact ICANN's accountability going forward and impact on the NTIA approval of the transition proposal. Stress test number 36B. :)

I'm sure you are on top of this, and thanks, but does the fact the NCPH 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 
>> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> a ?crit :
>> 
>> No objection here.
>> 
>> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so we might want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)
>>> 
>>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
>>> 
>>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
>>>> the two methods is not apparent
>>>> 
>>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
>>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
>>>> 
>>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
>>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
>>>> 
>>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
>>>> supermajority needed.
>>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
>>>> someone might get the supermajority
>>>> 
>>>> And if you need to go the third round
>>>> 
>>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
>>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
>>>> supermajority.
>>>> 
>>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
>>>> deadlocked.
>>>> 
>>>> good luck
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>>>>>>>> counterparts.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>>>>>>>> back more.
>>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 egmorris1  Fri Aug 14 19:13:50 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:13:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <45DC5CBD-C733-4F07-8
	019-9D35769CD79E@toast.net>
	<D76B3878-BAAE-4FB7-8CB1-B00600B82FD4@egypti! g.org>
	<55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
	<E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>
	<96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F77CB144-3706-4C19-BC5F-99B0089E30C1@toast.net>

(Apologies - on plane and hit turbulence and hit send button in error)

Does the fact the NCPH may legitimately be in contention for the Chair slot impact the VC selection process at all? Trying to educate myself here.

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 
>> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> a ?crit :
>> 
>> No objection here.
>> 
>> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so we might want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)
>>> 
>>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
>>> 
>>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
>>>> the two methods is not apparent
>>>> 
>>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
>>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
>>>> 
>>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
>>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
>>>> 
>>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
>>>> supermajority needed.
>>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
>>>> someone might get the supermajority
>>>> 
>>>> And if you need to go the third round
>>>> 
>>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
>>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
>>>> supermajority.
>>>> 
>>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
>>>> deadlocked.
>>>> 
>>>> good luck
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>>>>>>>> counterparts.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>>>>>>>> back more.
>>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Aug 14 19:18:20 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 01:18:20 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <18391476-539A-4592-BB17-9E98D1C359D6@toast.net>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
	<E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>
	<96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>
	<18391476-539A-4592-BB17-9E98D1C359D6@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnB3kxSzTxisptLY_i4Hc_1KDbjskHwVOP6+w8-q6kLMA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

It is steve metaltiz not steve del bianco :)

Rafik
On Aug 15, 2015 1:10 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
> Doesn't surprise me. The man probably did his own stress test on surgical
> outcomes and how his operation would impact ICANN's accountability going
> forward and impact on the NTIA approval of the transition proposal. Stress
> test number 36B. :)
>
> I'm sure you are on top of this, and thanks, but does the fact the NCPH
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> >
> >> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> a ?crit :
> >>
> >> No objection here.
> >>
> >> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so we might
> want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll have
> to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the consensus I
> was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as A2 and B2.
> Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)
> >>>
> >>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue between
> the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to any
> official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we use
> (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle
> first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work out
> which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of
> A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
> >>>
> >>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Amr
> >>>
> >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
> >>>> the two methods is not apparent
> >>>>
> >>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
> >>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
> >>>>
> >>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
> >>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
> >>>>
> >>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
> >>>> supermajority needed.
> >>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
> >>>> someone might get the supermajority
> >>>>
> >>>> And if you need to go the third round
> >>>>
> >>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
> >>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
> >>>> supermajority.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
> >>>> deadlocked.
> >>>>
> >>>> good luck
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable
> first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little
> consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making
> these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a
> consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG
> on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best,
> whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amr
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely
> attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've
> come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council
> procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I
> actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on
> from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me
> as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is
> limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to
> add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as
> long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH
> affairs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> avri
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response
> to
> >>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
> >>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let
> them
> >>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list
> .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
> >>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
> >>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
> >>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
> >>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
> >>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
> >>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
> >>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
> >>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
> >>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s
> election, our agreement to a formal
> >>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
> >>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
> >>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
> >>>>>>>> counterparts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
> >>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
> >>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
> >>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Amr
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
> >>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
> >>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
> >>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
> >>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
> >>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
> >>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
> >>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
> >>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
> >>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
> >>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
> >>>>>>>> back more.
> >>>>>>>>>> Bill
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> >>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
> >>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
> >>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a
> newbie...)
> >>>>>>>>>>> SP
> >>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
> >>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
> >>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software.
> >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150815/1e7c0ce5/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Fri Aug 14 19:27:06 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:27:06 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnB3kxSzTxisptLY_i4Hc_1KDbjskHwVOP6+w8-q6kLMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
	<E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>
	<96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>
	<18391476-539A-4592-BB17-9E98D1C359D6@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnB3kxSzTxisptLY_i4Hc_1KDbjskHwVOP6+w8-q6kLMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4099624E-1FAE-416A-AD3E-F46C9B195061@toast.net>

And we might have a Stefania and a Stephanie on Council. And I still don't know which Carlos is which.

Thus I'm very grateful for both Rafik and Amr, even if I really want to give the later a vowel between the 'm' and 'r'. :)

Sorry for the mixup and the education.



Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> It is steve metaltiz not steve del bianco :)
> 
> Rafik
> 
>> On Aug 15, 2015 1:10 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> Hi Rafik,
>> 
>> Thanks for clarifying.
>> 
>> Doesn't surprise me. The man probably did his own stress test on surgical outcomes and how his operation would impact ICANN's accountability going forward and impact on the NTIA approval of the transition proposal. Stress test number 36B. :)
>> 
>> I'm sure you are on top of this, and thanks, but does the fact the NCPH
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> > On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Ed,
>> >
>> > He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
>> >
>> > Rafik
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> a ?crit :
>> >>
>> >> No objection here.
>> >>
>> >> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so we might want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
>> >>
>> >> Ed
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)
>> >>>
>> >>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> Amr
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
>> >>>> the two methods is not apparent
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
>> >>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
>> >>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
>> >>>> supermajority needed.
>> >>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
>> >>>> someone might get the supermajority
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And if you need to go the third round
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
>> >>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
>> >>>> supermajority.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
>> >>>> deadlocked.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> good luck
>> >>>>
>> >>>> avri
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> >>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Amr
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Ed
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> avri
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
>> >>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
>> >>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
>> >>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>> >>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Best,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Rafik
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> >>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>> >>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>> >>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>> >>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>> >>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>> >>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>> >>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>> >>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>> >>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>> >>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>> >>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>> >>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>> >>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>> >>>>>>>> counterparts.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>> >>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>> >>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>> >>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Rafik
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Amr
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>> >>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>> >>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>> >>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>> >>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>> >>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>> >>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>> >>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>> >>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>> >>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>> >>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Best,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>> >>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>> >>>>>>>> back more.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Bill
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>> >>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> >>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>> >>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>> >>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>> >>>>>>>>>>> SP
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>> >>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>> >>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> ---
>> >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150814/02507ef3/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Aug 18 02:53:24 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:53:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - NEW Doodle Poll
 for Next Meeting
In-Reply-To: <f354f20b478040b58fcb9eb225c2ffcf@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <f354f20b478040b58fcb9eb225c2ffcf@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <55D273F4.3010602@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am forwarding to you the latest we have received on the GNSO Review.  
As you can see from the message and timeline:

  * The final report is due August 31
  * The WP has not met recently
  * The review WP has a scant 10 days to see if comments have been
    adequately reflected from the public comment period.  For many of us
    in North America, that includes the labor day holiday
  * The Board decides on final action in February

I would appreciate any input you may have on this, and will be sure to 
send the final report as soon as we see it. I am concerned about any 
potentially unfeasible or wasteful recommendations remaining in the 
final report, because in my view there was quite a lot of busy work in 
the last draft.

Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - NEW Doodle Poll for Next 
Meeting
Date: 	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:06:08 +0000
From: 	Charla Shambley <charla.shambley at icann.org>
To: 	gnso-review-dt at icann.org <gnso-review-dt at icann.org>



Dear GNSO Review WP ?

I trust this email finds you well and that you enjoyed your weekend.  We 
are having some difficulty coordinating a call during the previously 
suggested dates and times.  I have set up a new doodle poll 
<http://doodle.com/ugtkh3g3tm3vp4pr> so that the Review Working Party 
can begin discussions on implementation.  I will close the doodle poll 
<http://doodle.com/ugtkh3g3tm3vp4pr> at the close of business on 26 August.

Also, I am including an updated timeline below which reflects key dates 
and milestones through the time of Board approval of the Final Report in 
February 2016.

As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Regards,

Charla

*From:*Charla Shambley
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:08 AM
*To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org
*Subject:* GNSO Review - Doodle Poll for Next Meeting

Dear GNSO Review WP --

By now you should have received a cancellation for the call tomorrow 
from the GNSO Secretariat.   Per Jen's email below, I have set up a 
doodle poll so that we can schedule our next call in September to begin 
the discussion on implementation.  I will close the doodle poll by COB 
Tuesday, 4 August.

Also, just a reminder that we do have the wiki 
<https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Initial+Assessment+of+Recommendations> 
set up to capture your comments and initial assessment of the 
recommendations in the Draft Report 
<https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Draft+Report+of+the+Independent+Examiner>.  
Your input into the feasibility and usefulness of each of the 
recommendations will be helpful during our next call.

For those of you on holiday in August, enjoy!

Regards,

Charla

Charla K. Shambley

Strategic Initiatives Program Manager

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA  90094

310-578-8921

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org 
<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:00 AM
To: Novoa, Osvaldo; Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de 
<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>; Larisa 
B. Gurnick
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Public Comments & Next Meeting

Thank you to everyone who has responded.  Based upon the responses, I 
think we only have 3 people (including me) who can attend the call this 
Thursday, 30 July.  If anyone else can attend, please let me know, but 
I'm concerned that without more attending the call, we will have to 
repeat much of the conversation when others can join and want to ensure 
we have sufficient feedback to move this initiative forward before the 
October Dublin meeting.  Chuck and Osvlado, I so appreciate your 
availability, but also deeply respect your time and don't want you to 
feel like it is not productive because there are not enough groups 
represented on the call.

I'd like to suggest we move this call to September when everyone will be 
back from August holiday and public comments will be completed and we 
could start to work on feedback towards implementation with more 
participation. I'm completely happy to still get on a call on Thursday 
if you all think that is going to be worthwhile, but also happy to send 
out a new  Doodle poll to try to get more participation.

Please let me know your comments and thoughts and we can plan 
accordingly.  Thanks so much.  For all of you heading on holiday - have 
a great one!

Jen

JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB

FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM

513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348

IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 What will you do with 
your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel 
on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column 
http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands 
http://ow.ly/EbloM

-----Original Message-----

From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa at Antel.com.uy]

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:35 PM

To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de <mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>

Cc: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com <mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>>; 
gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>

Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Public Comments & Next Meeting

I am available for the 30th of July.

Best regards,

Osvaldo

Enviado desde mi iPhone

El 24/7/2015, a las 22:26, 
"Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de> 
<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de%3cmailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de%3e>" 
<Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de 
<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de%3cmailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>>> 
escribi?:

Thanks Jen,

I apologize not being able to attend the 30 July call. I'll refer to 
Osvaldo whether he could make it as alternative.

Wolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone

Am 24.07.2015 um 20:38 schrieb Jen Wolfe 
<jwolfe at wolfedomain.com<mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com 
<mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com%3cmailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>>>:

Hello GNSO Review Working Team:

Thank you again for your continued time and commitment to this process.  
As you may have seen from our email thread, there have been some 
concerns expressed about the 24 July (today) deadline to provide public 
comments.  I am reaching out to let you know that the schedule can 
accommodate extending the deadline for one additional week to 31 July so 
that any groups or individual who wish to comment  have one more week to 
respond.  I appreciate those groups who have completed their public 
comments and encourage everyone to have your respective groups provide 
comments by next week's deadline, which will be the final deadline in 
order for the finalized report to be issued on 31 August.

I have summarized the comments received to date below:

Comments to date:

?             Brand Registry Group has submitted a 
comment<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00000.html> 
on 16 July

?             Registry Stakeholder Group has submitted a 
comment<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00001.html> 
on 23 July

?             In progress are comments from ISPCP and ALAC - all 
expected to be submitted by the current due date of 24 July.  There may 
be others, but staff is not currently aware of this.

?             64 comments provided verbally during ICANN53 sessions - 
see 
posted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00002.html> 
table

Public Comment/Engagement:

This Public 
Comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> 
period opened on 1 June and has been extended once to 24 July - total of 
53 days.

?         During ICANN53, Westlake conducted a total of 8 briefings for 
the community, in addition to a briefing included in the public 
session<https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-aoc-org-reviews> 
on Reviews.

?         A total of 64 comments made during these presentations have 
been catalogued and are being considered by Westlake - see the 
posted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00002.html> 
table.

As one additional point:  we were scheduled to have a call next Thursday 
to discuss the comments and begin formulating our recommendation to the 
SIC on which recommendations we think should move into implementation.  
I would like to suggest that we proceed with the call as scheduled to 
use the time to touch base on comments and begin the conversation on 
implementation, but certainly understand if it would be more 
advantageous to wait until all public comments have been received.

I would appreciate your feedback so we can either send out a new Doodle 
poll to reschedule or plan to proceed as scheduled.

Thanks again for your continued support of this process!  Have a great 
weekend!

Jen

jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB

Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm

513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348

IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 What will you do with 
your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel 
on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column 
http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands 
http://ow.ly/EbloM

________________________________

El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido 
?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede 
ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor 
notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine 
inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su 
sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este 
e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas 
destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con 
respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo 
nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n

This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely 
for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform 
the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as 
the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any 
person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. 
ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without 
respecting our Information Security Policy.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150817/5ba224f8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 31673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150817/5ba224f8/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Review Timeline Updated 7 Aug 2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 207444 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150817/5ba224f8/attachment-0001.pdf>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Aug 18 07:04:54 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:04:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy update for NCSG list
Message-ID: <55D2AEE6.7030500@mail.utoronto.ca>

Here is my proposed update on privacy issues, please let me know if I am 
missing anything.  I propose to send it out to the NCSG list in a couple 
of days.  Those on the PPSAI team, please let me know if you object to 
having your emails listed.
cheers steph
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Privacy Update at ICANN aug15-2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 190828 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150818/48793adb/attachment-0001.docx>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Aug 18 08:10:44 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:10:44 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for
	ICANN board
In-Reply-To: <1b5402ecc11648f0a8ee20876dc68f04@toast.net>
References: <CAH5sTh=2g6OZXFOyySfFOyUKkdfdbvzWe5gGXWzyMtTV_vGjzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca>
	<CAH5sThmsXuyOrY7+M-cgj+EgYzrTJUCacqLdFRjrAD-b+hvanQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8B6756C3-E2CB-47C4-AE6A-1B6C4CE712FE@gmail.com>
	<C5F68FF3-F060-45CD-94AB-6905DC01ADA3@toast.net>
	<B3D93204-A205-458F-ADEF-5957230FD00F@gmail.com>
	<1b5402ecc11648f0a8ee20876dc68f04@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkcVK-Ki=vnn+oaj59Z9Ajx-wjv8Bj7qxEB8xCy-Yh2Ug@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

trying to summarise the discussion and see what we can reply to the board
as feedback, I think we lost focus on this specific matter and went on
other issues :

*- so there is preference for more meeting with few board members and not
just the Tuesday ritual session. we have that already when meeting  Bruce
and Markus, Wolfgang will be there too and we can have add more meetings
with other board members (2 to 3 individuals) . Moreover, there is also
less interest on cocktails since they don't seem effective (last time in LA
meeting, few board members showed up)*

- the preparation prior to the Dublin meeting and checking/clearing the
questions with Markus is something we already agreed in BA. we will do our
best for preparation while I understand the cynicism and the pessimism. at
least we cannot blame ourselves.

regarding changing speakers during the session,I think that assume several
topics and several volunteers for  them. in BA nobody wanted to volunteer
during the PC session.  I ended reading most of the questions, not really
good.

meeting Board members in 1-to-1 interaction and having better strategy for
that during the meeting is not really related to the Tuesday per se.
However, it is important and I think several NCSG members already interact
with board members when possible . of course we can do more and we should
coordinate better. we should elaborate more concrete actions on how to
improve our engagement.

I think I will share the 1st point and move on. we will continue the
discussion about board engagement strategy in another thread (in addition
to the planning for Dublin meeting and PDP and non-PDP issues planning)

Best.

Rafik


2015-07-11 0:29 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> I hope they are right. The ones I talk to seem to be headed in the other
> direction. Then, again, I know of one Board member who believes the GNSO
> Council should be abolished and replaced with a General Assembly. When I
> asked him about minor things like weighted voting he demurs from answering.
> It must be nice being a philosopher with power who doesn't bother thinking
> about the details. We clearly have a lot of work to do.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:56 AM
> *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> *Cc*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "NCSG-Policy Policy
> NCSG-Policy" <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for
> ICANN board
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
>  for example, the idea the Board would be open to a restructuring that
> would consolidate NC interests in one unit is so far from reality that I'm
> not sure how anyone could reasonably believe that.
>
>
> Ok, but there are people on the board who believe that, at least with
> regard to the SG.
>
> Cheers
>
> BD
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150818/7275ab09/attachment.html>


From joy  Tue Aug 18 12:03:59 2015
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:03:59 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy update for NCSG list
In-Reply-To: <55D2AEE6.7030500@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55D2AEE6.7030500@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <02a801d0d994$d233ed30$769bc790$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>

Thanks Stephanie - that is an excellent summary!
I would like to share this also with Blair Stewart in my office and see whether I can persuade our office to make a submission, if that would be helpful.
There is an international conference of data protection agencies coming up in Amsterdam in October and I will also ask Blair if there might be any chance to have some focus one or more of these issues there, again  if you think that would  be helpful - I can't guarantee it, but I can see what is possible.
Joy
-----Original Message-----
From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2015 4:05 p.m.
To: NCSG-Policy; Kathy Kleiman; james Gannon
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy update for NCSG list

Here is my proposed update on privacy issues, please let me know if I am missing anything.  I propose to send it out to the NCSG list in a couple of days.  Those on the PPSAI team, please let me know if you object to having your emails listed.
cheers steph





From stephanie.perrin  Tue Aug 18 18:23:18 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:23:18 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy update for NCSG list
In-Reply-To: <02a801d0d994$d233ed30$769bc790$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
References: <55D2AEE6.7030500@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<02a801d0d994$d233ed30$769bc790$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
Message-ID: <55D34DE6.5050602@mail.utoronto.ca>

THat would be wonderful...the IWGDPT conference is in Berlin, October 
12-14 and when I was in Korea I tried to persuade them to fly home 
through Dublin and pop in on ICANN.  Say Hi to Blair for me, and if you 
guys could put in a comment it would be wonderful. Sven Moers (Berlin) 
is trying to find out what is happening with the WHOIS conflicts with 
law standoff.
cheers SP

On 2015-08-18 5:03, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
> Thanks Stephanie - that is an excellent summary!
> I would like to share this also with Blair Stewart in my office and see whether I can persuade our office to make a submission, if that would be helpful.
> There is an international conference of data protection agencies coming up in Amsterdam in October and I will also ask Blair if there might be any chance to have some focus one or more of these issues there, again  if you think that would  be helpful - I can't guarantee it, but I can see what is possible.
> Joy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2015 4:05 p.m.
> To: NCSG-Policy; Kathy Kleiman; james Gannon
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy update for NCSG list
>
> Here is my proposed update on privacy issues, please let me know if I am missing anything.  I propose to send it out to the NCSG list in a couple of days.  Those on the PPSAI team, please let me know if you object to having your emails listed.
> cheers steph
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>




From aelsadr  Wed Aug 19 15:02:14 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:02:14 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnB3kxSzTxisptLY_i4Hc_1KDbjskHwVOP6+w8-q6kLMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
	<E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>
	<96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>
	<18391476-539A-4592-BB17-9E98D1C359D6@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnB3kxSzTxisptLY_i4Hc_1KDbjskHwVOP6+w8-q6kLMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D2E32CD0-2473-4930-9CAD-08DCC429B6B1@egyptig.org>

Hi,

It appears to me like we have given Rafik no clear instructions on how to proceed on this issue. The longer we delay, the greater the urgency we will create in approaching a deadline where we need a vice-chair from the NCPH. We?re still stuck on the process to select one, instead of actually doing the selecting.

Several points have been raised on this growing thread regarding the process, and it looks like we have a bit of divergence on whether to proceed with the CSG suggestion for a process, or ask to modify it.

I?ve been trying to dig up some of the points raised, but if I have left any out, please raise them again:

1. Interviewing candidates should become a standard practice.

2. If the NCPH will be suggesting both a council vice-chair along with a potential chair, they should be considered together.

3. Begin the voting cycle with a vote against vs. a vote for procedure.

The third point is obviously the contentious issue we are trying to resolve. We haven?t heard from everybody on this issue, so we could wait until we do. An alternative solution may be to respond to Steve?s email by explaining the logic behind starting with ?vote against?. If I have understood his email correctly, he communicated that fact that the CSG didn?t understand the reason for voting in this matter. An explanation from us may find them agreeable to the concept.

So which one of the two options would the PC like to move forward with? Is there a third option that I have overlooked? One way or another, we really do need to resolve this ASAP.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> It is steve metaltiz not steve del bianco :)
> 
> Rafik
> 
> On Aug 15, 2015 1:10 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> Hi Rafik,
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Doesn't surprise me. The man probably did his own stress test on surgical outcomes and how his operation would impact ICANN's accountability going forward and impact on the NTIA approval of the transition proposal. Stress test number 36B. :)
> 
> I'm sure you are on top of this, and thanks, but does the fact the NCPH
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> >
> >> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> a ?crit :
> >>
> >> No objection here.
> >>
> >> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so we might want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)
> >>>
> >>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
> >>>
> >>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Amr
> >>>
> >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
> >>>> the two methods is not apparent
> >>>>
> >>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
> >>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
> >>>>
> >>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
> >>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
> >>>>
> >>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
> >>>> supermajority needed.
> >>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
> >>>> someone might get the supermajority
> >>>>
> >>>> And if you need to go the third round
> >>>>
> >>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
> >>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
> >>>> supermajority.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
> >>>> deadlocked.
> >>>>
> >>>> good luck
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amr
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> avri
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to
> >>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
> >>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them
> >>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
> >>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
> >>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
> >>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
> >>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
> >>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
> >>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
> >>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
> >>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
> >>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
> >>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
> >>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
> >>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
> >>>>>>>> counterparts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
> >>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
> >>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
> >>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Amr
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
> >>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
> >>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
> >>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
> >>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
> >>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
> >>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
> >>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
> >>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
> >>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
> >>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
> >>>>>>>> back more.
> >>>>>>>>>> Bill
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> >>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
> >>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
> >>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
> >>>>>>>>>>> SP
> >>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
> >>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
> >>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Aug 19 21:12:49 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:12:49 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Dublin prep
In-Reply-To: <55D4806F.50000@key-systems.net>
References: <55D4806F.50000@key-systems.net>
Message-ID: <55D4C721.3090303@acm.org>

hi,

Anyone have any suggestions?

avri



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Dublin prep
Date: 	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:11:11 +0200
From: 	Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net>
To: 	Council <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear fellow councillors,

as the time for the Dublin meeting is fast approaching, i would like to 
ask you to confirm or suggest possible subjects for discussion for our 
meetings with:
- the GDD
- Theresa Swinehart
- Fadi Chehade
- the ICANN board
- the GAC

Your timely input into the planning of these sessions is essential for 
the success of these sessions and therefore greatly appreciated.

-- 

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann









---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Thu Aug 20 12:36:06 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:36:06 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Dublin prep
In-Reply-To: <55D4C721.3090303@acm.org>
References: <55D4806F.50000@key-systems.net> <55D4C721.3090303@acm.org>
Message-ID: <F92A1EB6-B00B-46EE-A8AE-CE2B4AC18106@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I have two:

1. The ICANN Board:

a. I don?t know exactly how to initiate a dialogue around this sensitively, but I am increasingly bothered by the ICANN board taking it upon itself to make changes to the registry agreements with registries from the BRG. First, the issue of Specification 13, and now?, an open public comment period on the removal of of searchable WHOIS from the .SHARP RA. These seem to me like issues that should go through a GNSO process. If the traditional PDP is too long and slow for the liking of the BRG folks, another approach would have been to wait until the board adopts the new GNSO processes recommended by the policy and implementation working group (also subject to public comment now as part of board consideration).

b. I would also wish to convey to the ICANN board that there needs to be some dialogue between the board and the GNSO council on how the principles recommended the policy and implementation working group are being considered for adoption, and what the appropriate method for adopting them may be. These principles may not necessarily fit too well into the PDP manual or the bylaws, but should be published somewhere. They compliment the new GNSO processes rather nicely, and if not adopted, these new processes will not have the impact that was intended by the GNSO.

2. The GAC:

a. Might be worthwhile to have an honest discussion during the joint meeting between the GNSO council and the GAC on their perception of going through the pilot process of early engagement in the GNSO?s PDP. Two requests for issue reports have been made since this pilot project was implemented. There should be some early indications on how well they?ve managed to manoeuvre through the recommendations of the GAC/GNSO consultative group.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 19, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> hi,
> 
> Anyone have any suggestions?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[council] Dublin prep
> Date: 	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:11:11 +0200
> From: 	Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net>
> To: 	Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear fellow councillors,
> 
> as the time for the Dublin meeting is fast approaching, i would like to 
> ask you to confirm or suggest possible subjects for discussion for our 
> meetings with:
> - the GDD
> - Theresa Swinehart
> - Fadi Chehade
> - the ICANN board
> - the GAC
> 
> Your timely input into the planning of these sessions is essential for 
> the success of these sessions and therefore greatly appreciated.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Volker A. Greimann
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Thu Aug 20 13:49:01 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:49:01 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - NEW Doodle Poll
	for Next Meeting
In-Reply-To: <55D273F4.3010602@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <f354f20b478040b58fcb9eb225c2ffcf@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<55D273F4.3010602@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <15A1CC87-3D2D-4BF2-9970-6263DC969F2B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for this Stephanie. So the working party will not be in any way involved in the review of comments that was submitted? Westlake will adopt and ignore feedback at their own discretion? Or is there something I?ve missed?

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:53 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> I am forwarding to you the latest we have received on the GNSO Review.  As you can see from the message and timeline:
> 	? The final report is due August 31
> 	? The WP has not met recently
> 	? The review WP has a scant 10 days to see if comments have been adequately reflected from the public comment period.  For many of us in North America, that includes the labor day holiday 
> 	? The Board decides on final action in February
> I would appreciate any input you may have on this, and will be sure to send the final report as soon as we see it. I am concerned about any potentially unfeasible or wasteful recommendations remaining in the final report, because in my view there was quite a lot of busy work in the last draft.
> 
> Kind regards, 
> Stephanie Perrin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - NEW Doodle Poll for Next Meeting
> Date:	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:06:08 +0000
> From:	Charla Shambley <charla.shambley at icann.org>
> To:	gnso-review-dt at icann.org <gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Dear GNSO Review WP ?
>  
> I trust this email finds you well and that you enjoyed your weekend.  We are having some difficulty coordinating a call during the previously suggested dates and times.  I have set up a new doodle pollso that the Review Working Party can begin discussions on implementation.  I will close the doodle poll at the close of business on 26 August.
>  
> Also, I am including an updated timeline below which reflects key dates and milestones through the time of Board approval of the Final Report in February 2016.  <Mail Attachment.png>
> As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Charla
>  
> From: Charla Shambley 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:08 AM
> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org
> Subject: GNSO Review - Doodle Poll for Next Meeting
>  
> Dear GNSO Review WP --
>  
> By now you should have received a cancellation for the call tomorrow from the GNSO Secretariat.   Per Jen's email below, I have set up a doodle poll so that we can schedule our next call in September to begin the discussion on implementation.  I will close the doodle poll by COB Tuesday, 4 August.
>  
> Also, just a reminder that we do have the wiki set up to capture your comments and initial assessment of the recommendations in the Draft Report.  Your input into the feasibility and usefulness of each of the recommendations will be helpful during our next call.
>  
> For those of you on holiday in August, enjoy!
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Charla
>  
> Charla K. Shambley
> Strategic Initiatives Program Manager
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA  90094
> 310-578-8921
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:00 AM
> To: Novoa, Osvaldo; Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
> Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Larisa B. Gurnick
> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Public Comments & Next Meeting
>  
>  
> Thank you to everyone who has responded.  Based upon the responses, I think we only have 3 people (including me) who can attend the call this Thursday, 30 July.  If anyone else can attend, please let me know, but I'm concerned that without more attending the call, we will have to repeat much of the conversation when others can join and want to ensure we have sufficient feedback to move this initiative forward before the October Dublin meeting.  Chuck and Osvlado, I so appreciate your availability, but also deeply respect your time and don't want you to feel like it is not productive because there are not enough groups represented on the call.  
>  
> I'd like to suggest we move this call to September when everyone will be back from August holiday and public comments will be completed and we could start to work on feedback towards implementation with more participation.  I'm completely happy to still get on a call on Thursday if you all think that is going to be worthwhile, but also happy to send out a new  Doodle poll to try to get more participation.
>  
> Please let me know your comments and thoughts and we can plan accordingly.  Thanks so much.  For all of you heading on holiday - have a great one!
>  
> Jen
>  
> JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB
> FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM
> 513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348
> IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa at Antel.com.uy]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:35 PM
> To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
> Cc: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Public Comments & Next Meeting
>  
> I am available for the 30th of July.
> Best regards,
> Osvaldo
>  
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>  
> El 24/7/2015, a las 22:26, "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>> escribi?:
>  
> Thanks Jen,
> I apologize not being able to attend the 30 July call. I'll refer to Osvaldo whether he could make it as alternative.
>  
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> Sent from my personal phone
>  
> Am 24.07.2015 um 20:38 schrieb Jen Wolfe <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com<mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>>:
>  
> Hello GNSO Review Working Team:
>  
> Thank you again for your continued time and commitment to this process.  As you may have seen from our email thread, there have been some concerns expressed about the 24 July (today) deadline to provide public comments.  I am reaching out to let you know that the schedule can accommodate extending the deadline for one additional week to 31 July so that any groups or individual who wish to comment  have one more week to respond.  I appreciate those groups who have completed their public comments and encourage everyone to have your respective groups provide comments by next week's deadline, which will be the final deadline in order for the finalized report to be issued on 31 August.
>  
> I have summarized the comments received to date below:
>  
> Comments to date:
>  
> ?             Brand Registry Group has submitted a comment<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00000.html> on 16 July
>  
> ?             Registry Stakeholder Group has submitted a comment<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00001.html> on 23 July
>  
> ?             In progress are comments from ISPCP and ALAC - all expected to be submitted by the current due date of 24 July.  There may be others, but staff is not currently aware of this.
>  
> ?             64 comments provided verbally during ICANN53 sessions - see posted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00002.html> table
>  
> Public Comment/Engagement:
> This Public Comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> period opened on 1 June and has been extended once to 24 July - total of 53 days.
> ?         During ICANN53, Westlake conducted a total of 8 briefings for the community, in addition to a briefing included in the public session<https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-aoc-org-reviews> on Reviews.
> ?         A total of 64 comments made during these presentations have been catalogued and are being considered by Westlake - see the posted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00002.html> table.
>  
> As one additional point:  we were scheduled to have a call next Thursday to discuss the comments and begin formulating our recommendation to the SIC on which recommendations we think should move into implementation.  I would like to suggest that we proceed with the call as scheduled to use the time to touch base on comments and begin the conversation on implementation, but certainly understand if it would be more advantageous to wait until all public comments have been received.
>  
> I would appreciate your feedback so we can either send out a new Doodle poll to reschedule or plan to proceed as scheduled.
>  
> Thanks again for your continued support of this process!  Have a great weekend!
>  
> Jen
>  
>  
> jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
> Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
> 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348
> IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM
>  
>  
> ________________________________
>  
> El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n
>  
>  
> This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
>  
> 
> 
> <GNSO Review Timeline Updated 7 Aug 2015.pdf>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From joy  Sat Aug 22 10:47:18 2015
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:47:18 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy update for NCSG list
In-Reply-To: <55D34DE6.5050602@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <55D2AEE6.7030500@mail.utoronto.ca>	<02a801d0d994$d233ed30$769bc790$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<55D34DE6.5050602@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <035501d0dcae$c5457c70$4fd07550$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>

Thanks Steph - I will check it out.
I know one question the data protection agencies mull over from time to time
is how to affiliate in ICANN - eg should it be observer status in GAC or in
one of the constituencies.
I'll also ask where this thinking has got to ...
Joy

-----Original Message-----
From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie
Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, 19 August 2015 3:23 a.m.
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Privacy update for NCSG list

THat would be wonderful...the IWGDPT conference is in Berlin, October
12-14 and when I was in Korea I tried to persuade them to fly home through
Dublin and pop in on ICANN.  Say Hi to Blair for me, and if you guys could
put in a comment it would be wonderful. Sven Moers (Berlin) is trying to
find out what is happening with the WHOIS conflicts with law standoff.
cheers SP

On 2015-08-18 5:03, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
> Thanks Stephanie - that is an excellent summary!
> I would like to share this also with Blair Stewart in my office and see
whether I can persuade our office to make a submission, if that would be
helpful.
> There is an international conference of data protection agencies coming up
in Amsterdam in October and I will also ask Blair if there might be any
chance to have some focus one or more of these issues there, again  if you
think that would  be helpful - I can't guarantee it, but I can see what is
possible.
> Joy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of 
> Stephanie Perrin
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2015 4:05 p.m.
> To: NCSG-Policy; Kathy Kleiman; james Gannon
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy update for NCSG list
>
> Here is my proposed update on privacy issues, please let me know if I am
missing anything.  I propose to send it out to the NCSG list in a couple of
days.  Those on the PPSAI team, please let me know if you object to having
your emails listed.
> cheers steph
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 egmorris1  Sun Aug 23 14:11:54 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:11:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] DIDP
In-Reply-To: <B6241CFA-641A-4A19-8397-DB1218788FB8@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAHdAZHYo1zjG=Lwquzc5t4vLVAzqvgeDAUAcpKV3Ppz1t8CR7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHdAZHbkG5Bur1VGt6Yv0xm5NnT_Vqj+W6QMWDYFk2rnixgvOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6241CFA-641A-4A19-8397-DB1218788FB8@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <7126384280814026a1bb033bbe6c618a@toast.net>

Hi Robin, everybody,
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 4:01 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Cc: "pc-ncsg" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, "Stefania Milan" 
<Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>
Subject: Re: DIDP   
 Thanks very much for doing this, Ed. I had also considered filing an 
ombudsman complaint on the matter. But I'll wait until after the DIDP is 
denied by ICANN before doing that.
  
 -
  
 Well, something very unusual happened on the way to having my DIDP being 
denied by ICANN. For the first time in history ICANN actually released 
contractual details in response to a DIDP request. Not only that, ICANN 
actually overtly performed a balance of interest test in deciding to 
release the data. I must admit I was unprepared for this. Until now we've 
had a nice arrangement: we do a DIDP, ICANN rejects it, we call ICANN 
names, repeat. This time they actually did what they are supposed to do. 
Here is a link to the ICANN response:
  
 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150717-1-morris-
14aug15-en.pdf
  
 We didn't get all the information I was looking for but we got some. In 
addition, while properly criticising some aspects of my request for being 
overly broad (I was using the "kitchen sink" approach)  ICANN is still 
looking through documents to attempt to give us even more information. 
  
 Although a personal request (as was my Westlake public comment) I'd 
certainly welcome any guidance as to what additional information might 
exist that I should request. My goal remains: 1) to attempt to get a re-do 
of the study  if at all possible ,  2) to find some/any contractual 
violation that we may recognise and report for action to ICANN legal and, 
perhaps of greatest importance, 3) to determine how ICANN's  contract with 
the vendor could be so poorly written that Westlake could actually be paid 
for such horrid work and to ensure that this doesn't happen in the future.
  
 I'll note that in the response  ICANN has actually asked us for help, 
writing "ICANN is, however, very interested in hearing from the community 
about specific concerns about vendor services that impact the community, so 
that ICANN can perform any investigation into non-compliance that may be 
warranted."
  
 I read this as being an invitation to all of us to alert ICANN to any 
possible contractual violation committed by Westlake. Do we see any? In 
addition to Robin's plans to file a complaint with the Ombudsman and my 
continued efforts to get more information release,d I'm thinking that 
perhaps we should think about alerting ICANN Legal to some of the problems 
we had with Westlake in the hope that they might be able to pursue 
contractual violations with the company.
  
 I'd be interested in hearing any and all thoughts on this matter. I've 
been working with Sam Eisner on this and on this particular matter I do 
believe ICANN Legal is ready to work with us to address any grievances we 
may have with Westlake that could constitute contractual non-performance. 
I'd certainly like to prevent Westlake from getting future ICANN work, if 
at all possible.
  
 Thanks for considering,
  
 Ed
  
  

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150823/11da0aa8/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Aug 24 00:24:55 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:24:55 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - NEW Doodle Poll
 for Next Meeting
In-Reply-To: <15A1CC87-3D2D-4BF2-9970-6263DC969F2B@egyptig.org>
References: <f354f20b478040b58fcb9eb225c2ffcf@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<55D273F4.3010602@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<15A1CC87-3D2D-4BF2-9970-6263DC969F2B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55DA3A27.3090502@mail.utoronto.ca>

there is a doodle poll out for the next meeting Amr, but frankly it 
looks like there is no time budgeted to respond and tinker with the 
report if it is not up to snuff.
I am not comfortable with the Board looking at this thing and taking it 
at face value, unless there are big surprises coming in the August 31 
version.  Stay tuned....
cheers Stephanie

On 2015-08-20 6:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this Stephanie. So the working party will not be in any way involved in the review of comments that was submitted? Westlake will adopt and ignore feedback at their own discretion? Or is there something I?ve missed?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:53 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I am forwarding to you the latest we have received on the GNSO Review.  As you can see from the message and timeline:
>> 	? The final report is due August 31
>> 	? The WP has not met recently
>> 	? The review WP has a scant 10 days to see if comments have been adequately reflected from the public comment period.  For many of us in North America, that includes the labor day holiday
>> 	? The Board decides on final action in February
>> I would appreciate any input you may have on this, and will be sure to send the final report as soon as we see it. I am concerned about any potentially unfeasible or wasteful recommendations remaining in the final report, because in my view there was quite a lot of busy work in the last draft.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:	[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - NEW Doodle Poll for Next Meeting
>> Date:	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:06:08 +0000
>> From:	Charla Shambley <charla.shambley at icann.org>
>> To:	gnso-review-dt at icann.org <gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear GNSO Review WP ?
>>   
>> I trust this email finds you well and that you enjoyed your weekend.  We are having some difficulty coordinating a call during the previously suggested dates and times.  I have set up a new doodle pollso that the Review Working Party can begin discussions on implementation.  I will close the doodle poll at the close of business on 26 August.
>>   
>> Also, I am including an updated timeline below which reflects key dates and milestones through the time of Board approval of the Final Report in February 2016.  <Mail Attachment.png>
>> As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
>>   
>> Regards,
>>   
>> Charla
>>   
>> From: Charla Shambley
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:08 AM
>> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org
>> Subject: GNSO Review - Doodle Poll for Next Meeting
>>   
>> Dear GNSO Review WP --
>>   
>> By now you should have received a cancellation for the call tomorrow from the GNSO Secretariat.   Per Jen's email below, I have set up a doodle poll so that we can schedule our next call in September to begin the discussion on implementation.  I will close the doodle poll by COB Tuesday, 4 August.
>>   
>> Also, just a reminder that we do have the wiki set up to capture your comments and initial assessment of the recommendations in the Draft Report.  Your input into the feasibility and usefulness of each of the recommendations will be helpful during our next call.
>>   
>> For those of you on holiday in August, enjoy!
>>   
>> Regards,
>>   
>> Charla
>>   
>> Charla K. Shambley
>> Strategic Initiatives Program Manager
>> ICANN
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>> Los Angeles, CA  90094
>> 310-578-8921
>>   
>>   
>>   
>>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:00 AM
>> To: Novoa, Osvaldo; Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
>> Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Larisa B. Gurnick
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Public Comments & Next Meeting
>>   
>>   
>> Thank you to everyone who has responded.  Based upon the responses, I think we only have 3 people (including me) who can attend the call this Thursday, 30 July.  If anyone else can attend, please let me know, but I'm concerned that without more attending the call, we will have to repeat much of the conversation when others can join and want to ensure we have sufficient feedback to move this initiative forward before the October Dublin meeting.  Chuck and Osvlado, I so appreciate your availability, but also deeply respect your time and don't want you to feel like it is not productive because there are not enough groups represented on the call.
>>   
>> I'd like to suggest we move this call to September when everyone will be back from August holiday and public comments will be completed and we could start to work on feedback towards implementation with more participation.  I'm completely happy to still get on a call on Thursday if you all think that is going to be worthwhile, but also happy to send out a new  Doodle poll to try to get more participation.
>>   
>> Please let me know your comments and thoughts and we can plan accordingly.  Thanks so much.  For all of you heading on holiday - have a great one!
>>   
>> Jen
>>   
>> JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB
>> FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM
>> 513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348
>> IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM
>>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa at Antel.com.uy]
>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:35 PM
>> To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
>> Cc: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Public Comments & Next Meeting
>>   
>> I am available for the 30th of July.
>> Best regards,
>> Osvaldo
>>   
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>   
>> El 24/7/2015, a las 22:26, "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>> escribi?:
>>   
>> Thanks Jen,
>> I apologize not being able to attend the 30 July call. I'll refer to Osvaldo whether he could make it as alternative.
>>   
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>   
>> Sent from my personal phone
>>   
>> Am 24.07.2015 um 20:38 schrieb Jen Wolfe <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com<mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>>:
>>   
>> Hello GNSO Review Working Team:
>>   
>> Thank you again for your continued time and commitment to this process.  As you may have seen from our email thread, there have been some concerns expressed about the 24 July (today) deadline to provide public comments.  I am reaching out to let you know that the schedule can accommodate extending the deadline for one additional week to 31 July so that any groups or individual who wish to comment  have one more week to respond.  I appreciate those groups who have completed their public comments and encourage everyone to have your respective groups provide comments by next week's deadline, which will be the final deadline in order for the finalized report to be issued on 31 August.
>>   
>> I have summarized the comments received to date below:
>>   
>> Comments to date:
>>   
>> ?             Brand Registry Group has submitted a comment<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00000.html> on 16 July
>>   
>> ?             Registry Stakeholder Group has submitted a comment<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00001.html> on 23 July
>>   
>> ?             In progress are comments from ISPCP and ALAC - all expected to be submitted by the current due date of 24 July.  There may be others, but staff is not currently aware of this.
>>   
>> ?             64 comments provided verbally during ICANN53 sessions - see posted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00002.html> table
>>   
>> Public Comment/Engagement:
>> This Public Comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> period opened on 1 June and has been extended once to 24 July - total of 53 days.
>> ?         During ICANN53, Westlake conducted a total of 8 briefings for the community, in addition to a briefing included in the public session<https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-aoc-org-reviews> on Reviews.
>> ?         A total of 64 comments made during these presentations have been catalogued and are being considered by Westlake - see the posted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00002.html> table.
>>   
>> As one additional point:  we were scheduled to have a call next Thursday to discuss the comments and begin formulating our recommendation to the SIC on which recommendations we think should move into implementation.  I would like to suggest that we proceed with the call as scheduled to use the time to touch base on comments and begin the conversation on implementation, but certainly understand if it would be more advantageous to wait until all public comments have been received.
>>   
>> I would appreciate your feedback so we can either send out a new Doodle poll to reschedule or plan to proceed as scheduled.
>>   
>> Thanks again for your continued support of this process!  Have a great weekend!
>>   
>> Jen
>>   
>>   
>> jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
>> Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
>> 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348
>> IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM
>>   
>>   
>> ________________________________
>>   
>> El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n
>>   
>>   
>> This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
>>   
>>
>>
>> <GNSO Review Timeline Updated 7 Aug 2015.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>




From rafik.dammak  Tue Aug 25 12:41:01 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:41:01 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Report/Webinar: WHOIS Accuracy
	Reporting System
In-Reply-To: <D200BC0A.1DF41%gdd-communications@icann.org>
References: <D200BC0A.1DF41%gdd-communications@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkU_xXXtXPW6VqaDP1wbkXckwKb6NCXCmBebh5_3qMdQw@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: GDD Communications <gdd-communications at icann.org>
Date: 2015-08-25 4:18 GMT+09:00
Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Report/Webinar: WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System
To: "soac-infoalert at icann.org" <soac-infoalert at icann.org>


Dear ICANN Community members,

Today ICANN published the  Phase 1 Report of the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting
System
<http://whois.icann.org/en/file/whois-ars-phase-1-report-syntax-accuracy>
(ARS),
which provides information about the syntax accuracy of WHOIS records in
gTLDs as compared to the requirements of the Registrar Accreditation
Agreements (RAAs).  The report details the methodology used to collect,
test, and analyze the data and provides various cuts of the data as
information for the community.  Based on the data collected from the ARS,
the ICANN Contractual Compliance team will be conducting follow up with
registrars regarding potentially inaccurate records using the  Contractual
Compliance Approach and Process
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approach-processes-2012-02-25-en>.

As a reminder <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-08-12-en>, ICANN
is holding a webinar that will focus on the findings of the report, and
we?d like to invite you and your constituents to participate. Below you
will find the information necessary to join us in the discussion.

*Date / Time:  26 August 2015, 15:00 - 16:00 UTC *(time zone converter
<https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html>)

*Adobe Connect:* https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gdd

*Teleconference:* Download numbers now
<http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/whois-ars-dial-in-numbers-26aug15-en.pdf>
(Passcode: GDD)

This webinar will be conducted in English. Recordings will be published in
the knowledge center of the WHOIS website at:
http://whois.icann.org/en/knowledge-center.

*Questions?*
We encourage participants to come to the webinar with questions, as there
will be a question and answer period after the presentation.

The webinar will be recorded, providing those who are unable to attend the
opportunity to listen at a later time. You can even pose additional
questions to ICANN Global Customer Support at CustomerSupport at icann.org.

We look forward to discussing the Phase 1 Report with you on 26 August!

Best regards,
Jamie Hedlund
V.P. Strategic Programs
Global Domains Division

_______________________________________________
soac-infoalert mailing list
soac-infoalert at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150825/fdb68876/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Aug 25 18:54:19 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:54:19 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD
 Subsequent Procedures
In-Reply-To: <003d01d0dea4$80683460$81389d20$@afilias.info>
References: <003d01d0dea4$80683460$81389d20$@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <55DC8FAB.80609@acm.org>


Any views on this?

avri

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	RE: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures
Date: 	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:38:49 +0100
From: 	Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Reply-To: 	jrobinson at afilias.info
Organization: 	Afilias
To: 	'Steve Chan' <steve.chan at icann.org>, council at gnso.icann.org,
bret at uniregistry.link



Steve and GNSO Councillors,

 

It seems to me that we need to think about a three points here:

 

1.      Do we publish 31^st August i.e. ahead of the forthcoming council
meeting and such that we can deal with this at the 19 November meeting
as per option 1 below OR

2.      Do we publish 3^rd September and, if so, does that necessarily
mean we miss dealing with it on 19 November?  

3.      Regardless of 31 August or 3^rd September, do we think that a
public comment period of more than the now standard 40 day period is
necessary?

 

Note: My  personal opinion is that it would be OK to publish with a 40
day comment period and then extend if that was felt to be important /
necessary and that this will not be confusing.

 

Thoughts / input will be helpful, especially if we are to publish the
report by 31 August.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Jonathan

 

*From:*Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan at icann.org]
*Sent:* 18 August 2015 23:26
*To:* council at gnso.icann.org; bret at uniregistry.link
*Subject:* Re: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures

 

Bret,

 

Thanks, great question and hopefully the information below is beneficial
to the Council?s consideration of the 3 day hold, as well as the
discussion around the extended public comment period. Regarding next
steps and timing, here is the relevant language from the PDP Manual:

 

    /The Staff Manager is responsible for drafting a summary and
    analysis of the public comments received on the Issue Report and
    producing a Final Issue Report based upon the comments received. The
    Staff Manager should forward the Final Issue Report, along with any
    summary and analysis of the public comments received, to the Chair
    of the GNSO Council for consideration for initiation of a PDP./

     

    */The summary and analysis and the Final Issue Report are expected
    to be delivered to the Chair of the GNSO Council within 30 days of
    the closing of the public comment forum, though the Staff
    Manager may request an extension of that 30-day time for delivery./*

     

Without knowledge of the level of public comment that will be received,
it is difficult to estimate how long the summary and analysis and Final
Issue Report will take to prepare. However, assuming 30 days, here are
the three timelines expanded to include the next GNSO Council meeting,
as long as the document and motion deadline is met. I would note, these
are are the first, and not only, opportunities for the Council to
consider the initiation of a PDP:

  * Publish 31 August -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 10 October -> *9
    November PC Analysis & Final Report -> 9 November Documents &
    Motions Deadline -> 19 November GNSO Council Meeting*
  * Publish 3 September -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 13 October ->
    *12 November PC Analysis & Final Report -> 7 December Documents &
    Motions Deadline -> 17 December GNSO Council Meeting*
  * Publish 3 September -> 60 Day (for instance) Public Comment -> Close
    2 November ->*2 December PC Analysis & Final Report -> 7
    December* *Documents & Motions Deadline -> 17 December GNSO Council
    Meeting*

These are all estimates of course, and in the case of the first bullet,
dependent on everything executing according to plan to be able to
precisely hit the documents & motions deadline. Substantial public
comment and substantive changes to the Final Report could ultimately
derail these timelines.

 

Apologies for the lengthy response, but I hope this answers your questions.

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

*From: *Bret Fausett <bret at uniregistry.link <mailto:bret at uniregistry.link>>
*Date: *Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 2:22 PM
*To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>,
"council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>"
<council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
*Subject: *Re: [council] - Preliminary Issue Report - New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures

 

Thanks Steve. Great news on the progress. 

 

On the timelines, can you remind me what happens after the close of the
comment deadline? How do we get from the close of the public comment
period to Day 1 of the PDP working group? How many Council
meetings/votes between close of comment period and starting the hard
policy work?

 

    Bret

 

 

    On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org
    <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>> wrote:

     

    Dear Councilors,

     

    Staff is on track to be able to deliver the Preliminary Issue Report
    on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures for public comment by the end of
    August, as discussed on the previous GNSO Council meeting. However,
    I wanted to note that during the meeting, the possibility of
    providing for an extended public comment period was also discussed,
    which would keep it open through the ICANN54 meeting. This topic is
    expected to be on the agenda for the next Council meeting, scheduled
    for 03 September and as such, it may make sense to delay the
    publication of the report by approximately 3 days to allow for
    discussion during the meeting and a decision to be made, to avoid
    confusion from possibly amending the comment close date. The impact
    appears to be minimal:

      * Publish 31 August -> 40 Day Public Comment -> Close 10 October
        (note that this is a Saturday)
      * Publish 3 September -> 40 Day Public Comment -> *Close 13 October*
      * Publish 3 September -> 60 Day (for instance) Public Comment ->
        Close 2 November  

    Staff is leaning towards waiting the three days and _immediately_
    putting in the request to publish the Preliminary Issue Report after
    a decision is made, but wanted to be sure there were no strong
    objections to this approach.

     

    Best,

     

     

     

    *Steven Chan*
    Sr. Policy Manager

    *ICANN
    *12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

    Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
    steve.chan at icann.org
    <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
    direct: +1.310.301.3886
    mobile: +1.310.339.4410

    tel: +1.310.301.5800

    fax: +1.310.823.8649

 




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From avri  Wed Aug 26 18:18:33 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:18:33 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Gen RDS comments on preliminary issues report
Message-ID: <55DDD8C9.1050303@acm.org>

Hi,

Sept 6 is the deadline for comments on the Preliminary issues report . 
As I mentioned earlier, I have created a drive doc that includes my one
comment on this issue.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing

It is open for comment and for the suggested addition of other issues.

I plan to ask the NCSG Policy committee to approve this document as a
NCSG comment before the deadline.

Thanks

avri

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From avri  Wed Aug 26 19:44:59 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:44:59 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Gen RDS comments on preliminary issues report
In-Reply-To: <55DDD8C9.1050303@acm.org>
References: <55DDD8C9.1050303@acm.org>
Message-ID: <55DDED0B.2050902@acm.org>


PS: I guess at this point I am volunteering to shepherd this one.

avri

On 26-Aug-15 11:18, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sept 6 is the deadline for comments on the Preliminary issues report . 
> As I mentioned earlier, I have created a drive doc that includes my one
> comment on this issue.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
>
> It is open for comment and for the suggested addition of other issues.
>
> I plan to ask the NCSG Policy committee to approve this document as a
> NCSG comment before the deadline.
>
> Thanks
>
> avri
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From rafik.dammak  Thu Aug 27 04:16:59 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:16:59 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Gen RDS comments on preliminary issues report
In-Reply-To: <55DDED0B.2050902@acm.org>
References: <55DDD8C9.1050303@acm.org> <55DDED0B.2050902@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmnnAy_uT3CEnjbQd0yv1moPn5J-QF+KC=_crMT_51r5g@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for this Avri!

Rafik

2015-08-27 1:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>
> PS: I guess at this point I am volunteering to shepherd this one.
>
> avri
>
> On 26-Aug-15 11:18, Avri Doria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sept 6 is the deadline for comments on the Preliminary issues report .
> > As I mentioned earlier, I have created a drive doc that includes my one
> > comment on this issue.
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > It is open for comment and for the suggested addition of other issues.
> >
> > I plan to ask the NCSG Policy committee to approve this document as a
> > NCSG comment before the deadline.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > avri
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150827/d635deb6/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Aug 27 10:49:31 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:49:31 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <D2E32CD0-2473-4930-9CAD-08DCC429B6B1@egyptig.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aijhjBLdX3jKq2nS3f4-yz8wbj4dMB0xOGFK42kWDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8069E.8060300@acm.org>
	<4669AA64-24FC-4803-80B7-FDEDFAD12327@egyptig.org>
	<55C8A635.6020008@acm.org>
	<BAE31B7B-4B6D-4B64-B0F3-EE53DFF3AFDE@egyptig.org>
	<55C8ABE4.7040103@acm.org>
	<0222C135-C688-4ED7-A35F-661B0404AD61@egyptig.org>
	<55C90FF3.3080402@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
	<E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>
	<96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>
	<18391476-539A-4592-BB17-9E98D1C359D6@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnB3kxSzTxisptLY_i4Hc_1KDbjskHwVOP6+w8-q6kLMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D2E32CD0-2473-4930-9CAD-08DCC429B6B1@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=vda27+fjb7uu7hig0P63ub8hHh6i3bdpMwRTzGzUxYg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

can we make some progress here?

Best,

Rafik

2015-08-19 21:02 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> It appears to me like we have given Rafik no clear instructions on how to
> proceed on this issue. The longer we delay, the greater the urgency we will
> create in approaching a deadline where we need a vice-chair from the NCPH.
> We?re still stuck on the process to select one, instead of actually doing
> the selecting.
>
> Several points have been raised on this growing thread regarding the
> process, and it looks like we have a bit of divergence on whether to
> proceed with the CSG suggestion for a process, or ask to modify it.
>
> I?ve been trying to dig up some of the points raised, but if I have left
> any out, please raise them again:
>
> 1. Interviewing candidates should become a standard practice.
>
> 2. If the NCPH will be suggesting both a council vice-chair along with a
> potential chair, they should be considered together.
>
> 3. Begin the voting cycle with a vote against vs. a vote for procedure.
>
> The third point is obviously the contentious issue we are trying to
> resolve. We haven?t heard from everybody on this issue, so we could wait
> until we do. An alternative solution may be to respond to Steve?s email by
> explaining the logic behind starting with ?vote against?. If I have
> understood his email correctly, he communicated that fact that the CSG
> didn?t understand the reason for voting in this matter. An explanation from
> us may find them agreeable to the concept.
>
> So which one of the two options would the PC like to move forward with? Is
> there a third option that I have overlooked? One way or another, we really
> do need to resolve this ASAP.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > It is steve metaltiz not steve del bianco :)
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > On Aug 15, 2015 1:10 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> > Hi Rafik,
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying.
> >
> > Doesn't surprise me. The man probably did his own stress test on
> surgical outcomes and how his operation would impact ICANN's accountability
> going forward and impact on the NTIA approval of the transition proposal.
> Stress test number 36B. :)
> >
> > I'm sure you are on top of this, and thanks, but does the fact the NCPH
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ed,
> > >
> > > He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> a ?crit :
> > >>
> > >> No objection here.
> > >>
> > >> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so we might
> want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
> > >>
> > >> Ed
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>
> > >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll
> have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the
> consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as
> A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)
> > >>>
> > >>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue
> between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to
> any official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we
> use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2
> cycle first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work
> out which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits
> of A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
> > >>>
> > >>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks.
> > >>>
> > >>> Amr
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference
> between
> > >>>> the two methods is not apparent
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
> > >>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
> > >>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
> > >>>> supermajority needed.
> > >>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
> > >>>> someone might get the supermajority
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And if you need to go the third round
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
> > >>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
> > >>>> supermajority.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
> > >>>> deadlocked.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> good luck
> > >>>>
> > >>>> avri
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable
> first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little
> consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making
> these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a
> consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG
> on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best,
> whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Amr
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely
> attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've
> come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council
> procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I
> actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on
> from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me
> as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is
> limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to
> add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as
> long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH
> affairs.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ed
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> avri
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the
> response to
> > >>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
> > >>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let
> them
> > >>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH
> list .
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
> > >>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Rafik
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this
> year?s
> > >>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
> > >>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I
> hope
> > >>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
> > >>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not
> using
> > >>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
> > >>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
> > >>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
> > >>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this
> year?s election, our agreement to a formal
> > >>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold
> a
> > >>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need
> to
> > >>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
> > >>>>>>>> counterparts.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
> > >>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
> > >>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on
> how
> > >>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic
> manner.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Rafik
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Amr
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
> > >>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
> > >>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
> > >>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
> > >>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
> > >>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their
> commitments,
> > >>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
> > >>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
> > >>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should
> agree
> > >>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
> > >>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Rafik
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
> > >>>>>>>> back more.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Bill
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> > >>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
> > >>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
> > >>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a
> newbie...)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> SP
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
> > >>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
> > >>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> > >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software.
> > >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> > >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> > >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150827/a6256745/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Aug 27 15:40:40 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:40:40 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
 what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=vda27+fjb7uu7hig0P63ub8hHh6i3bdpMwRTzGzUxYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>
	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>
	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>
	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>
	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org> <55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>
	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>
	<E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>
	<96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>
	<18391476-539A-4592-BB17-9E98D1C359D6@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnB3kxSzTxisptLY_i4Hc_1KDbjskHwVOP6+w8-q6kLMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D2E32CD0-2473-4930-9CAD-08DCC429B6B1@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=vda27+fjb7uu7hig0P63ub8hHh6i3bdpMwRTzGzUxYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55DF0548.9020602@acm.org>

We might as well do whatever CSG wants and get it over with.  That is
probably what we will do in the end anyway.

avri


On 27-Aug-15 03:49, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> can we make some progress here? 
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-08-19 21:02 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     It appears to me like we have given Rafik no clear instructions on
>     how to proceed on this issue. The longer we delay, the greater the
>     urgency we will create in approaching a deadline where we need a
>     vice-chair from the NCPH. We?re still stuck on the process to
>     select one, instead of actually doing the selecting.
>
>     Several points have been raised on this growing thread regarding
>     the process, and it looks like we have a bit of divergence on
>     whether to proceed with the CSG suggestion for a process, or ask
>     to modify it.
>
>     I?ve been trying to dig up some of the points raised, but if I
>     have left any out, please raise them again:
>
>     1. Interviewing candidates should become a standard practice.
>
>     2. If the NCPH will be suggesting both a council vice-chair along
>     with a potential chair, they should be considered together.
>
>     3. Begin the voting cycle with a vote against vs. a vote for
>     procedure.
>
>     The third point is obviously the contentious issue we are trying
>     to resolve. We haven?t heard from everybody on this issue, so we
>     could wait until we do. An alternative solution may be to respond
>     to Steve?s email by explaining the logic behind starting with
>     ?vote against?. If I have understood his email correctly, he
>     communicated that fact that the CSG didn?t understand the reason
>     for voting in this matter. An explanation from us may find them
>     agreeable to the concept.
>
>     So which one of the two options would the PC like to move forward
>     with? Is there a third option that I have overlooked? One way or
>     another, we really do need to resolve this ASAP.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>
>     > On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi Ed,
>     >
>     > It is steve metaltiz not steve del bianco :)
>     >
>     > Rafik
>     >
>     > On Aug 15, 2015 1:10 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>     > Hi Rafik,
>     >
>     > Thanks for clarifying.
>     >
>     > Doesn't surprise me. The man probably did his own stress test on
>     surgical outcomes and how his operation would impact ICANN's
>     accountability going forward and impact on the NTIA approval of
>     the transition proposal. Stress test number 36B. :)
>     >
>     > I'm sure you are on top of this, and thanks, but does the fact
>     the NCPH
>     >
>     > Sent from my iPhone
>     >
>     > > On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > Hi Ed,
>     > >
>     > > He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
>     > >
>     > > Rafik
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> a ?crit :
>     > >>
>     > >> No objection here.
>     > >>
>     > >> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so
>     we might want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
>     > >>
>     > >> Ed
>     > >>
>     > >> Sent from my iPhone
>     > >>
>     > >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Hi,
>     > >>>
>     > >>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately,
>     we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a
>     candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much
>     what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so
>     clearly BTW. :)
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little
>     dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of
>     the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it
>     won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively,
>     we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no
>     need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we
>     use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to
>     Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Thanks.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Amr
>     > >>>
>     > >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
>     <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical
>     difference between
>     > >>>> the two methods is not apparent
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
>     > >>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
>     > >>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither
>     gets the
>     > >>>> supermajority needed.
>     > >>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs
>     B2 and
>     > >>>> someone might get the supermajority
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> And if you need to go the third round
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
>     > >>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might
>     actually get
>     > >>>> supermajority.
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly
>     ended up
>     > >>>> deadlocked.
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> good luck
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> avri
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>     > >>>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>>
>     > >>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the
>     unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most
>     desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of
>     just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t
>     really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase
>     and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council
>     chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever
>     method we agree ultimately end up using.
>     > >>>>>
>     > >>>>> Thanks.
>     > >>>>>
>     > >>>>> Amr
>     > >>>>>
>     > >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris
>     <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am
>     largely attempting to understand the issues and processes
>     involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues
>     like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where
>     Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to
>     eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although
>     I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting
>     Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit
>     currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute
>     resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is
>     chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen
>     by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> Ed
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> avri
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about
>     the response to
>     > >>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this
>     year only,
>     > >>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working
>     to let them
>     > >>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in
>     NCPH list .
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>     > >>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Best,
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Rafik
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>     > >>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>:
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr"
>     <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>     > >>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on
>     this year?s
>     > >>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG
>     that we
>     > >>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would
>     work. I hope
>     > >>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>     > >>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re
>     not using
>     > >>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>     > >>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there
>     but the
>     > >>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal
>     from the
>     > >>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with
>     this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>     > >>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after
>     we hold a
>     > >>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really
>     do need to
>     > >>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with
>     our NCPH
>     > >>>>>>>> counterparts.
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes
>     and keep
>     > >>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will
>     take the
>     > >>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some
>     work on how
>     > >>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more
>     systematic manner.
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Rafik
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>     > >>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>> Amr
>     > >>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>     > >>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>>>
>     wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the
>     answer
>     > >>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can
>     accept the
>     > >>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>     > >>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to
>     discuss
>     > >>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their
>     commitments,
>     > >>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>     > >>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the
>     what is
>     > >>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we
>     should agree
>     > >>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss
>     that later.
>     > >>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake
>     <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>     > >>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>:
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Hi
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans
>     to kick
>     > >>>>>>>> back more.
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Bill
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>     > >>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>     > >>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of
>     our best
>     > >>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us
>     newbies running
>     > >>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling
>     myself a newbie...)
>     > >>>>>>>>>>> SP
>     > >>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>     > >>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable
>     to more
>     > >>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> ---
>     > >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>     antivirus software.
>     > >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> ---
>     > >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>     software.
>     > >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >> _______________________________________________
>     > >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From avri  Thu Aug 27 19:28:55 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:28:55 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Gen RDS comments on preliminary issues report
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmnnAy_uT3CEnjbQd0yv1moPn5J-QF+KC=_crMT_51r5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55DDD8C9.1050303@acm.org> <55DDED0B.2050902@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThmnnAy_uT3CEnjbQd0yv1moPn5J-QF+KC=_crMT_51r5g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55DF3AC7.9000009@acm.org>

Hi,

I have edited James' contribution into the doc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing

Should try to close the doc next week so the PC has time to review and
consider.  So now is a good time to add stuff.

avri

On 26-Aug-15 21:16, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Thanks for this Avri!
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-08-27 1:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>
>
>     PS: I guess at this point I am volunteering to shepherd this one.
>
>     avri
>
>     On 26-Aug-15 11:18, Avri Doria wrote:
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > Sept 6 is the deadline for comments on the Preliminary issues
>     report .
>     > As I mentioned earlier, I have created a drive doc that includes
>     my one
>     > comment on this issue.
>     >
>     >
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
>     >
>     > It is open for comment and for the suggested addition of other
>     issues.
>     >
>     > I plan to ask the NCSG Policy committee to approve this document
>     as a
>     > NCSG comment before the deadline.
>     >
>     > Thanks
>     >
>     > avri
>     >
>     > ---
>     > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     >
>     >
>
>
>     ---
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From rafik.dammak  Fri Aug 28 03:29:26 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:29:26 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Gen RDS comments on preliminary issues report
In-Reply-To: <55DF3AC7.9000009@acm.org>
References: <55DDD8C9.1050303@acm.org> <55DDED0B.2050902@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThmnnAy_uT3CEnjbQd0yv1moPn5J-QF+KC=_crMT_51r5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<55DF3AC7.9000009@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=tpLC72YJNABEOENc2QsS0tX6_og_Oz9ARoSjsZop-WA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

Thank you!
I would suggest that PC members start checking the document and add their
edits/comments.
we should also receive other documents for other comments.

Best,

Rafik

2015-08-28 1:28 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I have edited James' contribution into the doc.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Should try to close the doc next week so the PC has time to review and
> consider.  So now is a good time to add stuff.
>
> avri
>
> On 26-Aug-15 21:16, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Thanks for this Avri!
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2015-08-27 1:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org
> >>:
> >
> >
> >     PS: I guess at this point I am volunteering to shepherd this one.
> >
> >     avri
> >
> >     On 26-Aug-15 11:18, Avri Doria wrote:
> >     > Hi,
> >     >
> >     > Sept 6 is the deadline for comments on the Preliminary issues
> >     report .
> >     > As I mentioned earlier, I have created a drive doc that includes
> >     my one
> >     > comment on this issue.
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGzq-cEDkdRstgh6w930Vhb-TeQGkhH2wrNrs36kt4s/edit?usp=sharing
> >     >
> >     > It is open for comment and for the suggested addition of other
> >     issues.
> >     >
> >     > I plan to ask the NCSG Policy committee to approve this document
> >     as a
> >     > NCSG comment before the deadline.
> >     >
> >     > Thanks
> >     >
> >     > avri
> >     >
> >     > ---
> >     > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software.
> >     > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > PC-NCSG mailing list
> >     > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >     > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >     ---
> >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     PC-NCSG mailing list
> >     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150828/e7ced9b7/attachment.html>


From joy  Sun Aug 30 12:14:52 2015
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:14:52 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
	what we all have time for
In-Reply-To: <55DF0548.9020602@acm.org>
References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org>	<29F74BFF-A6B4-4791-ADC9-8FCFFD52F97A@gmail.com>	<0AE89BF2-F4B3-4C32-90B5-BD391BF680B1@toast.net>	<4839F999-4FA5-4454-9260-A03BBFEDC6D6@gmail.com>	<55CA152F.1000307@mail.utoronto.ca>	<F054819F-2DEC-444E-9F1A-6DB607DE985B@gmail.com>	<CAH5sTh=oL6BfsYtghmY=jqxS0uwQj0e3PQBhMPdn_jGnUSmVDQ@mail.gmail.com>	<ADC4FF37-1F7D-4438-980A-7FF944181638@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sTh=P=igg20h-vq=+vtWOCJ0FSU_hoaRHXzRWKzUJT_4ddw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThn-8=+xyZG0VWj1Fr_8nQ7zmAjPN0ydBmJao2_THKmwdA@mail.gmail.com>	<55CDDC3F.8010209@acm.org>
	<55CDF721.3020809@acm.org>	<BAC9BB9F-D8A5-4BD4-BDB1-4BB8F2D18A21@egyptig.org>	<E3814B13-837C-4B01-906D-E922D5D55C6E@toast.net>	<96206221-049D-4A32-AC8A-723FF72BEAD9@gmail.com>	<18391476-539A-4592-BB17-9E98D1C359D6@toast.net>	<CAH5sThnB3kxSzTxisptLY_i4Hc_1KDbjskHwVOP6+w8-q6kLMA@mail.gmail.com>	<D2E32CD0-2473-4930-9CAD-08DCC429B6B1@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sTh=vda27+fjb7uu7hig0P63ub8hHh6i3bdpMwRTzGzUxYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55DF0548.9020602@acm.org>
Message-ID: <038201d0e304$5477dc20$fd679460$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>

Hi - Rafik I am happy with your initial suggestion - not sure if that
verifies Avri's point or not ...
Cheers
Joy 

-----Original Message-----
From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, 28 August 2015 12:41 a.m.
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
what we all have time for

We might as well do whatever CSG wants and get it over with.  That is
probably what we will do in the end anyway.

avri


On 27-Aug-15 03:49, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> can we make some progress here? 
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-08-19 21:02 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     It appears to me like we have given Rafik no clear instructions on
>     how to proceed on this issue. The longer we delay, the greater the
>     urgency we will create in approaching a deadline where we need a
>     vice-chair from the NCPH. We?re still stuck on the process to
>     select one, instead of actually doing the selecting.
>
>     Several points have been raised on this growing thread regarding
>     the process, and it looks like we have a bit of divergence on
>     whether to proceed with the CSG suggestion for a process, or ask
>     to modify it.
>
>     I?ve been trying to dig up some of the points raised, but if I
>     have left any out, please raise them again:
>
>     1. Interviewing candidates should become a standard practice.
>
>     2. If the NCPH will be suggesting both a council vice-chair along
>     with a potential chair, they should be considered together.
>
>     3. Begin the voting cycle with a vote against vs. a vote for
>     procedure.
>
>     The third point is obviously the contentious issue we are trying
>     to resolve. We haven?t heard from everybody on this issue, so we
>     could wait until we do. An alternative solution may be to respond
>     to Steve?s email by explaining the logic behind starting with
>     ?vote against?. If I have understood his email correctly, he
>     communicated that fact that the CSG didn?t understand the reason
>     for voting in this matter. An explanation from us may find them
>     agreeable to the concept.
>
>     So which one of the two options would the PC like to move forward
>     with? Is there a third option that I have overlooked? One way or
>     another, we really do need to resolve this ASAP.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>
>     > On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi Ed,
>     >
>     > It is steve metaltiz not steve del bianco :)
>     >
>     > Rafik
>     >
>     > On Aug 15, 2015 1:10 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>     > Hi Rafik,
>     >
>     > Thanks for clarifying.
>     >
>     > Doesn't surprise me. The man probably did his own stress test on
>     surgical outcomes and how his operation would impact ICANN's
>     accountability going forward and impact on the NTIA approval of
>     the transition proposal. Stress test number 36B. :)
>     >
>     > I'm sure you are on top of this, and thanks, but does the fact
>     the NCPH
>     >
>     > Sent from my iPhone
>     >
>     > > On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > Hi Ed,
>     > >
>     > > He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
>     > >
>     > > Rafik
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> a ?crit :
>     > >>
>     > >> No objection here.
>     > >>
>     > >> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so
>     we might want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
>     > >>
>     > >> Ed
>     > >>
>     > >> Sent from my iPhone
>     > >>
>     > >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Hi,
>     > >>>
>     > >>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately,
>     we?ll have to work out a method where both SGs agree on a
>     candidate (the consensus I was referring to). This is pretty much
>     what you referred to as A2 and B2. Thanks for spelling that out so
>     clearly BTW. :)
>     > >>>
>     > >>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little
>     dialogue between the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of
>     the NCPH prior to any official elections taking place, then it
>     won?t matter what method we use (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively,
>     we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle first anyway. So I see no
>     need to delay this year?s election to work out which method we
>     use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of A2/B2 to
>     Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Thanks.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Amr
>     > >>>
>     > >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
>     <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical
>     difference between
>     > >>>> the two methods is not apparent
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
>     > >>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
>     > >>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither
>     gets the
>     > >>>> supermajority needed.
>     > >>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs
>     B2 and
>     > >>>> someone might get the supermajority
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> And if you need to go the third round
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
>     > >>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might
>     actually get
>     > >>>> supermajority.
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly
>     ended up
>     > >>>> deadlocked.
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> good luck
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> avri
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>     > >>>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>>
>     > >>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the
>     unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most
>     desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of
>     just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t
>     really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase
>     and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council
>     chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever
>     method we agree ultimately end up using.
>     > >>>>>
>     > >>>>> Thanks.
>     > >>>>>
>     > >>>>> Amr
>     > >>>>>
>     > >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris
>     <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am
>     largely attempting to understand the issues and processes
>     involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues
>     like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where
>     Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to
>     eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although
>     I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting
>     Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit
>     currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute
>     resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is
>     chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen
>     by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> Ed
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> avri
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about
>     the response to
>     > >>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this
>     year only,
>     > >>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working
>     to let them
>     > >>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in
>     NCPH list .
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
>     > >>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Best,
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Rafik
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>     > >>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>:
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr"
>     <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>     > >>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on
>     this year?s
>     > >>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG
>     that we
>     > >>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would
>     work. I hope
>     > >>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>     > >>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re
>     not using
>     > >>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>     > >>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there
>     but the
>     > >>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal
>     from the
>     > >>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>> And one last point
, after we agree to proceed with
>     this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>     > >>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after
>     we hold a
>     > >>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really
>     do need to
>     > >>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with
>     our NCPH
>     > >>>>>>>> counterparts.
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes
>     and keep
>     > >>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will
>     take the
>     > >>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some
>     work on how
>     > >>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more
>     systematic manner.
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> Rafik
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>     > >>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>> Amr
>     > >>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>     > >>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>>>
>     wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the
>     answer
>     > >>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can
>     accept the
>     > >>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>     > >>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to
>     discuss
>     > >>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their
>     commitments,
>     > >>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>     > >>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the
>     what is
>     > >>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we
>     should agree
>     > >>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss
>     that later.
>     > >>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake
>     <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>     > >>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>:
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Hi
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans
>     to kick
>     > >>>>>>>> back more.
>     > >>>>>>>>>> Bill
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>     > >>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>     > >>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of
>     our best
>     > >>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us
>     newbies running
>     > >>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling
>     myself a newbie...)
>     > >>>>>>>>>>> SP
>     > >>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>     > >>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>> wrote:
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable
>     to more
>     > >>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
>     > >>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>     > >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> ---
>     > >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>     antivirus software.
>     > >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>>
>     > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>>>
>     > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> ---
>     > >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>     software.
>     > >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> _______________________________________________
>     > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >> _______________________________________________
>     > >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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