From joy  Tue Dec  1 11:11:21 2015
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 22:11:21 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query
In-Reply-To: <D27121E7.143F8%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca>
	<25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org>
	<008601d12162$cb442f10$61cc8d30$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<D27121E7.143F8%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
Message-ID: <001a01d12c18$3f33ed60$bd9bc820$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>

Hi all - I think in fact my term is now up, having only been for just one
year, ending 30 November 2015.

Kind regards

 

Joy Liddicoat

 

From: Maryam Bakoshi [mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 7:27 a.m.
To: Joy Liddicoat; 'Sam Lanfranco'
Cc: 'NCSG-Policy'; 'Tapani Tarvainen'
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query

 

Hi Joy,

 

Please could you let me know what the correct date is, and I will ask for it
to be updated asap.

 

Many thanks,

-- 

Maryam Bakoshi

Secretariat -Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

Email:  maryam.bakoshi at icann.org

Mobile:  +44 7737 698036

Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann

 

From: Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
Date: Tuesday, 17 November 2015 18:07
To: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, 'Sam Lanfranco'
<lanfran at yorku.ca>
Cc: 'NCSG-Policy' <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, 'Tapani Tarvainen'
<tapani at tapanitarvainen.fi>
Subject: RE: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query

 

Hi - and I see that my term is up this month as well,

 

Joy 

 

From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Maryam
Bakoshi
Sent: Monday, 9 November 2015 9:20 p.m.
To: Sam Lanfranco
Cc: NCSG-Policy; Tapani Tarvainen
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query

 

Hi Sam, All,

 

I have asked for this page to be updated, but I am still waiting for it to
be actioned. 

 

Below is the change request I made, please it would be helpful if
corrections are made, then I can send an updated version/request to the
team. 

------------------------

 

Rafik Dammak: remove 'Chair' from front of name and also remove from
Executive Committee and Finance Committee

Avri Doria: Remove and replace with 'Stefania Milan' (SOI
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stefania+Milan+SOI?watchingPage
=false&watchingSpace=false&watchingBlogs=false&isAdmin=false&isBlogPost=fals
e> ); picture attached; term: Oct 2015 - Oct 2017

David Cake - change end date to October 2016

Amr Elsadr - change end date to Oct 2017

Maria Farrel - change end date to Oct 2017

Sam Lanfranco - change end date to Oct 2016

Marilia  Maciel - change end date to Oct 2017

Tapani Tarvainen - move to top of page; add 'Chair' in bold to front of
name; change end date to Oct 2016; add to Executive Committee, Policy
Committee and Finance Committee.

 

Many thanks, 

 

Maryam Bakoshi

Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org

S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann

T: +44 7737698036

 


On 8 Nov 2015, at 23:58, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

Policy Committee Colleagues,

Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the end of
October I looked up Policy Committee composition.
Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee
membership has expired.
Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi Vansnick
(July 2016) are serving beyond this month. 

Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? 
Data from:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg

Sam L. 

Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check mark =
still a member/observer. 






-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151201/6d987380/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151201/6d987380/attachment-0001.png>


From ncsg  Tue Dec  1 12:15:40 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:15:40 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New gTLD Program Implementation Review Draft Report
Message-ID: <20151201101540.GA15564@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Dear all,

Thank you for getting the RPM report comment done in time.

But there's no rest for the... whatever, so let's move on to
New gTLD Program Implementation Review Draft Report,
deadline for comments next Monday (December 7):

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-draft-review-2015-09-23-en

Has anybody been working on this? Who'd be willing to?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen




From ncsg  Tue Dec  1 12:25:37 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:25:37 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query
In-Reply-To: <001a01d12c18$3f33ed60$bd9bc820$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca>
	<25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org>
	<008601d12162$cb442f10$61cc8d30$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
	<D27121E7.143F8%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
	<001a01d12c18$3f33ed60$bd9bc820$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
Message-ID: <20151201102537.GB15564@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Hi Joy, all,

I think we could interpret the one-year-term here to end only when
successor is appointed, which in this case will presumably happen soon
after NCUC elections are over next week.

Tapani

On Dec 01 22:11, Joy Liddicoat (joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz) wrote:

> Hi all - I think in fact my term is now up, having only been for just one
> year, ending 30 November 2015.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
>  
> 
> Joy Liddicoat
> 
>  
> 
> From: Maryam Bakoshi [mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 7:27 a.m.
> To: Joy Liddicoat; 'Sam Lanfranco'
> Cc: 'NCSG-Policy'; 'Tapani Tarvainen'
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Joy,
> 
>  
> 
> Please could you let me know what the correct date is, and I will ask for it
> to be updated asap.
> 
>  
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> -- 
> 
> Maryam Bakoshi
> 
> Secretariat -Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
> 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
>  
> 
> Email:  maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
> 
> Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
> 
> Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
> 
>  
> 
> From: Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
> Date: Tuesday, 17 November 2015 18:07
> To: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, 'Sam Lanfranco'
> <lanfran at yorku.ca>
> Cc: 'NCSG-Policy' <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, 'Tapani Tarvainen'
> <tapani at tapanitarvainen.fi>
> Subject: RE: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query
> 
>  
> 
> Hi - and I see that my term is up this month as well,
> 
>  
> 
> Joy 
> 
>  
> 
> From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Maryam
> Bakoshi
> Sent: Monday, 9 November 2015 9:20 p.m.
> To: Sam Lanfranco
> Cc: NCSG-Policy; Tapani Tarvainen
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Sam, All,
> 
>  
> 
> I have asked for this page to be updated, but I am still waiting for it to
> be actioned. 
> 
>  
> 
> Below is the change request I made, please it would be helpful if
> corrections are made, then I can send an updated version/request to the
> team. 
> 
> ------------------------
> 
>  
> 
> Rafik Dammak: remove 'Chair' from front of name and also remove from
> Executive Committee and Finance Committee
> 
> Avri Doria: Remove and replace with 'Stefania Milan' (SOI
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stefania+Milan+SOI?watchingPage
> =false&watchingSpace=false&watchingBlogs=false&isAdmin=false&isBlogPost=fals
> e> ); picture attached; term: Oct 2015 - Oct 2017
> 
> David Cake - change end date to October 2016
> 
> Amr Elsadr - change end date to Oct 2017
> 
> Maria Farrel - change end date to Oct 2017
> 
> Sam Lanfranco - change end date to Oct 2016
> 
> Marilia  Maciel - change end date to Oct 2017
> 
> Tapani Tarvainen - move to top of page; add 'Chair' in bold to front of
> name; change end date to Oct 2016; add to Executive Committee, Policy
> Committee and Finance Committee.
> 
>  
> 
> Many thanks, 
> 
>  
> 
> Maryam Bakoshi
> 
> Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC
> 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
>  
> 
> E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
> 
> S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann
> 
> T: +44 7737698036
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On 8 Nov 2015, at 23:58, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
> 
> Policy Committee Colleagues,
> 
> Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the end of
> October I looked up Policy Committee composition.
> Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee
> membership has expired.
> Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi Vansnick
> (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. 
> 
> Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? 
> Data from:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg
> 
> Sam L. 
> 
> Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check mark =
> still a member/observer. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------
> "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 mariliamaciel  Tue Dec  1 20:37:18 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:37:18 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Travelers to LA intersessional
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5217FBB889C291B840B2C63F7180@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20151117190910.GC31288@tarvainen.info>
	<564C087E.7050708@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DB3PR05MB5217FBB889C291B840B2C63F7180@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2+vstWGk0LgHb-FNY_EvNXchVhmpy026md8jnMg+Htjg@mail.gmail.com>

I also confirm that I am able to attend.
Thanks
Mar?lia

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>
wrote:

> I can make it, already marked it in my agenda.
> Stefania
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Inviato: mercoled? 18 novembre 2015 06.11
> A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Travelers to LA intersessional
>
> I can make it, and as usual am happy to share the room with an
> underfunded woman.
> cheers stephanie
>
> On 2015-11-17 14:09, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > and especially councilors, the NCPH intersessional
> > meeting will be held in LA on 4-5 February, with
> > probably an NCSG/constituency pre-meeting on Feb 3.
> >
> > That does not leave much time for travel arrangements.
> >
> > There is travel support for all councillors, but
> > please confirm whether or no you can travel then ASAP.
> >
> > (Constituency EC members are supported as well, but
> > they're up to respective ECs to take care of.)
> >
> > Others, if you think there's a reason why you should
> > get there in case there are extra travel slots
> > (if a councillor can't make it or something), please
> > come forward, too.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151201/f34bdde4/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Thu Dec  3 00:38:16 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:38:16 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: Re: [council] Review of CCWG - ACCT Report
Message-ID: <11defade01be409cbce40754881ca959@toast.net>

 
 Hi everybody,
  
  
 I'm forwarding a post I just made to the Council list in response to a request by Council Chair James Bladel concerning the GNSO response to the CCWG 3rd draft report. Amongst James request was that one Councillor from each SG take the lead in reporting to the Council the work of the individual SG's on the matter. I thank the confidence my fellow NCSG Councillors have shown in me by allowing me to serve in this role.
  
 The GNSO response to the CCWG 3rd draft report is going to be crucial. It's is absolutely ridiculous that the SO's are being asked to produce a report concurrently with the general public comment period but, despite our protests,  this apparently is the way things are going to proceed. I, and I'm sure all of other Councillors,  look forward to working with Member Robin, Chairs Tapani, Amr, Bill and Rudi, all the CCWG participants, and everyone on this list and beyond,  to ensure that our views and those of the wider noncommercial community are contained in the GNSO response. This is important stuff.
  
 Just a reminder: twenty two days until Christmas, eighteen days until public comments on the CCWG third draft report are due.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed Morris
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Edward Morris" <emorris at milk.toast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 10:15 PM
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Review of CCWG - ACCT Report   
 Hi James,
  
 Thanks for getting out in front of this.  I've been designated as be the NCSG Councillor reporting to the Council list on all things CCWG-ACCT.
  
 As we approach the one year anniversary of the very first CCWG-ACCT meeting (December 9th) it truly is amazing how much the CCWG has accomplished, and the amount of detail and effort that has gone into the third draft report is extraordinary. Thanks go out to so many from the GNSO who have dedicated large portions of their lives this past year getting the CCWG to this point. Much has been done, even more still needs to be done, and as a charting organisation the input we'll be sending to the CCWG in response to the third draft report is crucial to the success of this effort.
  
 In response to your bullet points:
  
   *  Efforts (planned or underway) in their SG/C to review & discuss the Draft Report
   
 Substantive discussion of the specifics of the proposal has begun on the various mailing lists of the NCSG and of it's constituent parts (NCUC/NPOC). The NCSG Policy Committee is currently organising itself to produce it's own public comment by the December 21st deadline. Several of our organisational and individual members have indicated that they will be filing separate comments. We will be having a Webinar on the report next week and a large portion of the NCSG policy call on December 15th is expected to be devoted to the draft report. 
  
  *  The expected time frame for completing the review, and any deadlines for the SG to raise concerns
   
 Frankly, given the short amount of time allowed for public comment the entire concept of a time frame is almost nonsensical here. Twenty one days is insufficient time to thoroughly respond to the myriad of issues raised in the draft report. As many of our Members (NCSG's 500 Members come from over 100 different countries) are not native English speakers their time frame for public comment is effectively reduced to nine days. As such, our review of the third draft report is ongoing and I expect will continue to the final public comment deadline of December 21st, and beyond.  
  
  
  
  *  Any issues or topics arising from this review that need to be discussed by the Council, and/or included in our response back to the CCWG.
   
 As noted, our review is ongoing. I do expect substantial progress to have been made by our NCSG policy call on December 15th and I, along with my fellow NCSG Councillors, will  be prepared to discuss our concerns and conclusions, to date, on the December 17th Council call. 
  
 There obviously is much work to be done by Council between now and the December 21st public comment deadline. To the extent it would be helpful, I'm happy to volunteer for any tasks that may need to be done on this during the coming few weeks. It might upset Santa Claus a bit but something tells me a split root would upset him even more! Despite the time constraints let's do our best to give the CCWG some quality input worthy of the GNSO's talented and dynamic membership.
  
 Kind Regards,
  
 Ed Morris
  
  
   
 The Draft Report is expected to be published on 30 Nov, with the comment period closing on 21 Dec.  No question that this is an extremely tight schedule, and hopefully this approach will allow us to gather topics for discussion on our next call on 17 Dec.
  
 Thanks-
  
 J.
  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151202/2c70b2bf/attachment.html>


From dave  Thu Dec  3 01:37:07 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 07:37:07 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Travelers to LA intersessional
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2+vstWGk0LgHb-FNY_EvNXchVhmpy026md8jnMg+Htjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20151117190910.GC31288@tarvainen.info>
	<564C087E.7050708@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DB3PR05MB5217FBB889C291B840B2C63F7180@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CACpVkK2+vstWGk0LgHb-FNY_EvNXchVhmpy026md8jnMg+Htjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CD6A1D10-0BD7-40ED-93CF-9D263DE1C367@difference.com.au>

I have a close friends wedding on the 6th, and I think there is no way I can attend both. So I?m going to bow out from the intersessional.

I?ll try and remotely participate of course, but I won?t be physically travelling to LA.

David

> On 2 Dec 2015, at 2:37 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I also confirm that I am able to attend.
> Thanks
> Mar?lia
> 
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>> wrote:
> I can make it, already marked it in my agenda.
> Stefania
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Inviato: mercoled? 18 novembre 2015 06.11
> A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Travelers to LA intersessional
> 
> I can make it, and as usual am happy to share the room with an
> underfunded woman.
> cheers stephanie
> 
> On 2015-11-17 14:09, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > and especially councilors, the NCPH intersessional
> > meeting will be held in LA on 4-5 February, with
> > probably an NCSG/constituency pre-meeting on Feb 3.
> >
> > That does not leave much time for travel arrangements.
> >
> > There is travel support for all councillors, but
> > please confirm whether or no you can travel then ASAP.
> >
> > (Constituency EC members are supported as well, but
> > they're up to respective ECs to take care of.)
> >
> > Others, if you think there's a reason why you should
> > get there in case there are extra travel slots
> > (if a councillor can't make it or something), please
> > come forward, too.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
> 
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151203/fed058d0/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/20151203/fed058d0/attachment-0001.sig>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Dec  4 23:24:40 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 16:24:40 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Implementation of
 GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display
 of RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <23868A3B-BFB2-4560-AF2D-7E05C82996BE@christopherwilkinson.eu>
References: <23868A3B-BFB2-4560-AF2D-7E05C82996BE@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Message-ID: <56620498.9000708@mail.utoronto.ca>

Chris Wilkinson has brought this to my attention.  I know Amr was on 
this committee, who is going to draft comments, and ought we to be 
concerned about the implications for privacy/HR?
cheers Stephanie
Begin forwarded message:

> *From: *"ICANN News Alert" <communications at icann.org 
> <mailto:communications at icann.org>>
> *Subject: **ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick 
> Whois Consensus Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of 
> RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs*
> *Date: *4 Dec 2015 19:21:45 GMT+01:00
> *To: *<cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> *Reply-To: *communications at icann.org <mailto:communications at icann.org>
>
> ICANN News Alert
> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/>
>
>
>     News Alert
>
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-12-03-en
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>     Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy
>     Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output
>     for All gTLDs
>
> 3 December 2015
>
>
> *Forum Announcement:* 	Public Comment Period opens on 	*Date:* 	3 
> December 2015
> *Categories/Tags:* 	
>
>   * Top-Level Domains
>   * Policy Processes
>   * Contracted Party Agreements
>   * Privacy
>
> *Purpose (Brief):* 	This public comment proceeding seeks to obtain 
> community input on the proposed implementation of the Generic Names 
> Supporting Organization (GNSO) Thick Whois Policy Development Process 
> (PDP) recommendation requiring the consistent labeling and display of 
> Whois Output for all gTLDs.
> *Public Comment Box Link:* 
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en
>
>
>
> This message was sent to cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 
> <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu> from:
>
> ICANN News Alert | communications at icann.org 
> <mailto:communications at icann.org> | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive 
> Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>
> 	
>
> Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! 
> <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>
>
> Manage Your Subscription 
> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=26021682&l=6333&s=ZUXH&m=977726&c=165637> 
>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151204/2f15e72f/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Sat Dec  5 02:56:04 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 19:56:04 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent
	Procedures
Message-ID: <e01a9b64a5514e2f9f4dfbfa14805abf@toast.net>

Hi everybody,
  
 I'm forwarding this post from the Council list. We did not file a public 
comment here, some affiliated with our members did, but we certainly need 
to be active on any PDP that comes out of this as well as developing some 
common positions that we should be pushing.
  
 Ed 
  
  
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 11:20 PM
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures   
     0   0   1   77   441   ICANN   3   1   517   14.0                
Normal   0               false   false   false      EN-US   JA   X-NONE     
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                          Dear Councilors,
  
 Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New 
gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-
04dec15-en.pdf. You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report 
on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN 
Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP 
that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was 
published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 
30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected to be 
published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: 
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-
en. 
  
 In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received 
were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue 
Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate 
Annex. 
  
 The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to  consider 
and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD 
Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the 
existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of 
New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed.  The outcome of the PDP may lead 
to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, 
and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, 
and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance.
     0   0   1   77   441   ICANN   3   1   517   14.0               Normal 
  0               false   false   false      EN-US   JA   X-NONE            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                  
 The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO 
Councilor.
  
 If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

  
 Best,
  
  
  

Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300  

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
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 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151204/670c1b6e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1445550 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151204/670c1b6e/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151204/670c1b6e/attachment-0003.obj>


From stephanie.perrin  Sat Dec  5 04:17:12 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 21:17:12 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD
 Subsequent Procedures
In-Reply-To: <e01a9b64a5514e2f9f4dfbfa14805abf@toast.net>
References: <e01a9b64a5514e2f9f4dfbfa14805abf@toast.net>
Message-ID: <56624928.9040406@mail.utoronto.ca>

yes we had better discuss those common positions on our next call, as I 
am afraid that I for one forget them....
cheers Stephanie
PS and I do hope that I am not the only one prepared to admit data 
overload....

On 2015-12-04 19:56, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> I'm forwarding this post from the Council list. We did not file a 
> public comment here, some affiliated with our members did, but we 
> certainly need to be active on any PDP that comes out of this as well 
> as developing some common positions that we should be pushing.
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Sent*: Friday, December 4, 2015 11:20 PM
> *To*: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject*: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
> Dear Councilors,
> Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on 
> New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf. 
> You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic 
> at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an 
> Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is 
> initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was 
> published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing 
> on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected 
> to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: 
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en. 
>
> In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received 
> were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue 
> Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a 
> separate Annex.
> The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to 
> consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New 
> gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments 
> to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the 
> Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed.  The outcome 
> of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy 
> principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) 
> developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or 
> developing new implementation guidance.
> The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a 
> GNSO Councilor.
> If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151204/805288f0/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sat Dec  5 12:21:50 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 19:21:50 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD
	Subsequent Procedures
In-Reply-To: <e01a9b64a5514e2f9f4dfbfa14805abf@toast.net>
References: <e01a9b64a5514e2f9f4dfbfa14805abf@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmZY-xRqD05xqZDA+FSvET4d4hZKdozTKqz6fLgsUePVA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi ,

I do recall sending the annoucement, creating a google doc for a comment
and included the PC. Yes, we did not submit a statement but I would expect
the PC to be more proactive in term of developing positions, managing
consultation process, set priorities and share the workload. It is the
responsability of everyone here.

I would prefer to be more practical here and suggest that we list all open
comments and decide which has high priority, get volunteers for drafting
each  and someone to lead it. That should be a regular task.  Definitely,
the ccwg report is on the top of the pile.

Best,

Rafik
On Dec 5, 2015 9:56 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm forwarding this post from the Council list. We did not file a public
> comment here, some affiliated with our members did, but we certainly need
> to be active on any PDP that comes out of this as well as developing some
> common positions that we should be pushing.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Sent*: Friday, December 4, 2015 11:20 PM
> *To*: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject*: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
> Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New
> gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf.
> You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at
> the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue
> Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by
> the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public
> comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The
> Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4
> December 2015 and made available here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en
> .
>
> In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received
> were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue
> Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate
> Annex.
>
> The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider
> and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the
> existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of
> New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed.  The outcome of the PDP may lead
> to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations,
> and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations,
> and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance.
>
> The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO
> Councilor.
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
> *Steven Chan*
> Sr. Policy Manager
>
> *ICANN*
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151205/26065355/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Sat Dec  5 12:32:37 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 10:32:37 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD
	Subsequent Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmZY-xRqD05xqZDA+FSvET4d4hZKdozTKqz6fLgsUePVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e01a9b64a5514e2f9f4dfbfa14805abf@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmZY-xRqD05xqZDA+FSvET4d4hZKdozTKqz6fLgsUePVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6141AFB1-5B0E-4204-9988-F2E107FD3BB7@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

I agree with everything you've written.



Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 5, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi ,
> 
> I do recall sending the annoucement, creating a google doc for a comment and included the PC. Yes, we did not submit a statement but I would expect the PC to be more proactive in term of developing positions, managing consultation process, set priorities and share the workload. It is the responsability of everyone here. 
> 
> I would prefer to be more practical here and suggest that we list all open comments and decide which has high priority, get volunteers for drafting each  and someone to lead it. That should be a regular task.  Definitely, the ccwg report is on the top of the pile.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
>> On Dec 5, 2015 9:56 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>  
>> I'm forwarding this post from the Council list. We did not file a public comment here, some affiliated with our members did, but we certainly need to be active on any PDP that comes out of this as well as developing some common positions that we should be pushing.
>>  
>> Ed 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>
>> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 11:20 PM
>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
>>  
>> Dear Councilors,
>>  
>> Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf. You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en. 
>>  
>> In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate Annex. 
>>  
>> The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed.  The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance.
>>  
>> The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO Councilor.
>>  
>> If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Steven Chan
>> Sr. Policy Manager
>> 
>> ICANN
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151205/e3075f78/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sat Dec  5 13:14:00 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 09:14:00 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD
	Subsequent Procedures
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2i1Nb_2oYEN-xji_-Ov12KODvNiHPCdvGL_svEYakZWQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

Thanks Ed for sending the final report. Maybe it would be interesting to us
all on the list if we can map the parallel tracks of discussion that relate
to the new gTLD program assessment, so we can decide the best way to
intervene:

a) Competition, consumer trust and consumer choice review (CCT). This
review about the new gTLD program is part of the Affirmation of Commitment
mandatory periodic reviews.
Status: self-nominations for the review team have been made. SO/ACs are
deliberating on endorsements. The decision on the composition of the team
will be made by CEO and GAC chair.  See:
https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct

b) Potential GNSO policy development process on new gTLD subsequent
procedures. The final issue report (shared by Ed) was sent to the GNSO and
this will probably trigger a policy development process.

c) Implementation review and other assessments/metrics being produced by
ICANN. These process has been going on for some time and several documents
have been produced. Although they do not have a policy nature, they
will probably feed parallel discussions (CCT and the GNSO PDP). For
example, see a draft report produced by ICANN staff on implementation
review, which is under public comment until December 7th.
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-draft-review-2015-09-23-en

Although the goals and mandate of the three processes are different, they
will have points of overlap, so I think it is useful to look at the whole
landscape, although, as Policy Committee, our focus would lie more
naturally on the second one.

Lastly, the Cross Community Working Party on ICANN's corporate and social
responsibility to respect human rights (*CCWP-HR*) has created subgroups to
perform different tasks. *Subgroup 4* will be dedicated to "Providing input
to PDP new gTLDs from a human rights perspective". We had our first call
yesterday. If you would like to join this group, please do so at:
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights4
In any case, I am facilitating the work there and will keep the information
flowing both ways.

Best wishes!
Mar?lia


On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> I agree with everything you've written.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 5, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi ,
>
> I do recall sending the annoucement, creating a google doc for a comment
> and included the PC. Yes, we did not submit a statement but I would expect
> the PC to be more proactive in term of developing positions, managing
> consultation process, set priorities and share the workload. It is the
> responsability of everyone here.
>
> I would prefer to be more practical here and suggest that we list all open
> comments and decide which has high priority, get volunteers for drafting
> each  and someone to lead it. That should be a regular task.  Definitely,
> the ccwg report is on the top of the pile.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
> On Dec 5, 2015 9:56 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I'm forwarding this post from the Council list. We did not file a public
>> comment here, some affiliated with our members did, but we certainly need
>> to be active on any PDP that comes out of this as well as developing some
>> common positions that we should be pushing.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From*: "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>
>> *Sent*: Friday, December 4, 2015 11:20 PM
>> *To*: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Subject*: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
>>
>> Dear Councilors,
>>
>> Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New
>> gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here:
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf.
>> You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at
>> the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue
>> Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by
>> the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public
>> comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The
>> Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4
>> December 2015 and made available here:
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en
>> .
>>
>> In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received
>> were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue
>> Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate
>> Annex.
>>
>> The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider
>> and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD
>> Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the
>> existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of
>> New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed.  The outcome of the PDP may lead
>> to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations,
>> and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations,
>> and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance.
>>
>> The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO
>> Councilor.
>>
>> If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Steven Chan*
>> Sr. Policy Manager
>>
>> *ICANN*
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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/20151205/088ec6d8/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Sat Dec  5 14:18:54 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 07:18:54 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD
	Subsequent Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2i1Nb_2oYEN-xji_-Ov12KODvNiHPCdvGL_svEYakZWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2i1Nb_2oYEN-xji_-Ov12KODvNiHPCdvGL_svEYakZWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f5fd884913c34a488c8c6ee9e936752e@toast.net>

That's really helpful Marillia. Thank you so much - it places things into a bit of perspective.
  
 I had a post earlier that, for some reason, was cut short. I wanted to suggest that perhaps we can set up teams to deal with issues with some overlap. For example, we have a few potential pdp / pc opportunities forthcoming that involve rpm's, some dealing with WHOIS and related privacy issues, along with the transition CCWG/CWG policy areas. We need to find a way to link our expertise in these areas, often possessed by our veterans of many years, with new members who have interest in these areas but no experience,  with our Councillors, who have to know a little bit about all of these areas.
  
 As we prepare to organise the PC for the coming year I'd suggest considering appointing not only a PC Chair but perhaps sub-Chairs in charge of coordinating he PC in specific policy areas. With all that is coming down the pipeline it will be hard to impossible for any one individual to keep abreast of and coordinate our work in all policy areas. Perhaps some delegation would be helpful...\
  
 Ed
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2015 11:14 AM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Cc: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "pc-ncsg" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures   
 Hello everyone,   
 Thanks Ed for sending the final report. Maybe it would be interesting to us all on the list if we can map the parallel tracks of discussion that relate to the new gTLD program assessment, so we can decide the best way to intervene:
  
 a) Competition, consumer trust and consumer choice review (CCT). This review about the new gTLD program is part of the Affirmation of Commitment mandatory periodic reviews.
 Status: self-nominations for the review team have been made. SO/ACs are deliberating on endorsements. The decision on the composition of the team will be made by CEO and GAC chair.  See: https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct 
  
  b) Potential GNSO policy development process on new gTLD subsequent procedures. The final issue report (shared by Ed) was sent to the GNSO and this will probably trigger a policy development process.  

  
 c) Implementation review and other assessments/metrics being produced by ICANN. These process has been going on for some time and several documents have been produced. Although they do not have a policy nature, they will probably feed parallel discussions (CCT and the GNSO PDP). For example, see a draft report produced by ICANN staff on implementation review, which is under public comment until December 7th. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-draft-review-2015-09-23-en
  
 Although the goals and mandate of the three processes are different, they will have points of overlap, so I think it is useful to look at the whole landscape, although, as Policy Committee, our focus would lie more naturally on the second one. 
  
 Lastly, the Cross Community Working Party on ICANN's corporate and social responsibility to respect human rights (CCWP-HR) has created subgroups to perform different tasks. Subgroup 4 will be dedicated to "Providing input to PDP new gTLDs from a human rights perspective". We had our first call yesterday. If you would like to join this group, please do so at: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights4
 In any case, I am facilitating the work there and will keep the information flowing both ways.
  
 Best wishes!
 Mar?lia
  
   On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:    Hi Rafik,
  
 I agree with everything you've written.
  

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
 

Hi ,  

I do recall sending the annoucement, creating a google doc for a comment and included the PC. Yes, we did not submit a statement but I would expect the PC to be more proactive in term of developing positions, managing consultation process, set priorities and share the workload. It is the responsability of everyone here.   

I would prefer to be more practical here and suggest that we list all open comments and decide which has high priority, get volunteers for drafting each  and someone to lead it. That should be a regular task.  Definitely, the ccwg report is on the top of the pile.  

Best,  

Rafik   On Dec 5, 2015 9:56 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:   Hi everybody,
  
 I'm forwarding this post from the Council list. We did not file a public comment here, some affiliated with our members did, but we certainly need to be active on any PDP that comes out of this as well as developing some common positions that we should be pushing.
  
 Ed 
  
  
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 11:20 PM
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures    
    Dear Councilors,
  
 Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf. You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en. 
  
 In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate Annex. 
  
 The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to  consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed.  The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance.
  
 The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO Councilor.
  
 If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

    
   Best,
    
    
    

Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300  

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
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 

_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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/20151205/da6bd0c3/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Mon Dec  7 10:46:23 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 10:46:23 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT New gTLD Program Implementation Review Draft Report
In-Reply-To: <20151201101540.GA15564@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20151201101540.GA15564@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <20151207084623.GA12776@kursori.tarvainen.info>

Nobody has reacted to this... and deadline is today. :-(

Tapani

On Dec 01 12:15, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Thank you for getting the RPM report comment done in time.
> 
> But there's no rest for the... whatever, so let's move on to
> New gTLD Program Implementation Review Draft Report,
> deadline for comments next Monday (December 7):
> 
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-draft-review-2015-09-23-en
> 
> Has anybody been working on this? Who'd be willing to?
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen



From egmorris1  Thu Dec 10 15:31:03 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:31:03 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] FW: [Acct-Staff] CCWG Accountability Draft
	Report
Message-ID: <b6eaad1d5d5249b091e5a2e11e32be10@toast.net>

FYI.
  
 Post to the Council list concerning a request from the CCWG leadership for certain specific responses from the chartering organisations.
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:23 PM
To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] FW: [Acct-Staff] CCWG Accountability Draft Report   

For your Attention:  

   

From: <acct-staff-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 11:57 AM
    

  

Dear all,  

On 30 November, the CCWG-Accountability delivered its third Draft Proposal to the ICANN community for consideration. The proposal includes twelve recommendations and annexes describing each of these in detail.   

As previously announced, the comment period - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en - is two-fold: firstly It invites Chartering Organization to indicate their endorsement of the proposed Work Stream 1 recommendations to ICANN's accountability and secondly It seeks feedback from the broader public.   

To assist the community in considering its proposal the  CCWG-Accountability held two informational webinars on 2 December, which were attended by a diverse set of community members (140 attendees including 56 who were neither member nor participants to the CCWG). Session archives and list of attendees can be found on the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984258.  

The CCWG-Accountability encourages individuals to channel their comments through their respective SO/ACs to streamline the processing of input and avoid duplication of comments. However, any individual, whether or not they are part of a Chartering Organization or an SO/AC, is welcome to provide their comments with respect to the CCWG-Accountability's proposal.   

   

As indicated in the CCWG-Accountability Charter: Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible.  

   

The CCWG-Accountability considers this Draft Proposal to be the Final proposal unless significant concerns are raised by Chartering Organizations. As the case may be, the CCWG-Accountability  might then amend the proposal to address these and post a supplementary report for approval by the Chartering Organizations.  

   

In an effort to clearly identify the level of support for the recommendations the CCWG-Accountability would request that input clearly indicate your position on each of the twelve recommendations. Should a Chartering Organization, in its process to approve the proposal, identify any significant concerns that would require it to reject a specific recommendation, the CCWG-Accountability would request that such concerns be communicated to it as soon as possible even if the approval process in the Chartering Organization is not yet completed. This would allow the CCWG-Accountability to begin addressing any such concerns while advising the other Chartering Organizations of the situation.  

   

The CCWG-Accountability would also like to remind the Chartering Organizations that the language proposed in the recommendations for ICANN Bylaw revisions, which affects all of the recommendations, are conceptual in nature at this stage. The CCWG-Accountability's external legal counsel and the ICANN legal team will draft final language for these revisions to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws (Fundamental/Standard Bylaws). As such the CCWG-Accountability is asking the Chartering Organizations to focus on approving the core concepts of the recommendations and not specific wording or implementation details. Any comments or issues on implementation should be clearly identified as such and will be considered for the implementation phase.  

   

Given the time constraints the CCWG-Accountability is working to we would appreciate indications of support, if formal approval is not possible, from Chartering Organizations in a timeframe that is generally consistent with the official closing date of 21 December. The CCWG-Accountability recognizes that the internal process requirements of the Chartering Organizations may only allow these to provide formal approval of the proposal in the early days of January which would be acceptable if an indication of support has been provided.   

   

Following the conclusion of the public comment period (21 December - 23:59 UTC), the CCWG-Accountability will assess the level of support received and attempt to reconcile differing input, if any, from the Chartering Organizations. Should a Supplementary Report be necessary, the CCWG-Accountability would inform the Chartering Organizations of this promptly.   

   

We look forward to your input on our Draft Proposal. For your information, to facilitate responses as well as enable the collection and aggregation of input, a survey was created for the community's use - see https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ccwg-acct-draftproposal.   

Should you wish to organize an informational webinar for your membership, we are more than happy to schedule a meeting.   

As always, feel free to contact us should you have any questions.  

Thanks                                                                                                      

Best regards  

   

CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs  

Thomas Rickert  

Leon Sanchez  

Mathieu Weill  

  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151210/95a8b7b5/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Dec 13 20:19:52 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:19:52 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent
	Procedures
In-Reply-To: <A416941AD213C9428D623560432AFBB62A325997@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com>
References: <A416941AD213C9428D623560432AFBB62A325997@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com>
Message-ID: <566DB6C8.2000508@mail.utoronto.ca>

as predicted by  Marillia, here is the motion for a PDP to start asap...
cheers stephanie


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Date: 	Mon, 7 Dec 2015 03:39:59 +0000
From: 	Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
CC: 	steve.chan at icann.org <steve.chan at icann.org>



All

Following Steve Chan?s email of Friday 4 December 2015 that provided the 
GNSO Council with a copy of the Final Issue Report on New gTLD 
Subsequent Procedures, attached is a motion proposing the initiation of 
a PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures and convening of the PDP WG as 
soon as possible.

Regards

Donna

*Donna Austin**:****Neustar, Inc.**
*Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

*Cell:***+1.310.890.9655 *Email: *donna.austin at neustar.biz 
<mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for 
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you 
have received this e-mail message in error and any review, 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
notify me immediately and delete the original message.

*Follow Neustar:*cid:image001.png at 01CC3CD3.5F595DC0Facebook 
<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc>cid:image002.png at 01CC3CD3.5F595DC0LinkedIn 
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349>cid:image003.png at 01CC3CD3.5F595DC0Twitter 
<http://www.twitter.com/neustar>

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

*From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan
*Sent:* Friday, 4 December 2015 3:16 PM
*To:* council at gnso.icann.org
*Subject:* [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Dear Councilors,

Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on 
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf. 
You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic 
at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an 
Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is 
initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was 
published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing 
on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected 
to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: 
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en. 


In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received 
were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue 
Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate 
Annex.

The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider 
and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD 
Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the 
existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction 
of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed.  The outcome of the PDP may 
lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, 
recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new 
policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new 
implementation guidance.

The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO 
Councilor.

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151213/efad65a0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151213/efad65a0/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151213/efad65a0/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 586 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151213/efad65a0/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1445549 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151213/efad65a0/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Motion on the Initiation of a PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 15771 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151213/efad65a0/attachment-0001.docx>


From aelsadr  Tue Dec 15 19:24:02 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:24:02 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI
In-Reply-To: <5654971D.4080703@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org>
	<20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info>
	<71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org>
	<13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org>
	<565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CFCC2E6A-10F3-473E-B708-B18C9CEB4386@egyptig.org>
	<565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca>
	<F8C31026-1959-4A16-A81A-7225FC2BF958@egyptig.org>
	<5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au>
	<3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org>
	<56549032.2080102@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<F1D41AF3-D0BE-434B-9FDB-6422CB016887@egyptig.org>
	<5654942D.40006@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<4B57A2A8-C46A-4D4A-A965-119E4C85B722@egyptig.org>
	<5654971D.4080703@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <886C3350-BCF7-432E-B784-6F12CE0DF4E4@egyptig.org>

Hi folks,

So?, as discussed on today?s NCSG call, it seems like this process has dragged on far longer than it should have. My apologies for this.

I?m guessing that we?re settled on our SCI representation. Nobody?s expressed any disagreement with the Stefania/Karel team up.

Tapani, could you kindly make an announcement of the PC selections?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:58 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> will do!
> SP
> 
> On 2015-11-24 11:57, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi Stefanie,
>> 
>> I wasn't thinking of assuming any formal mentor role. Just a lightweight approach to helping folks settle in to the work of the SCI, become acquainted with how and why the committee gets requests from Council, etc...
>> 
>> But if you have any ideas that would be helpful to you in developing a mentor program, sure..., share your thoughts (perhaps off-list).
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> Sent from mobile
>> 
>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That is a great offer Amr, can we use it as a trial to see what folks need in a mentor, how it works best etc.?  Maybe the final candidates wont want this at all but I would be surprised...
>>> cheers steph
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-11-24 11:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I'd be happy to help any NCSG member who is a newcomer to SCI settle in.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from mobile
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This would be a great opportunity to demonstrate a mentoring project.  Both Stef and Karel are relative newbies.  A mentor assigned to help could be very useful to them, and provide confidence to the PC.  History is useful to know in these exercises, and dont ask someone to read oodles of transcripts from previous exercises....
>>>>> cheers steph
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-11-24 9:22, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah?, I don?t know Samuel at all. I can?t say I know Karel either, except for briefly meeting him in Dublin, which isn?t a very good reason to prefer him over Samuel.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) My only reason for choosing Karel over Samuel is that my impression of his is that he is a relatively new member, and seems eager. I figured it wouldn?t be a bad idea to encourage him to stay engaged.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the future, it might not be a bad idea to develop a process by which volunteers provide some kind of brief explanation why they may be qualified for a certain appointment, as well as why they are seeking it. This may help inform PC members who are trying to make some kind of informed, fair and constructive decision when it comes to these appointments.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just thought I?d share my thoughts on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing from others.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:22 AM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting.
>>>>>>> 
> 




From stephanie.perrin  Thu Dec 17 22:11:13 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:11:13 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Important issue from GNSO meeting on the endorsement of
 Candidates for the CCT
Message-ID: <567316E1.3080905@mail.utoronto.ca>

We had a bit of a mess on the GNSO, with procedure not being following 
on selecting 3 names for each SG.  They wound up allowing constituencies 
to send in their own list of candidates.  We submitted Jeremy Malcolm, 
Carlos Gutierrez, Kinfe Micheal Yilma Desta, and Stacie Walsh (if they 
take out Carlos since he is Nomcom, no clarity on that issue emerged.)  
We were looking for geographic and gender diversity, but since noone 
else respected the rules, would like to invite NPOC to submit their 
choices since Klaus got dropped and we know NPOC was endorsing him.  I 
apologize on behalf of the council, they have admitted it was a bit of a 
mess.  Please send me your list of 3 and I will submit ASAP.  Please 
note that there appears to be weight put on the number of endorsements 
across the GNSO, and Carlos has a few already.  This should not deter 
you from endorsing him as an NPOC member, quite the reverse I would 
IMHO.  What follows below is the caveat I asked them to put in the 
letter attached to our list of endorsements, which is now very large.


Stephanie Perrin: In case anyone did not hear my echoing intervention, 
my point is that given the confusion of SG endorsement vs constituency 
endorsement, this list is not strictly accurate from a political 
perspective as representative.  Similarly, given the fact that we have 
not considered the candidates from a merit and experience perspective, 
except at the somewhat flawed group level, we have not done a 
qualitative review.  Therefore while we have a great slate of 
candidates, and we have a strong interest in having a large number 
selected from our slate, the work of balance across the stated range of 
qualifications has not been done in detail.

Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin




From aelsadr  Sat Dec 19 19:08:38 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:08:38 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's Recommendations
	for Work-Stream 1
Message-ID: <E0DD611D-A98E-46F5-994D-4ECBE59EAF38@egyptig.org>

Hi,

The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.

Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.

I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.

I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.

Thanks.

Amr





From aelsadr  Mon Dec 21 15:04:54 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:04:54 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <E0DD611D-A98E-46F5-994D-4ECBE59EAF38@egyptig.org>
References: <E0DD611D-A98E-46F5-994D-4ECBE59EAF38@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.

I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m assuming using the survey is acceptable?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
> 
> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
> 
> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.
> 
> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From kathy  Mon Dec 21 17:00:46 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:00:46 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>
References: <E0DD611D-A98E-46F5-994D-4ECBE59EAF38@egyptig.org>
	<CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5678141E.2070106@kathykleiman.com>

Hi Amr,
Tx you for your reminder! I've reviewed the comments, and in general, 
they seem to be very well-written and thoughtful. But there are 
questions and edits within the NCSG Responses such that they are not 
ready for submission yet. Someone will have to go through them and 
decide on final edits. What do with word suggestions? idea changes? text 
rearrangements (see e.g., Rec. #6 in which Milton recommends that the 
opening paragraph be moved to an introduction."

So many thanks to all who drafted these fine comments -- and did the 
amazing underlying work. But Amr, perhaps you could do a fast review and 
scrub so that we have a final version to submit?
Given the holiday season, perhaps it would be OK to take a few extra 
hours...
Best,
Kathy

On 12/21/2015 8:04 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>
> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>
>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>
>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.
>>
>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From lanfran  Mon Dec 21 17:59:11 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:59:11 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>
References: <E0DD611D-A98E-46F5-994D-4ECBE59EAF38@egyptig.org>
	<CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <567821CF.20703@yorku.ca>

Amr,

Speaking with my NCSG hat on I agree that there is a rough consensus 
here. I suggest that the submission take both forms. Parts 
cut-and-pasted into the survey, and an omnibus comments document 
submitted as a single document.

Sam

On 21/12/2015 8:04 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>
> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>
>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>
>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.
>>
>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------
"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 aelsadr  Mon Dec 21 20:12:41 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:12:41 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <5678141E.2070106@kathykleiman.com>
References: <E0DD611D-A98E-46F5-994D-4ECBE59EAF38@egyptig.org>
	<CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>
	<5678141E.2070106@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <B2709BB3-C7A5-4700-85D9-2D219F89E7CF@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for the response Kathy. You?re absolutely right, and I do believe that Robin and Ed are working on tidying up the comment now. It should be ready for submission in a short while.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> Tx you for your reminder! I've reviewed the comments, and in general, they seem to be very well-written and thoughtful. But there are questions and edits within the NCSG Responses such that they are not ready for submission yet. Someone will have to go through them and decide on final edits. What do with word suggestions? idea changes? text rearrangements (see e.g., Rec. #6 in which Milton recommends that the opening paragraph be moved to an introduction."
> 
> So many thanks to all who drafted these fine comments -- and did the amazing underlying work. But Amr, perhaps you could do a fast review and scrub so that we have a final version to submit?
> Given the holiday season, perhaps it would be OK to take a few extra hours...
> Best,
> Kathy
> 
> On 12/21/2015 8:04 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>> 
>> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>> 
>>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>> 
>>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.
>>> 
>>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From aelsadr  Mon Dec 21 20:15:02 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:15:02 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <567821CF.20703@yorku.ca>
References: <E0DD611D-A98E-46F5-994D-4ECBE59EAF38@egyptig.org>
	<CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>
	<567821CF.20703@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <289D567B-2F27-4527-90EA-374463B7B4CD@egyptig.org>

Hi,

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Sam Lanfranco <Lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
> 
> Amr,
> 
> Speaking with my NCSG hat on I agree that there is a rough consensus here.

Thanks Sam.

> I suggest that the submission take both forms. Parts cut-and-pasted into the survey, and an omnibus comments document submitted as a single document.

Sounds like a plan.

Thanks again.

Amr


From aelsadr  Mon Dec 21 20:22:45 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:22:45 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>
References: <E0DD611D-A98E-46F5-994D-4ECBE59EAF38@egyptig.org>
	<CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <F037ED0A-DA0D-4B61-9888-C2EB45E76217@egyptig.org>

Hi yet again,

I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.

I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now. Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.

I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the submissions.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
> 
> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m assuming using the survey is acceptable?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>> 
>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>> 
>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.
>> 
>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Mon Dec 21 23:19:37 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:19:37 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <F037ED0A-DA0D-4B61-9888-C2EB45E76217@egyptig.org>
References: <E0DD611D-A98E-46F5-994D-4ECBE59EAF38@egyptig.org>
	<CE588B45-DCF5-41BA-9544-2440BEA7D1E6@egyptig.org>
	<F037ED0A-DA0D-4B61-9888-C2EB45E76217@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <0806FE8C-E1BD-40C7-AEDE-BF9DE30915FA@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?ve submitted the NCSG response via the survey, and I received a notification informing me that a PDF version of the response would be generated, and posted on the public comment forum within 24 hours. So I guess I won't submit a duplicate document then.

I?ll share the link to this list once the NCSG comment is posted.

Thanks again to everyone.

Amr

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi yet again,
> 
> I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.
> 
> I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now. Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.
> 
> I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the submissions.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>> 
>> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>> 
>>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>> 
>>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.
>>> 
>>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Mon Dec 21 23:25:35 2015
From: avri (avri)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:25:35 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
Message-ID: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>

Hi,?

Did we include the recommendation against incorporating AOC reviews?

Avri


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> </div><div>Date:12/21/2015  4:19 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1 </div><div>
</div>Hi,

I?ve submitted the NCSG response via the survey, and I received a notification informing me that a PDF version of the response would be generated, and posted on the public comment forum within 24 hours. So I guess I won't submit a duplicate document then.

I?ll share the link to this list once the NCSG comment is posted.

Thanks again to everyone.

Amr

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi yet again,
> 
> I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.
> 
> I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now. Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.
> 
> I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the submissions.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>> 
>> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>> 
>>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>> 
>>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.
>>> 
>>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


_______________________________________________
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/20151221/97c1d0c4/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Dec 22 00:10:31 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:10:31 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
References: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <567878D7.5000907@acm.org>


I see you included the rejection of Rec 9 even though this was never
discussed by the larger group.  I think this was misuse of power and
process and strongly object to this mode of operation the PC has adopted..

I am sending in a letter of minority dissent.

avri

On 21-Dec-15 16:25, avri wrote:
> Hi, 
>
> Did we include the recommendation against incorporating AOC reviews?
>
> Avri
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Date:12/21/2015 4:19 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
> Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
>
> Hi,
>
> I?ve submitted the NCSG response via the survey, and I received a
> notification informing me that a PDF version of the response would be
> generated, and posted on the public comment forum within 24 hours. So
> I guess I won't submit a duplicate document then.
>
> I?ll share the link to this list once the NCSG comment is posted.
>
> Thanks again to everyone.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi yet again,
> >
> > I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days
> on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed
> recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who
> participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and
> everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.
> >
> > I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now.
> Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the
> traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.
> >
> > I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback
> right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the
> submissions.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> >> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi again,
> >>
> >> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours
> to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I
> will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these
> as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
> >>
> >> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m
> assuming using the survey is acceptable?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >>
> >>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations
> is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members
> have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the
> recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
> >>>
> >>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found
> here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
> >>>
> >>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are
> familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you
> haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go
> over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns,
> please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG
> endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours
> before the deadline for submissions.
> >>>
> >>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG
> response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be
> used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Amr
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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  Tue Dec 22 00:14:46 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:14:46 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
References: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <F7419A03-7F51-43F6-8183-3869276FACEE@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Yes?, the NCSG response indicated a disagreement with recommendations 1, 9, 10 and 11. I?ve been trying to load the google doc with the reasoning, but have been having trouble with it for a few minutes.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:25 PM, avri <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> Did we include the recommendation against incorporating AOC reviews?
> 
> Avri
> 
> 
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Date:12/21/2015 4:19 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I?ve submitted the NCSG response via the survey, and I received a notification informing me that a PDF version of the response would be generated, and posted on the public comment forum within 24 hours. So I guess I won't submit a duplicate document then.
> 
> I?ll share the link to this list once the NCSG comment is posted.
> 
> Thanks again to everyone.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi yet again,
> > 
> > I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.
> > 
> > I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now. Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.
> > 
> > I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the submissions.
> > 
> > Thanks again.
> > 
> > Amr
> > 
> >> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi again,
> >> 
> >> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
> >> 
> >> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m assuming using the survey is acceptable?
> >> 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >> Amr
> >> 
> >>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
> >>> 
> >>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
> >>> 
> >>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.
> >>> 
> >>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks.
> >>> 
> >>> Amr
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mshears  Tue Dec 22 00:19:19 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:19:19 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <F7419A03-7F51-43F6-8183-3869276FACEE@egyptig.org>
References: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
	<F7419A03-7F51-43F6-8183-3869276FACEE@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56787AE7.6030006@cdt.org>

I understand the particular perspectives taken on 1, 9, 10 and 11. And I 
recognize that I have not been able to participate in many of the calls.

This said, I think on these particular recommendations it would have 
been desirable to make very clear any proposals that we might have had 
for the CCWG to address rather than outright rejecting some of them.  
Could we, for example, have said that we object to the WHOIS treatment 
but have made some related proposals and still support the incorporation 
of the AOCs?

Then again, if we are going to discuss the concerns of he SGs more fuly 
in the CCWG perhaps we can do so then.

Matthew

On 21/12/2015 23:14, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes?, the NCSG response indicated a disagreement with recommendations 1, 9, 10 and 11. I?ve been trying to load the google doc with the reasoning, but have been having trouble with it for a few minutes.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:25 PM, avri <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Did we include the recommendation against incorporating AOC reviews?
>>
>> Avri
>>
>>
>> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> Date:12/21/2015 4:19 PM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I?ve submitted the NCSG response via the survey, and I received a notification informing me that a PDF version of the response would be generated, and posted on the public comment forum within 24 hours. So I guess I won't submit a duplicate document then.
>>
>> I?ll share the link to this list once the NCSG comment is posted.
>>
>> Thanks again to everyone.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi yet again,
>>>
>>> I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.
>>>
>>> I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now. Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.
>>>
>>> I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the submissions.
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi again,
>>>>
>>>> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>>>>
>>>>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns, please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours before the deadline for submissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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


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




From robin  Tue Dec 22 00:25:55 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:25:55 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <567878D7.5000907@acm.org>
References: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
	<567878D7.5000907@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CCB94A17-4C7C-4154-AE36-B320D3CDDD32@ipjustice.org>

This recommendation and the NCSG response was discussed in detail during the NCSG webinar last week that you missed.  There wasn?t support for the position to rubber stamp the recommendation.  There was concern expressed from several members about how such a position would contradict long-held NCSG position on whois.  So it just isn?t accurate (and verifiably so) to say these views were not discussed.

Robin


> On Dec 21, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> I see you included the rejection of Rec 9 even though this was never
> discussed by the larger group.  I think this was misuse of power and
> process and strongly object to this mode of operation the PC has adopted..
> 
> I am sending in a letter of minority dissent.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 21-Dec-15 16:25, avri wrote:
>> Hi, 
>> 
>> Did we include the recommendation against incorporating AOC reviews?
>> 
>> Avri
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> Date:12/21/2015 4:19 PM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
>> Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I?ve submitted the NCSG response via the survey, and I received a
>> notification informing me that a PDF version of the response would be
>> generated, and posted on the public comment forum within 24 hours. So
>> I guess I won't submit a duplicate document then.
>> 
>> I?ll share the link to this list once the NCSG comment is posted.
>> 
>> Thanks again to everyone.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi yet again,
>>> 
>>> I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days
>> on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed
>> recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who
>> participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and
>> everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.
>>> 
>>> I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now.
>> Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the
>> traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.
>>> 
>>> I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback
>> right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the
>> submissions.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi again,
>>>> 
>>>> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours
>> to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I
>> will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these
>> as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>>>> 
>>>> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m
>> assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations
>> is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members
>> have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the
>> recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found
>> here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are
>> familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you
>> haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go
>> over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns,
>> please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG
>> endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours
>> before the deadline for submissions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG
>> response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be
>> used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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  Tue Dec 22 00:34:14 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:34:14 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <CCB94A17-4C7C-4154-AE36-B320D3CDDD32@ipjustice.org>
References: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
	<567878D7.5000907@acm.org>
	<CCB94A17-4C7C-4154-AE36-B320D3CDDD32@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <56787E66.1000502@acm.org>



And you accept that one webinar attended by a few people is sufficient
to call consensus?

That is a new one.  All of the decisions made by a small handful of
people should have been subject to explicit review by the entire NCSG
community.  that is what it means for things to be adequately discussed.

The community should have also been offered a chance to attached
dissenting views, a right many of us have relied upon in other situations.

avri

On 21-Dec-15 17:25, Robin Gross wrote:
> This recommendation and the NCSG response was discussed in detail during the NCSG webinar last week that you missed.  There wasn?t support for the position to rubber stamp the recommendation.  There was concern expressed from several members about how such a position would contradict long-held NCSG position on whois.  So it just isn?t accurate (and verifiably so) to say these views were not discussed.
>
> Robin
>
>
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I see you included the rejection of Rec 9 even though this was never
>> discussed by the larger group.  I think this was misuse of power and
>> process and strongly object to this mode of operation the PC has adopted..
>>
>> I am sending in a letter of minority dissent.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 21-Dec-15 16:25, avri wrote:
>>> Hi, 
>>>
>>> Did we include the recommendation against incorporating AOC reviews?
>>>
>>> Avri
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> Date:12/21/2015 4:19 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> Cc:
>>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
>>> Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I?ve submitted the NCSG response via the survey, and I received a
>>> notification informing me that a PDF version of the response would be
>>> generated, and posted on the public comment forum within 24 hours. So
>>> I guess I won't submit a duplicate document then.
>>>
>>> I?ll share the link to this list once the NCSG comment is posted.
>>>
>>> Thanks again to everyone.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi yet again,
>>>>
>>>> I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days
>>> on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed
>>> recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who
>>> participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and
>>> everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.
>>>> I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now.
>>> Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the
>>> traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.
>>>> I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback
>>> right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the
>>> submissions.
>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours
>>> to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I
>>> will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these
>>> as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>>>>> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m
>>> assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations
>>> is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members
>>> have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the
>>> recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>>>>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found
>>> here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>>>>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are
>>> familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you
>>> haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go
>>> over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns,
>>> please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG
>>> endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours
>>> before the deadline for submissions.
>>>>>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG
>>> response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be
>>> used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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  Tue Dec 22 00:42:18 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:42:18 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <56787E66.1000502@acm.org>
References: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
	<567878D7.5000907@acm.org>
	<CCB94A17-4C7C-4154-AE36-B320D3CDDD32@ipjustice.org>
	<56787E66.1000502@acm.org>
Message-ID: <85852400-7807-4918-BD8C-3E683E12FA18@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

I?d be happy to discuss improvements to the process by which the PC makes its decisions. I certainly don?t think it?s anywhere near perfect, but I wouldn?t characterise the process I used to endorse this statement as misuse of power. I would appreciate it if you would explain why you believe this to be the case.

It is true that rejecting recommendation 9 was not discussed on NCSG-DISCUSS. This is also true for most of the recommendations, not just 9. The NCSG response was, however, discussed in quite some detail during multiple calls, including two recently held webinars held specifically to have this discussion. Those were announced on NCSG-DISCUSS, and the transcripts and recordings for each were also circulated (although the transcripts for the last call were only shared very recently). The NCSG response to recommendations 9 was also, naturally, drafted by an NCSG member, just like the responses to each of the other recommendations.

At this point, if you or others would like to continue the discussion on the NCSG submission and our SG?s position on any of the CCWG?s recommendations, or begin one that didn?t and perhaps should have taken place on NCSG-DISCUSS, then by all means, please do. It would certainly especially be helpful if at least recommendations on which NCSG members are divided (such as 9) were discussed before our councillors are required to vote on the GNSO endorsing the CCWG?s work as a chartering organisation.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 12:34 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> And you accept that one webinar attended by a few people is sufficient
> to call consensus?
> 
> That is a new one.  All of the decisions made by a small handful of
> people should have been subject to explicit review by the entire NCSG
> community.  that is what it means for things to be adequately discussed.
> 
> The community should have also been offered a chance to attached
> dissenting views, a right many of us have relied upon in other situations.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 21-Dec-15 17:25, Robin Gross wrote:
>> This recommendation and the NCSG response was discussed in detail during the NCSG webinar last week that you missed.  There wasn?t support for the position to rubber stamp the recommendation.  There was concern expressed from several members about how such a position would contradict long-held NCSG position on whois.  So it just isn?t accurate (and verifiably so) to say these views were not discussed.
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I see you included the rejection of Rec 9 even though this was never
>>> discussed by the larger group.  I think this was misuse of power and
>>> process and strongly object to this mode of operation the PC has adopted..
>>> 
>>> I am sending in a letter of minority dissent.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 21-Dec-15 16:25, avri wrote:
>>>> Hi, 
>>>> 
>>>> Did we include the recommendation against incorporating AOC reviews?
>>>> 
>>>> Avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>> Date:12/21/2015 4:19 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>>> To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
>>>> Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve submitted the NCSG response via the survey, and I received a
>>>> notification informing me that a PDF version of the response would be
>>>> generated, and posted on the public comment forum within 24 hours. So
>>>> I guess I won't submit a duplicate document then.
>>>> 
>>>> I?ll share the link to this list once the NCSG comment is posted.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks again to everyone.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi yet again,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days
>>>> on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed
>>>> recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who
>>>> participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and
>>>> everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.
>>>>> I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now.
>>>> Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the
>>>> traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.
>>>>> I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback
>>>> right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the
>>>> submissions.
>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours
>>>> to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I
>>>> will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these
>>>> as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>>>>>> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m
>>>> assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations
>>>> is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members
>>>> have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the
>>>> recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>>>>>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found
>>>> here:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>>>>>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are
>>>> familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you
>>>> haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go
>>>> over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns,
>>>> please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG
>>>> endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours
>>>> before the deadline for submissions.
>>>>>>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG
>>>> response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be
>>>> used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 avri  Tue Dec 22 01:07:49 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:07:49 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <85852400-7807-4918-BD8C-3E683E12FA18@egyptig.org>
References: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
	<567878D7.5000907@acm.org>
	<CCB94A17-4C7C-4154-AE36-B320D3CDDD32@ipjustice.org>
	<56787E66.1000502@acm.org>
	<85852400-7807-4918-BD8C-3E683E12FA18@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56788645.5060903@acm.org>



On 21-Dec-15 17:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>  but I wouldn?t characterise the process I used to endorse this statement as misuse of power

When I spoke of misuse of power, I meant by the final editors of the
comments.

I thought the PC was just a pass through as normal. No use of power there.

avri


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




From lanfran  Tue Dec 22 01:18:33 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:18:33 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <85852400-7807-4918-BD8C-3E683E12FA18@egyptig.org>
References: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
	<567878D7.5000907@acm.org>
	<CCB94A17-4C7C-4154-AE36-B320D3CDDD32@ipjustice.org>
	<56787E66.1000502@acm.org>
	<85852400-7807-4918-BD8C-3E683E12FA18@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <567888C9.7030201@yorku.ca>

I may be too soft headed here, but I was one of those who said I thought 
there was a rough consensus here, even though I too was a bit surprised 
to see the late inclusion of #9 in the reject category.

However, I still feel that most if not all of the language used in the 
comments on those where NCSG ticked of the rejection: (a) is combined 
with reasonable suggestions for changes to the recommendations; and (b) 
uses language that does capture a rough consensus of concerns in these 
areas as they have been discussed, reflected on, and developed within 
NCSG over the past 20 or so months since the IANA Transition announcement.

On a separate issue of the adequacy of the within-NCSG consultative 
drafting process, and the last minute review of draft wording on the 
road to consensus, that scratches the surface of bigger issues. NCSG 
might devote some reflection and discussion on how we more effectively 
get the work done and observe an adequate consultative process for 
consensus, given deadlines and the time constraints many of us face 
within the comment periods.

Sam L.




From avri  Tue Dec 22 02:45:43 2015
From: avri (avri)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:45:43 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
 Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
Message-ID: <59anfsdh04f8n457wfxrvqkp.1450745143077@email.android.com>

Hi,

No, I am just being pushed mostly by a combination of outrage over #9 having become a SG position without any discussion, the absence of a discuss review of the comments, and the absence of opportunity to attach dissenting opinions.

Avri


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> </div><div>Date:12/21/2015  6:18 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
  Recommendations for Work-Stream 1 </div><div>
</div>I may be too soft headed here, but I was one of those who said I thought 
there was a rough consensus here, even though I too was a bit surprised 
to see the late inclusion of #9 in the reject category.

However, I still feel that most if not all of the language used in the 
comments on those where NCSG ticked of the rejection: (a) is combined 
with reasonable suggestions for changes to the recommendations; and (b) 
uses language that does capture a rough consensus of concerns in these 
areas as they have been discussed, reflected on, and developed within 
NCSG over the past 20 or so months since the IANA Transition announcement.

On a separate issue of the adequacy of the within-NCSG consultative 
drafting process, and the last minute review of draft wording on the 
road to consensus, that scratches the surface of bigger issues. NCSG 
might devote some reflection and discussion on how we more effectively 
get the work done and observe an adequate consultative process for 
consensus, given deadlines and the time constraints many of us face 
within the comment periods.

Sam L.


_______________________________________________
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/20151221/ff315517/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec 22 04:19:21 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:19:21 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>

hi everyone,


I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about the
process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. we had so
many public comments lately, and in several occasions many in same time
period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try to be more efficient
and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.

I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here . While
I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also making some
suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.


1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment it
wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for public
comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame

a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act and/or
make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below) showing each
step. it will help us to move more or less from the ad-hoc approach .

to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we can
use this board
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
and this one https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker
 (we can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)

As timeline for example:

   - Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a request
   from NCSG member to cover a public comment here
   https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are other
   request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO council etc for those
   we can adapt the process). Adding the public comment as task into our
   tracking tool.


   - Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG, the
   PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment is critical
   and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or gNSO council can help
   here by providing a brief), create a google doc, etherpad or any other tool
   adapted to drafting and co-authoring. the document/link should be shared in
   NCSG-DISCUSS list with the announcement.

we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to get
people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns or
interests for NCSG

   - Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment initial
   discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at least initiate
   the discussion in the mailing list
   - Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC members
   for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.


   - Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can be
   suggested
   - Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by NCSG or
   PC chair(s)
   - Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining concerns
   - Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the addition
   of minority statement (we should work to resolve any concerns from the
   beginning and reaching consensus). submission to be done by NCSG or PC
   chair(s) .


The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or removed
here. looking for your suggestions.
regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss about
some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing some polling in
some cases etc

2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se. we can
shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list and
having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
example:

   - Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
   - Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to get
   someone involved in the WG already)
   - Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
   - Deadline sending the response

we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for appointments to
cross-community working group or drafting team
we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review teams

3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs only
to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be proactive.

one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take the lead
of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing in coming
months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g. UDRP),
whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI  (we can find more
in the GNSO project list).

he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there is
anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and update,
optionally coordinate with other members active or expert  in the PDP e.g.
members in the WG
We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved in
the different working groups and also our representatives. same for NCSG
GNSO councillors

we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to explore
if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more regularly e.g.
doing some planning every Monday for example via mail thread to check the
status of comments drafting, any new public comment to consider etc.
planning should be a continuous activity here, to be lead by the PC chair.

we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but ensuring
that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course, all these
should be documented in our wiki space.
if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the
straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments. Maryam
or me can add you to trello.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151222/2ec47e1d/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Dec 22 06:20:44 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:20:44 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5678CF9C.5060300@acm.org>

Hi,

I do not know that this group could ever adhere to such a strict
schedule.  Might be fun to watch us try.

But I do think that a document that hasn't been reviewed by the Discuss
list in at least in its penultimate for a last call of at least a few
days should not be able to go as an NCSG comment.

Yes, this was on a fast schedule, but there several days of PC review
that should have also been Discuss list review.   Additionally we must
have an explicit opportunity for dissenting opinions to be appended -
the same criteria we demand of other groups.  Adhering to a few criteria
would be a start.

And if we had not had time for a proper NCSG review, perhaps we should
have done what the IPC did and told them it was coming in a few days.
Some of our number are among the most vocal when it comes to demanding
we mustn't rush if that does not lead to the right result. 

avri


On 21-Dec-15 21:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> hi everyone,
>
>
> I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about
> the process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. we
> had so many public comments lately, and in several occasions many in
> same time period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try to be
> more efficient and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.
>
> I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here .
> While I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also making
> some suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.
>
>
> 1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment it
> wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for
> public comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame
>
> a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act
> and/or make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below)
> showing each step. it will help us to move more or less from the
> ad-hoc approach .
>
> to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we
> can use this
> board https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
> and this
> one https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker  (we
> can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)
>
> As timeline for example:
>
>   * Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a
>     request from NCSG member to cover a public comment here
>     https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are other
>     request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO council etc
>     for those we can adapt the process). Adding the public comment as
>     task into our tracking tool.
>
>   * Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG,
>     the PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment
>     is critical and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or
>     gNSO council can help here by providing a brief), create a google
>     doc, etherpad or any other tool adapted to drafting and
>     co-authoring. the document/link should be shared in NCSG-DISCUSS
>     list with the announcement. 
>
> we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to get
> people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns or
> interests for NCSG 
>
>   * Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment
>     initial discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at
>     least initiate the discussion in the mailing list
>   * Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC
>     members for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.
>
>   * Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can
>     be suggested 
>   * Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by NCSG
>     or PC chair(s)
>   * Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining concerns
>   * Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the
>     addition of minority statement (we should work to resolve any
>     concerns from the beginning and reaching consensus). submission to
>     be done by NCSG or PC chair(s) .
>
>
> The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or
> removed here. looking for your suggestions.
> regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss
> about some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing some
> polling in some cases etc
>
> 2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se.
> we can shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
> the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list
> and having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
> example:
>
>   * Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
>   * Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to get
>     someone involved in the WG already)
>   * Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
>   * Deadline sending the response
>
> we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for
> appointments to cross-community working group or drafting team
> we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review
> teams
>
> 3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs
> only to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be
> proactive. 
>
> one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take the
> lead of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing
> in coming months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g.
> UDRP), whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI  (we
> can find more in the GNSO project list).
>
> he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there
> is anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and
> update, optionally coordinate with other members active or expert  in
> the PDP e.g. members in the WG
> We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved
> in the different working groups and also our representatives. same for
> NCSG GNSO councillors
>
> we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to
> explore if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more
> regularly e.g. doing some planning every Monday for example via mail
> thread to check the status of comments drafting, any new public
> comment to consider etc. planning should be a continuous activity
> here, to be lead by the PC chair. 
>
> we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but
> ensuring that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course,
> all these should be documented in our wiki space.
> if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the
> straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments.
> Maryam or me can add you to trello.
>
> Best,
>
> 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 wjdrake  Tue Dec 22 09:57:36 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:57:36 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
	Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
In-Reply-To: <56787AE7.6030006@cdt.org>
References: <fsniepujh8nnjroxswdqpbn5.1450733135472@email.android.com>
	<F7419A03-7F51-43F6-8183-3869276FACEE@egyptig.org>
	<56787AE7.6030006@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <F9191594-23A5-4B61-BAF4-4EDEBC63FF69@gmail.com>

Hi

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> This said, I think on these particular recommendations it would have been desirable to make very clear any proposals that we might have had for the CCWG to address rather than outright rejecting some of them.  Could we, for example, have said that we object to the WHOIS treatment but have made some related proposals and still support the incorporation of the AOCs?

This would have been my preference, but I?m not on the PC and was not on the call so water under the bridge.  

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151222/5421fce0/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Tue Dec 22 11:47:35 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:47:35 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9BFFF1B8-E75C-483C-9DC1-596E34A2B9FB@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

Yes.

Conceptually, at least. 

I like your template for public comments. There should be a way to automate a lot of this. Awareness of possible comments and deadlines are key. An updated NCSG web page focusing on this sort of thing can help with the structure. Social media, Twitter alerts in particular, can help with the herding and notifications. I hate to make people sad but mailing lists are your Dad's technology, used by academics and old people. Sorry. I'm getting old myself but as a non academic I have a bit different mentality. Lots of innovative social media portals out there and some of our less active members I know to be expert in them: we need their help. We need to activate the talents so many of our members have and I know would be willing to contribute in the right situation.

As far as the assignment of members of the PC to specialize in certain areas, agreed. That is something the PC Chair should be able to do as part of her organization of the PC. It could be done in conjunction with orienting our Councillors in certain ways. It's something we are already doing informally at Council level. We probably need to make it a bit more formal.

One thing we need to remember: the majority of the PC are our Councillors. With the demands already on our time we need to perform more of a coordination role on comments than a substantive role. All the systemic coordination in the world can't hide a basic fact: we need more people writing the comments. Over the past year I'd estimate there are no more than a half dozen of us who have done any substantial writing. Maybe a few more. Systems are great but without the bodies to populate them they are mere ideas.

I know our NCSG Chair has a lot of plans along this line. Hr's only been in office about a month: we need to give him some time. The intercessional meeting in February should be an ideal place to talk this out, bring people together and try to take some small steps forward to making the PC more effective. It really needs to be a collaborative effort between the Councillors, the Constituencies and, most of all, our members. 

I would caution, however, about grand plans. Every year since I've been here we make plans for a revitalized PC. Somehow we wind up on crisis mode and never seem to
Implement them.  I think a lot of what you have proposed,  Rafik, is implementable over a multi year period. Let's just try to take it a step at a time. In my view that means first automating as much of the informational and tracking aspects as we can, try to work on the timelines as  you've suggested, but in a soft way, and, for the interim, really support whoever steps up and volunteers to be PC Chair. In the end it's not as much about systems as it is about people. The former can be used to orient the later but until we have people to do the work...well, systems don't write the comments, people do. These things are not mutually exclusive, however, and hopefully we can make strides in multiple  areas in the year ahead.

Thanks for starting the conversation, Rafik.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 2:19 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> hi everyone,
> 
> 
> I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about the process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. we had so many public comments lately, and in several occasions many in same time period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try to be more efficient and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.
> 
> I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here . While I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also making some suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.
> 
> 
> 1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment it wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for public comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame
> 
> a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act and/or make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below) showing each step. it will help us to move more or less from the ad-hoc approach .
> 
> to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we can use this board https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015 and this one https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker  (we can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)
> 
> As timeline for example:
> Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a request from NCSG member to cover a public comment here https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are other request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO council etc for those we can adapt the process). Adding the public comment as task into our tracking tool.
> Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG, the PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment is critical and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or gNSO council can help here by providing a brief), create a google doc, etherpad or any other tool adapted to drafting and co-authoring. the document/link should be shared in NCSG-DISCUSS list with the announcement. 
> we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to get people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns or interests for NCSG 
> Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment initial discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at least initiate the discussion in the mailing list
> Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC members for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.
> Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can be suggested 
> Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by NCSG or PC chair(s)
> Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining concerns
> Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the addition of minority statement (we should work to resolve any concerns from the beginning and reaching consensus). submission to be done by NCSG or PC chair(s) .
> 
> The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or removed here. looking for your suggestions.
> regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss about some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing some polling in some cases etc
> 
> 2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se. we can shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
> the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list and having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
> example:
> Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
> Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to get someone involved in the WG already)
> Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
> Deadline sending the response
> we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for appointments to cross-community working group or drafting team
> we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review teams
> 
> 3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs only to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be proactive. 
> 
> one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take the lead of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing in coming months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g. UDRP), whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI  (we can find more in the GNSO project list).
> 
> he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there is anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and update, optionally coordinate with other members active or expert  in the PDP e.g. members in the WG
> We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved in the different working groups and also our representatives. same for NCSG GNSO councillors
> 
> we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to explore if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more regularly e.g. doing some planning every Monday for example via mail thread to check the status of comments drafting, any new public comment to consider etc. planning should be a continuous activity here, to be lead by the PC chair. 
> 
> we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but ensuring that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course, all these should be documented in our wiki space.
> if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments. Maryam or me can add you to trello.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151222/002ffba9/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec 22 13:02:00 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:02:00 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
In-Reply-To: <9BFFF1B8-E75C-483C-9DC1-596E34A2B9FB@toast.net>
References: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9BFFF1B8-E75C-483C-9DC1-596E34A2B9FB@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=XHzaRUkpui7Zh7mEd1iKOUJmQQrDNVe+W=2qpWJzR1w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed

It is  about people, processes and then tools. If we agree on some
processes we can implement them  with some tools later (for example we can
use IFTT to create alerts, interact with other tool etc) . I won't worry
about how automate by tools for  now but about what we want to achieve
first . Tools alone won't fix problems.

I didnt suggest that all areas should be covered by councillors but I
mentioned that we can  have ncsg members expert in some area to take the
lead.

As I said it is strawman proposal to initiate discussion but also to
experiment .

Best,

Rafik

On Dec 22, 2015 6:47 PM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Yes.
>
> Conceptually, at least.
>
> I like your template for public comments. There should be a way to
> automate a lot of this. Awareness of possible comments and deadlines are
> key. An updated NCSG web page focusing on this sort of thing can help with
> the structure. Social media, Twitter alerts in particular, can help with
> the herding and notifications. I hate to make people sad but mailing lists
> are your Dad's technology, used by academics and old people. Sorry. I'm
> getting old myself but as a non academic I have a bit different mentality.
> Lots of innovative social media portals out there and some of our less
> active members I know to be expert in them: we need their help. We need to
> activate the talents so many of our members have and I know would be
> willing to contribute in the right situation.
>
> As far as the assignment of members of the PC to specialize in certain
> areas, agreed. That is something the PC Chair should be able to do as part
> of her organization of the PC. It could be done in conjunction with
> orienting our Councillors in certain ways. It's something we are already
> doing informally at Council level. We probably need to make it a bit more
> formal.
>
> One thing we need to remember: the majority of the PC are our Councillors.
> With the demands already on our time we need to perform more of a
> coordination role on comments than a substantive role. All the systemic
> coordination in the world can't hide a basic fact: we need more people
> writing the comments. Over the past year I'd estimate there are no more
> than a half dozen of us who have done any substantial writing. Maybe a few
> more. Systems are great but without the bodies to populate them they are
> mere ideas.
>
> I know our NCSG Chair has a lot of plans along this line. Hr's only been
> in office about a month: we need to give him some time. The intercessional
> meeting in February should be an ideal place to talk this out, bring people
> together and try to take some small steps forward to making the PC more
> effective. It really needs to be a collaborative effort between the
> Councillors, the Constituencies and, most of all, our members.
>
> I would caution, however, about grand plans. Every year since I've been
> here we make plans for a revitalized PC. Somehow we wind up on crisis mode
> and never seem to
> Implement them.  I think a lot of what you have proposed,  Rafik, is
> implementable over a multi year period. Let's just try to take it a step at
> a time. In my view that means first automating as much of the informational
> and tracking aspects as we can, try to work on the timelines as  you've
> suggested, but in a soft way, and, for the interim, really support whoever
> steps up and volunteers to be PC Chair. In the end it's not as much about
> systems as it is about people. The former can be used to orient the later
> but until we have people to do the work...well, systems don't write the
> comments, people do. These things are not mutually exclusive, however, and
> hopefully we can make strides in multiple  areas in the year ahead.
>
> Thanks for starting the conversation, Rafik.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 2:19 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hi everyone,
>
>
> I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about the
> process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. we had so
> many public comments lately, and in several occasions many in same time
> period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try to be more efficient
> and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.
>
> I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here .
> While I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also making some
> suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.
>
>
> 1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment it
> wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for public
> comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame
>
> a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act and/or
> make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below) showing each
> step. it will help us to move more or less from the ad-hoc approach .
>
> to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we can
> use this board
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
> and this one https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker
>  (we can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)
>
> As timeline for example:
>
>    - Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a request
>    from NCSG member to cover a public comment here
>    https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are other
>    request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO council etc for those
>    we can adapt the process). Adding the public comment as task into our
>    tracking tool.
>
>
>    - Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG,
>    the PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment is
>    critical and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or gNSO council
>    can help here by providing a brief), create a google doc, etherpad or any
>    other tool adapted to drafting and co-authoring. the document/link should
>    be shared in NCSG-DISCUSS list with the announcement.
>
> we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to get
> people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns or
> interests for NCSG
>
>    - Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment
>    initial discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at least
>    initiate the discussion in the mailing list
>    - Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC
>    members for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.
>
>
>    - Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can be
>    suggested
>    - Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by NCSG
>    or PC chair(s)
>    - Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining
>    concerns
>    - Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the addition
>    of minority statement (we should work to resolve any concerns from the
>    beginning and reaching consensus). submission to be done by NCSG or PC
>    chair(s) .
>
>
> The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or
> removed here. looking for your suggestions.
> regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss
> about some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing some
> polling in some cases etc
>
> 2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se. we
> can shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
> the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list and
> having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
> example:
>
>    - Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
>    - Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to get
>    someone involved in the WG already)
>    - Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
>    - Deadline sending the response
>
> we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for appointments
> to cross-community working group or drafting team
> we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review teams
>
> 3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs only
> to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be proactive.
>
> one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take the lead
> of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing in coming
> months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g. UDRP),
> whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI  (we can find more
> in the GNSO project list).
>
> he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there is
> anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and update,
> optionally coordinate with other members active or expert  in the PDP e.g.
> members in the WG
> We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved in
> the different working groups and also our representatives. same for NCSG
> GNSO councillors
>
> we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to explore
> if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more regularly e.g.
> doing some planning every Monday for example via mail thread to check the
> status of comments drafting, any new public comment to consider etc.
> planning should be a continuous activity here, to be lead by the PC chair.
>
> we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but
> ensuring that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course, all
> these should be documented in our wiki space.
> if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the
> straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments. Maryam
> or me can add you to trello.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151222/cba4e0cb/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Tue Dec 22 13:37:24 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:37:24 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=XHzaRUkpui7Zh7mEd1iKOUJmQQrDNVe+W=2qpWJzR1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9BFFF1B8-E75C-483C-9DC1-596E34A2B9FB@toast.net>
	<CAH5sTh=XHzaRUkpui7Zh7mEd1iKOUJmQQrDNVe+W=2qpWJzR1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0CA613B9-1B75-44A8-901A-ED8D61355681@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,
> As I said it is strawman proposal to initiate discussion but also to experiment .
> 
That's the spirit in which I responded.  I'm happy to try pretty much anything that can up our response level for public comments. There is also room for improving the quality of the ones we do. Staff is pretty receptive to requests for explanations as to what helps them best consider and process our p.c.'s. Might be good to bring one of them onto a call at some point for a tutorial of sorts.

Best,

Ed






> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
>> On Dec 22, 2015 6:47 PM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> Hi Rafik,
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> Conceptually, at least. 
>> 
>> I like your template for public comments. There should be a way to automate a lot of this. Awareness of possible comments and deadlines are key. An updated NCSG web page focusing on this sort of thing can help with the structure. Social media, Twitter alerts in particular, can help with the herding and notifications. I hate to make people sad but mailing lists are your Dad's technology, used by academics and old people. Sorry. I'm getting old myself but as a non academic I have a bit different mentality. Lots of innovative social media portals out there and some of our less active members I know to be expert in them: we need their help. We need to activate the talents so many of our members have and I know would be willing to contribute in the right situation.
>> 
>> As far as the assignment of members of the PC to specialize in certain areas, agreed. That is something the PC Chair should be able to do as part of her organization of the PC. It could be done in conjunction with orienting our Councillors in certain ways. It's something we are already doing informally at Council level. We probably need to make it a bit more formal.
>> 
>> One thing we need to remember: the majority of the PC are our Councillors. With the demands already on our time we need to perform more of a coordination role on comments than a substantive role. All the systemic coordination in the world can't hide a basic fact: we need more people writing the comments. Over the past year I'd estimate there are no more than a half dozen of us who have done any substantial writing. Maybe a few more. Systems are great but without the bodies to populate them they are mere ideas.
>> 
>> I know our NCSG Chair has a lot of plans along this line. Hr's only been in office about a month: we need to give him some time. The intercessional meeting in February should be an ideal place to talk this out, bring people together and try to take some small steps forward to making the PC more effective. It really needs to be a collaborative effort between the Councillors, the Constituencies and, most of all, our members. 
>> 
>> I would caution, however, about grand plans. Every year since I've been here we make plans for a revitalized PC. Somehow we wind up on crisis mode and never seem to
>> Implement them.  I think a lot of what you have proposed,  Rafik, is implementable over a multi year period. Let's just try to take it a step at a time. In my view that means first automating as much of the informational and tracking aspects as we can, try to work on the timelines as  you've suggested, but in a soft way, and, for the interim, really support whoever steps up and volunteers to be PC Chair. In the end it's not as much about systems as it is about people. The former can be used to orient the later but until we have people to do the work...well, systems don't write the comments, people do. These things are not mutually exclusive, however, and hopefully we can make strides in multiple  areas in the year ahead.
>> 
>> Thanks for starting the conversation, Rafik.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 2:19 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about the process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. we had so many public comments lately, and in several occasions many in same time period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try to be more efficient and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.
>>> 
>>> I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here . While I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also making some suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment it wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for public comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame
>>> 
>>> a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act and/or make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below) showing each step. it will help us to move more or less from the ad-hoc approach .
>>> 
>>> to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we can use this board https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015 and this one https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker  (we can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)
>>> 
>>> As timeline for example:
>>> Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a request from NCSG member to cover a public comment here https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are other request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO council etc for those we can adapt the process). Adding the public comment as task into our tracking tool.
>>> Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG, the PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment is critical and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or gNSO council can help here by providing a brief), create a google doc, etherpad or any other tool adapted to drafting and co-authoring. the document/link should be shared in NCSG-DISCUSS list with the announcement. 
>>> we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to get people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns or interests for NCSG 
>>> Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment initial discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at least initiate the discussion in the mailing list
>>> Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC members for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.
>>> Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can be suggested 
>>> Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by NCSG or PC chair(s)
>>> Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining concerns
>>> Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the addition of minority statement (we should work to resolve any concerns from the beginning and reaching consensus). submission to be done by NCSG or PC chair(s) .
>>> 
>>> The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or removed here. looking for your suggestions.
>>> regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss about some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing some polling in some cases etc
>>> 
>>> 2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se. we can shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
>>> the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list and having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
>>> example:
>>> Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
>>> Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to get someone involved in the WG already)
>>> Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
>>> Deadline sending the response
>>> we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for appointments to cross-community working group or drafting team
>>> we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review teams
>>> 
>>> 3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs only to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be proactive. 
>>> 
>>> one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take the lead of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing in coming months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g. UDRP), whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI  (we can find more in the GNSO project list).
>>> 
>>> he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there is anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and update, optionally coordinate with other members active or expert  in the PDP e.g. members in the WG
>>> We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved in the different working groups and also our representatives. same for NCSG GNSO councillors
>>> 
>>> we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to explore if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more regularly e.g. doing some planning every Monday for example via mail thread to check the status of comments drafting, any new public comment to consider etc. planning should be a continuous activity here, to be lead by the PC chair. 
>>> 
>>> we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but ensuring that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course, all these should be documented in our wiki space.
>>> if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments. Maryam or me can add you to trello.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151222/9d48909b/attachment-0001.html>


From kathy  Tue Dec 22 15:04:28 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:04:28 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
In-Reply-To: <9BFFF1B8-E75C-483C-9DC1-596E34A2B9FB@toast.net>
References: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9BFFF1B8-E75C-483C-9DC1-596E34A2B9FB@toast.net>
Message-ID: <56794A5C.5020101@kathykleiman.com>

And ultimately it is about the time people carve out from their 
schedules to draft, edit, review and approve. I actually think it is 
rather remarkable that we submit as much as we do.
Best,
Kathy

On 12/22/2015 4:47 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Yes.
>
> Conceptually, at least.
>
> I like your template for public comments. There should be a way to 
> automate a lot of this. Awareness of possible comments and deadlines 
> are key. An updated NCSG web page focusing on this sort of thing can 
> help with the structure. Social media, Twitter alerts in particular, 
> can help with the herding and notifications. I hate to make people sad 
> but mailing lists are your Dad's technology, used by academics and old 
> people. Sorry. I'm getting old myself but as a non academic I have a 
> bit different mentality. Lots of innovative social media portals out 
> there and some of our less active members I know to be expert in them: 
> we need their help. We need to activate the talents so many of our 
> members have and I know would be willing to contribute in the right 
> situation.
>
> As far as the assignment of members of the PC to specialize in certain 
> areas, agreed. That is something the PC Chair should be able to do as 
> part of her organization of the PC. It could be done in conjunction 
> with orienting our Councillors in certain ways. It's something we are 
> already doing informally at Council level. We probably need to make it 
> a bit more formal.
>
> One thing we need to remember: the majority of the PC are our 
> Councillors. With the demands already on our time we need to perform 
> more of a coordination role on comments than a substantive role. All 
> the systemic coordination in the world can't hide a basic fact: we 
> need more people writing the comments. Over the past year I'd estimate 
> there are no more than a half dozen of us who have done any 
> substantial writing. Maybe a few more. Systems are great but without 
> the bodies to populate them they are mere ideas.
>
> I know our NCSG Chair has a lot of plans along this line. Hr's only 
> been in office about a month: we need to give him some time. The 
> intercessional meeting in February should be an ideal place to talk 
> this out, bring people together and try to take some small steps 
> forward to making the PC more effective. It really needs to be a 
> collaborative effort between the Councillors, the Constituencies and, 
> most of all, our members.
>
> I would caution, however, about grand plans. Every year since I've 
> been here we make plans for a revitalized PC. Somehow we wind up on 
> crisis mode and never seem to
> Implement them.  I think a lot of what you have proposed,  Rafik, is 
> implementable over a multi year period. Let's just try to take it a 
> step at a time. In my view that means first automating as much of the 
> informational and tracking aspects as we can, try to work on the 
> timelines as  you've suggested, but in a soft way, and, for the 
> interim, really support whoever steps up and volunteers to be PC 
> Chair. In the end it's not as much about systems as it is about 
> people. The former can be used to orient the later but until we have 
> people to do the work...well, systems don't write the comments, people 
> do. These things are not mutually exclusive, however, and hopefully we 
> can make strides in multiple  areas in the year ahead.
>
> Thanks for starting the conversation, Rafik.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 2:19 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> hi everyone,
>>
>>
>> I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about 
>> the process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. 
>> we had so many public comments lately, and in several occasions many 
>> in same time period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try 
>> to be more efficient and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.
>>
>> I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here . 
>> While I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also 
>> making some suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.
>>
>>
>> 1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment 
>> it wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for 
>> public comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame
>>
>> a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act 
>> and/or make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below) 
>> showing each step. it will help us to move more or less from the 
>> ad-hoc approach .
>>
>> to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we 
>> can use this board 
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015 
>> and this one 
>> https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker  (we 
>> can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)
>>
>> As timeline for example:
>>
>>   * Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a
>>     request from NCSG member to cover a public comment here
>>     https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are
>>     other request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO
>>     council etc for those we can adapt the process). Adding the
>>     public comment as task into our tracking tool.
>>
>>   * Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG,
>>     the PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment
>>     is critical and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or
>>     gNSO council can help here by providing a brief), create a google
>>     doc, etherpad or any other tool adapted to drafting and
>>     co-authoring. the document/link should be shared in NCSG-DISCUSS
>>     list with the announcement.
>>
>> we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to 
>> get people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns 
>> or interests for NCSG
>>
>>   * Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment
>>     initial discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at
>>     least initiate the discussion in the mailing list
>>   * Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC
>>     members for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.
>>
>>   * Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can
>>     be suggested
>>   * Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by
>>     NCSG or PC chair(s)
>>   * Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining
>>     concerns
>>   * Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the
>>     addition of minority statement (we should work to resolve any
>>     concerns from the beginning and reaching consensus). submission
>>     to be done by NCSG or PC chair(s) .
>>
>>
>> The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or 
>> removed here. looking for your suggestions.
>> regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss 
>> about some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing 
>> some polling in some cases etc
>>
>> 2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se. 
>> we can shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
>> the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list 
>> and having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
>> example:
>>
>>   * Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
>>   * Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to
>>     get someone involved in the WG already)
>>   * Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
>>   * Deadline sending the response
>>
>> we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for 
>> appointments to cross-community working group or drafting team
>> we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review 
>> teams
>>
>> 3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs 
>> only to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be 
>> proactive.
>>
>> one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take the 
>> lead of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing 
>> in coming months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g. 
>> UDRP), whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI  (we 
>> can find more in the GNSO project list).
>>
>> he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there 
>> is anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and 
>> update, optionally coordinate with other members active or expert  in 
>> the PDP e.g. members in the WG
>> We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved 
>> in the different working groups and also our representatives. same 
>> for NCSG GNSO councillors
>>
>> we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to 
>> explore if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more 
>> regularly e.g. doing some planning every Monday for example via mail 
>> thread to check the status of comments drafting, any new public 
>> comment to consider etc. planning should be a continuous activity 
>> here, to be lead by the PC chair.
>>
>> we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but 
>> ensuring that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course, 
>> all these should be documented in our wiki space.
>> if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the 
>> straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments. 
>> Maryam or me can add you to trello.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151222/245c36eb/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Dec 22 15:17:18 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:17:18 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
In-Reply-To: <56794A5C.5020101@kathykleiman.com>
References: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9BFFF1B8-E75C-483C-9DC1-596E34A2B9FB@toast.net>
	<56794A5C.5020101@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <56794D5E.80503@acm.org>

Hi,

I think it is too.  but without adequate vetting by the full membership
list, it is sort of a problem too.

avri


On 22-Dec-15 08:04, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> And ultimately it is about the time people carve out from their
> schedules to draft, edit, review and approve. I actually think it is
> rather remarkable that we submit as much as we do.
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> On 12/22/2015 4:47 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Conceptually, at least. 
>>
>> I like your template for public comments. There should be a way to
>> automate a lot of this. Awareness of possible comments and deadlines
>> are key. An updated NCSG web page focusing on this sort of thing can
>> help with the structure. Social media, Twitter alerts in particular,
>> can help with the herding and notifications. I hate to make people
>> sad but mailing lists are your Dad's technology, used by academics
>> and old people. Sorry. I'm getting old myself but as a non academic I
>> have a bit different mentality. Lots of innovative social media
>> portals out there and some of our less active members I know to be
>> expert in them: we need their help. We need to activate the talents
>> so many of our members have and I know would be willing to contribute
>> in the right situation.
>>
>> As far as the assignment of members of the PC to specialize in
>> certain areas, agreed. That is something the PC Chair should be able
>> to do as part of her organization of the PC. It could be done in
>> conjunction with orienting our Councillors in certain ways. It's
>> something we are already doing informally at Council level. We
>> probably need to make it a bit more formal.
>>
>> One thing we need to remember: the majority of the PC are our
>> Councillors. With the demands already on our time we need to perform
>> more of a coordination role on comments than a substantive role. All
>> the systemic coordination in the world can't hide a basic fact: we
>> need more people writing the comments. Over the past year I'd
>> estimate there are no more than a half dozen of us who have done any
>> substantial writing. Maybe a few more. Systems are great but without
>> the bodies to populate them they are mere ideas.
>>
>> I know our NCSG Chair has a lot of plans along this line. Hr's only
>> been in office about a month: we need to give him some time. The
>> intercessional meeting in February should be an ideal place to talk
>> this out, bring people together and try to take some small steps
>> forward to making the PC more effective. It really needs to be a
>> collaborative effort between the Councillors, the Constituencies and,
>> most of all, our members. 
>>
>> I would caution, however, about grand plans. Every year since I've
>> been here we make plans for a revitalized PC. Somehow we wind up on
>> crisis mode and never seem to
>> Implement them.  I think a lot of what you have proposed,  Rafik, is
>> implementable over a multi year period. Let's just try to take it a
>> step at a time. In my view that means first automating as much of the
>> informational and tracking aspects as we can, try to work on the
>> timelines as  you've suggested, but in a soft way, and, for the
>> interim, really support whoever steps up and volunteers to be PC
>> Chair. In the end it's not as much about systems as it is about
>> people. The former can be used to orient the later but until we have
>> people to do the work...well, systems don't write the comments,
>> people do. These things are not mutually exclusive, however, and
>> hopefully we can make strides in multiple  areas in the year ahead.
>>
>> Thanks for starting the conversation, Rafik.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 2:19 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hi everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity
>>> about the process to manage, plan and build responses to public
>>> comments. we had so many public comments lately, and in several
>>> occasions many in same time period. we cannot respond to everything
>>> but we can try to be more efficient and avoid (or lessen at least)
>>> the pressure.
>>>
>>> I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here
>>> . While I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also
>>> making some suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment
>>> it wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for
>>> public comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame
>>>
>>> a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act
>>> and/or make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below)
>>> showing each step. it will help us to move more or less from the
>>> ad-hoc approach .
>>>
>>> to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we
>>> can use this
>>> board https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
>>> and this
>>> one https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker
>>>  (we can add here the different milestones or steps and having the
>>> status)
>>>
>>> As timeline for example:
>>>
>>>   * Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a
>>>     request from NCSG member to cover a public comment here
>>>     https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are
>>>     other request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO
>>>     council etc for those we can adapt the process). Adding the
>>>     public comment as task into our tracking tool.
>>>
>>>   * Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for
>>>     NCSG, the PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the
>>>     comment is critical and giving some context ( those active in WG
>>>     and/or gNSO council can help here by providing a brief), create
>>>     a google doc, etherpad or any other tool adapted to drafting and
>>>     co-authoring. the document/link should be shared in NCSG-DISCUSS
>>>     list with the announcement. 
>>>
>>> we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to
>>> get people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of
>>> concerns or interests for NCSG 
>>>
>>>   * Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment
>>>     initial discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or
>>>     at least initiate the discussion in the mailing list
>>>   * Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC
>>>     members for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.
>>>
>>>   * Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar
>>>     can be suggested 
>>>   * Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by
>>>     NCSG or PC chair(s)
>>>   * Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining
>>>     concerns
>>>   * Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the
>>>     addition of minority statement (we should work to resolve any
>>>     concerns from the beginning and reaching consensus). submission
>>>     to be done by NCSG or PC chair(s) .
>>>
>>>
>>> The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or
>>> removed here. looking for your suggestions.
>>> regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to
>>> discuss about some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits,
>>> doing some polling in some cases etc
>>>
>>> 2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se.
>>> we can shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
>>> the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list
>>> and having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
>>> example:
>>>
>>>   * Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
>>>   * Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to
>>>     get someone involved in the WG already)
>>>   * Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
>>>   * Deadline sending the response
>>>
>>> we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for
>>> appointments to cross-community working group or drafting team
>>> we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to
>>> review teams
>>>
>>> 3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs
>>> only to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be
>>> proactive. 
>>>
>>> one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take
>>> the lead of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be
>>> ongoing in coming months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms
>>> review (e.g. UDRP), whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO
>>> procedures or SCI  (we can find more in the GNSO project list).
>>>
>>> he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there
>>> is anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and
>>> update, optionally coordinate with other members active or expert
>>>  in the PDP e.g. members in the WG
>>> We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those
>>> involved in the different working groups and also our
>>> representatives. same for NCSG GNSO councillors
>>>
>>> we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to
>>> explore if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more
>>> regularly e.g. doing some planning every Monday for example via mail
>>> thread to check the status of comments drafting, any new public
>>> comment to consider etc. planning should be a continuous activity
>>> here, to be lead by the PC chair. 
>>>
>>> we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but
>>> ensuring that we get a process and enough people to do so. of
>>> course, all these should be documented in our wiki space.
>>> if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy
>>> the straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture
>>> comments. Maryam or me can add you to trello.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Thu Dec 24 10:25:44 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:25:44 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Competition,
	Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Seated
References: <93B57F94-19E2-4EB8-9351-3C69BF13EC28@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <DE32E658-616E-4B9E-A635-ABDCAE12DA7E@toast.net>

Congratulations to Carlos but otherwise very disappointing. I hope we can have a discussion in Los Angeles about our approach to  Council appointments, both during the formal nomination period and in terms of post nomination lobbying. We need to do better in both areas. 

Given our lack of representation on the CCT we need to pay special attention to the CCT output, give Carlos any and all support he's willing to accept and we can collectively provide,  and devote special attention to our public comments here.

Sad.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Date: December 24, 2015 at 1:30:27 AM GMT
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Seated
> 
> Colleagues--
> 
> See announcement below. 
> 
> Please note that although the 'delegation' from the GNSO is smaller than our list of endorsements, it nevertheless represents a significant share of the Review Team. 
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> J.
> ____________
> James Bladel
> GoDaddy
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications at icann.org>
>> Date: December 23, 2015 at 18:16:58 CST
>> To: <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Seated
>> Reply-To: communications at icann.org
>> 
>> News Alert
>> 
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-12-23-en
>> 
>> Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Seated
>> 23 December 2015
>> 
>> ICANN today announced that 17 individuals have been selected to serve on the team that will review the New gTLD Program in relation to competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT). Review team members represent an array of geographic regions and areas of expertise, and have demonstrated knowledge of the New gTLD Program or one of the review areas.
>> 
>> Six review team members were endorsed by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and two were endorsed by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). Four members will serve as independent experts and bring deep knowledge of economics, consumer protection and intellectual property law, and Internet security to the team. Of the remaining five team members, two also belong to the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), two from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and one represents ICANN's CEO.
>> 
>> In accordance with ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments, CCT review team members were selected by ICANN CEO Fadi Chehad? and GAC Chair Thomas Schneider. The pair made their selections based on rigorous analysis of application materials from 72 candidates. Applications were evaluated against the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers with a particular focus on candidates' expertise in competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. Endorsements and guidance from the GNSO and ALAC were also taken into consideration. Chehad? and Schneider chose candidates representing a cross-section of experience and geographic diversity.
>> 
>> The Affirmation of Commitments also allows the CEO and GAC chair to serve on the review team or designate representatives. Chehad? will be represented by ICANN's Jamie Hedlund, and Schneider by Laureen Kapin [PDF, 89 KB], of the GAC Public Safety Working Group and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
>> 
>> The CCT review team is expected to convene for its first meeting in January 2016 and to complete a final draft of its report by December 2016. Periodic updates on the progress of the review will be made available on icann.org and at ICANN public meetings.
>> 
>> Members Representing an ICANN Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee
>> Candidate	Country	SO/AC	Documents
>> Calvin Browne	South Africa	GNSO	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Jordyn Buchanan	USA	GNSO	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Carlos Raul Gutierrez	Costa Rica	GNSO	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Waudo Siganga	Kenya	GNSO	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> David Taylor	United Kingdom	GNSO	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Jonathan Zuck	USA	GNSO	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Kaili Kan	People's Republic of China	ALAC	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Carlton Samuels	Jamaica	ALAC	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Megan Richards	Belgium	GAC	
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Dejan Djukic	Serbia	ccNSO	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Gaongalelwe G.P. Mosweu	Botswana	ccNSO	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>>  
>> 
>> Members Serving as Independent Experts
>> Candidate	Country	Documents
>> Drew Bagley	USA	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Stanley Besen	USA	
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> N. Ravi Shankar	India	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Fabro Steibel	Brazil	
>> Letter of motivation
>> Curriculum vitae
>> Statement of interests 
>> Background
>> 
>> Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments states: "If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice." An implementation advisory group recommended a set of 66 metrics [PDF, 472 KB], which the ICANN Board adopted, for the review team to consider. ICANN has been collecting data on many of these metrics. In addition, ICANN commissioned a global survey and economic study to gather data on certain metrics. Baseline reports on consumer and registrant awareness of new gTLDs have been published along with an economic assessment of competition in the domain name marketplace. These and other supporting materials will be made available to the review team to inform its work.
>> 
>> More information on the CCT review is available here.
>> 
>> About ICANN
>> 
>> ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more information please visit: www.icann.org.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This message was sent to jbladel at godaddy.com from:
>> ICANN News Alert | communications at icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>> Email Marketing by 
>> 
>> Manage Your Subscription
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151224/641f4c7a/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Dec 24 12:18:03 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:18:03 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20151224101802.8061072.5794.17535@mail.utoronto.ca>

Great idea Rafik! I will go over this in detail shortly and comment, but looks good. Thanks!
Stephanie

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Rafik Dammak
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:19 PM
To: NCSG-Policy
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement


hi everyone,


I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about the process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. we had so many public comments lately, and in several occasions many in same time period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try to be more efficient and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.

I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here . While I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also making some suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.


1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment it wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for public comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame

a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act and/or make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below) showing each step. it will help us to move more or less from the ad-hoc approach .

to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we can use this board https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015 and this one https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker  (we can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)

As timeline for example:

  *   Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a request from NCSG member to cover a public comment here https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are other request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO council etc for those we can adapt the process). Adding the public comment as task into our tracking tool.

  *   Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG, the PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment is critical and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or gNSO council can help here by providing a brief), create a google doc, etherpad or any other tool adapted to drafting and co-authoring. the document/link should be shared in NCSG-DISCUSS list with the announcement.

we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to get people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns or interests for NCSG

  *   Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment initial discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at least initiate the discussion in the mailing list
  *   Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC members for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.

  *   Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can be suggested
  *   Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by NCSG or PC chair(s)
  *   Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining concerns
  *   Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the addition of minority statement (we should work to resolve any concerns from the beginning and reaching consensus). submission to be done by NCSG or PC chair(s) .

The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or removed here. looking for your suggestions.
regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss about some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing some polling in some cases etc

2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se. we can shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list and having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
example:

  *   Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
  *   Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to get someone involved in the WG already)
  *   Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
  *   Deadline sending the response

we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for appointments to cross-community working group or drafting team
we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review teams

3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs only to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be proactive.

one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take the lead of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing in coming months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g. UDRP), whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI  (we can find more in the GNSO project list).

he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there is anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and update, optionally coordinate with other members active or expert  in the PDP e.g. members in the WG
We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved in the different working groups and also our representatives. same for NCSG GNSO councillors

we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to explore if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more regularly e.g. doing some planning every Monday for example via mail thread to check the status of comments drafting, any new public comment to consider etc. planning should be a continuous activity here, to be lead by the PC chair.

we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but ensuring that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course, all these should be documented in our wiki space.
if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments. Maryam or me can add you to trello.

Best,

Rafik

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151224/505c9154/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: unnamed
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151224/505c9154/attachment.ksh>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Dec 24 12:21:41 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:21:41 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
In-Reply-To: <5678CF9C.5060300@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sThnZnrf2pqLgBTU1z3kon3Mz+1+Xrjv8jpRsn98=X+5pCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5678CF9C.5060300@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20151224102140.8061072.61016.17537@mail.utoronto.ca>

I was too busy to chime in on this, apologies. However I agree that demanding more time and sending late would have been a good response. Personally, I like rejecting ridiculous time lines.
Stephanie

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 11:21 PM
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Reply To: avri at acm.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement


Hi,

I do not know that this group could ever adhere to such a strict
schedule. Might be fun to watch us try.

But I do think that a document that hasn't been reviewed by the Discuss
list in at least in its penultimate for a last call of at least a few
days should not be able to go as an NCSG comment.

Yes, this was on a fast schedule, but there several days of PC review
that should have also been Discuss list review. Additionally we must
have an explicit opportunity for dissenting opinions to be appended -
the same criteria we demand of other groups. Adhering to a few criteria
would be a start.

And if we had not had time for a proper NCSG review, perhaps we should
have done what the IPC did and told them it was coming in a few days.
Some of our number are among the most vocal when it comes to demanding
we mustn't rush if that does not lead to the right result.

avri


On 21-Dec-15 21:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> hi everyone,
>
>
> I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about
> the process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. we
> had so many public comments lately, and in several occasions many in
> same time period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try to be
> more efficient and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.
>
> I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off the discussion here .
> While I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also making
> some suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.
>
>
> 1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment it
> wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for
> public comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame
>
> a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act
> and/or make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below)
> showing each step. it will help us to move more or less from the
> ad-hoc approach .
>
> to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we
> can use this
> board https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
> and this
> one https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker (we
> can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)
>
> As timeline for example:
>
> * Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a
> request from NCSG member to cover a public comment here
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are other
> request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO council etc
> for those we can adapt the process). Adding the public comment as
> task into our tracking tool.
>
> * Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG,
> the PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment
> is critical and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or
> gNSO council can help here by providing a brief), create a google
> doc, etherpad or any other tool adapted to drafting and
> co-authoring. the document/link should be shared in NCSG-DISCUSS
> list with the announcement.
>
> we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to get
> people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns or
> interests for NCSG
>
> * Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment
> initial discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at
> least initiate the discussion in the mailing list
> * Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC
> members for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.
>
> * Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can
> be suggested
> * Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by NCSG
> or PC chair(s)
> * Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining concerns
> * Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the
> addition of minority statement (we should work to resolve any
> concerns from the beginning and reaching consensus). submission to
> be done by NCSG or PC chair(s) .
>
>
> The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or
> removed here. looking for your suggestions.
> regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss
> about some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing some
> polling in some cases etc
>
> 2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se.
> we can shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
> the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list
> and having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
> example:
>
> * Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
> * Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to get
> someone involved in the WG already)
> * Day Deadline-7 days call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
> * Deadline sending the response
>
> we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for
> appointments to cross-community working group or drafting team
> we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review
> teams
>
> 3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs
> only to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be
> proactive.
>
> one suggestion would to get PC member (or expert member) to take the
> lead of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing
> in coming months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g.
> UDRP), whois/RDS, ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI (we
> can find more in the GNSO project list).
>
> he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there
> is anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and
> update, optionally coordinate with other members active or expert in
> the PDP e.g. members in the WG
> We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved
> in the different working groups and also our representatives. same for
> NCSG GNSO councillors
>
> we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to
> explore if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more
> regularly e.g. doing some planning every Monday for example via mail
> thread to check the status of comments drafting, any new public
> comment to consider etc. planning should be a continuous activity
> here, to be lead by the PC chair.
>
> we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but
> ensuring that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course,
> all these should be documented in our wiki space.
> if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the
> straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments.
> Maryam or me can add you to trello.
>
> Best,
>
> 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/20151224/8c427e9b/attachment-0001.html>