From rafik.dammak Tue Feb 3 15:17:55 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 22:17:55 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_For_Review_and_Action_=C2=AD_Prep_For_?= =?utf-8?q?ICANN_52_High_Interest_Topic_Session?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, below, you will find info about the high Interest topic session focusing on operational improvement and aiming to get community input. I will be glad to represent NCSG there. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "David Olive" Date: Jan 31, 2015 6:57 PM Subject: For Review and Action ? Prep For ICANN 52 High Interest Topic Session To: "byron.holland at cira.ca" , " jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" , " louie at louie.net" , "Alan Barrett" , " thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch" , " alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca" , "patrik at frobbit.se" < patrik at frobbit.se>, "tsinha at umd.edu" , "liman at netnod.se" < liman at netnod.se>, "Metalitz, Steven" , " Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" , " tonyarholmes at btinternet.com" , " rafik.dammak at gmail.com" , "william.drake at uzh.ch" < william.drake at uzh.ch>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" , " Michele at blacknight.com" , "kdrazek at Verisign.com" < kdrazek at verisign.com>, "Greg Shatan (gregshatanipc at gmail.com)" < gregshatanipc at gmail.com> Cc: "Global Leadership" , "Duncan Burns" < duncan.burns at icann.org>, "Brad White" , "Robert Hoggarth" , "Benedetta Rossi" < benedetta.rossi at icann.org> Dear Community Leaders: As we all prepare for travel to the ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore (ICANN 52), this note is designed to update you and ask for assistance regarding our preparations for the SO-AC High Interest Topic session scheduled for the main ballroom (Padang) on the afternoon of Monday 9 February at 1400 Local Time. As you know, based on our recent calls and correspondence, the main topic you agreed to focus on for the ICANN 52 session was the operational and workload improvement efforts that were started at the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles. During our last meeting (a couple of weeks ago with Fadi) we discussed the brainstorm idea to try to associate that operational improvements discussion with the broader ICANN Accountability topic. As Jonathan and Keith warned during the meeting, that connection has proven to be too tenuous. As a result, we have explored re-fining the session to focus directly on the three operational improvement themes - (1) Establishing a stakeholder-led mechanism for prioritizing ICANN?s overall policy issues and related work areas; (2) Developing a comprehensive knowledge database or network to make information about ICANN?s current and past work easily accessible and available to all existing and future ICANN participants; and (3) Identifying ways to improve our capabilities to identify and attract new and productive community participation while retaining existing participants who dedicate their time and efforts to ICANN?s work. The overall goal of the Monday session can now be more focused - to develop a useful dialogue that demonstrates to the broader community that their leadership (all of you) is engaged in developing solutions to the community?s current workload challenges and is interested in absorbing community ideas to help collectively solve these issues. The more concise agenda also works well because due to scheduling of other sessions we are limited to a 75-minute session time block. We?ve structured the session in two parts. The first part (25 minutes) will offer the audience a general discussion among you and other community representative panelists on the overall view you or communities have about ICANN?s community workload challenges and how those challenges impact ICANN?s operational accountability generally ? that is, what is currently working operationally, what can be improved and what ideas are being explored to take improvement steps. You or your fellow community members might even have specific best practice suggestions that work in your communities. The second part of the session (45 minutes) will address, in turn, each of the three work streams you have developed (15 minutes a piece), so that the community can see and hear the various approaches that are being considered in the three topic areas to help address ICANN?s workload challenges. We hope that through in-room and remote participation that audience members (via in-room microphones and twitter posts) will be able to contribute some thoughts and ideas to the discussion. The session will present itself as more of a problem-solving exercise which will enable you and your community representatives to talk about ideas for changes. We hope the session transcript will be a useful tool to help us take the various subgroups to the next step of their discussions and ultimate recommendations. We think the modified theme will work nicely - enmeshed with the Monday ICG IANA Stewardship Transition and the CCWG Accountability programming as an example of how ICANN community leadership is looking to improve ICANN?s effectiveness and operational excellence. We?ve created some draft context/background material and sample ?seed? questions for moderator Brad White to consider in introducing the session and keeping things moving. Please feel free to suggest additional questions or modifications to the context materials for Brad that are attached to this message. Also, when we meet next Friday in Singapore, please share with me who you plan to have on the stage to represent your community during the session. We will follow the now-traditional protocol of the following panelist assignments: *?? a maximum two (2) representatives from each of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC, SSAC and RSSAC communities, and a maximum of four (4) participants from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large (one per RALO)?.* I look forward to finalizing these arrangements with you when we meet next week in Singapore. Looking forward to your feedback via email and at the meeting. Best regards, David David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive at icann.org www.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Seed Questions SO-AC SING52 (RHv2)[1].docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 25016 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5040 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr Tue Feb 3 21:08:44 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 20:08:44 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Meeting Agenda Draft Message-ID: <26B75D98-C060-4408-84A1-215E67308911@egyptig.org> Hi all, This is a preliminary draft of the NCSG-PC meeting agenda set to take place in Singapore. I?d like to get feedback from all of you before sending it out to the rest of the list. This is the first time I?ve had to do this, so help me out. Let me know what you think. :) Thanks. Amr --------------------------------- NCSG-PC Meeting Agenda: Sunday, February 8th 2015 from 16:30 - 18:30 local Singapore time (UTC +8) Room: Moor. Remote Participation Details: To be confirmed. I. Preparation for GNSO Council public meeting (30 minutes): The agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting is still to be confirmed, however, there don?t appear to be any motions set to be voted on as of yet. II. Open public comment periods (20 minutes): 1.GNSO policy and implementation working group initial report: Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) program, there has been an increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how issues which are the subject of diverging opinions during the implementation process should be acted upon. Following several discussions, including the publication of a staff discussion paper and a community session during the ICANN meeting in Beijing in April 2013, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council decided in July 2013 to form a Working Group (WG) which was tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on a number of questions that specifically relate to policy and implementation in a GNSO context. The public comment period closes on March 3rd. Details can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en 2. Draft Report - Rights Protection Mechanisms Review: This paper is intended to provide an outline for an initial review of the effectiveness of the rights protection mechanisms established as safeguards in the New gTLD Program. Particularly, this paper will review the data and input collected in many of the key areas relating to protection of trademark rights in the domain name system, including the Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid Suspension system, and Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures. The public comment period closes on April 3rd. Details can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en III. Update on ongoing working groups (40 minutes): 1. Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation PDP Working Group 2. Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group 3. Policy and Implementation Working Group (This topic will be discussed separately with other issues with open public comment periods) 4. IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP 5. Board-GNSO EWG Process WG IV. Preparation for NCSG meeting with the ICANN board (20 minutes): 1. ICANN?s involvement in Web content regulation 2. Public interest and human rights + Public Interest Commitments Specification (PICs) of the registry agreement 3. Privacy issues at ICANN V. AOB (10 minutes) Possible topic may be the report and public comments submitted regarding the GAC subgroup on the protection of geographic names in the new gTLDs process (https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Community+Input+-+The+protection+of+Geographic+Names+in+the+New+gTLDs+process) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Feb 4 14:43:13 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:43:13 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, any help on this. after sending the topic to board for the joint meeting, I got the question what are the top 5 entreprise risks pertaining to NCSG. Best, Rafik 2015-01-19 9:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi, > > we are asked to give input about top 5 ICANN entreprise risks and we > should provide this by 5th February (few days before the singapore meeting) > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Olive > Date: 2015-01-18 0:10 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN > Enterprise Risks > To: "byron.holland at cira.ca" , " > jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" , " > louie at louie.net" , "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch" < > thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch>, "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca" < > alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "patrik at frobbit.se" , " > tsinha at umd.edu" , "liman at netnod.se" , > "Metalitz, Steven" , "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" < > Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com" < > tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < > rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "william.drake at uzh.ch" , " > rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" , "Michele at blacknight.com" < > Michele at blacknight.com>, "kdrazek at Verisign.com" > Cc: "mike.silber at icann.org" , "rmohan at afilias.info" > > > > Below is a note from the ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs. > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > Dear SO/AC/SG: > > > > The Board Risk Committee (BRC) is tasked to provide oversight and guidance > into enterprise risk identification and remediation for ICANN. ICANN has > developed a risk management framework and methodology that is used to > identify, mitigate and monitor risks. > > > > The purpose of this email is to reach out to you, the SO/AC/SG > Leadership, to ask your group to identify what it believes are the *top > five enterprise-wide risks* to ICANN. This feedback process allows us to > calibrate and evaluate risks identified internally with those identified by > the community. > > > > We envision a response as an enumerated list of the top five enterprise > risks that your SO or AC group believes ought to be ICANN?s top priorities. > > > > We ask to provide a written response *via email* by *5 February 2015*. We > anticipate discussion on these identified risks in the SO/AC Constituency > meetings with the Board during ICANN 52 in Singapore. Please send all > written responses directly to Enterprise-Risk at ICANN.Org. > > > We understand that you may not have the time to develop a formal response > from your SO or AC group. In that case, we would appreciate > you providing us with your own personal views or those of a small sub-set > of your SO or AC group, but please let us know if you have done so. We will > iterate the process to improve it and comments on possible improvements are > most welcome. > > > > Again, thank you in advance and we look forward to your input. > > > > Regards, > > Mike Silber & Ram Mohan > > ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs > > > > David A. Olive > Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul > Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, > Istanbul > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 > Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 > Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 > Email: david.olive at icann.org > www.icann.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Wed Feb 4 15:16:12 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:16:12 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: I think the first risk is if they think of ICANN as an corporate enterprise. Beyond that, will have to respond after flying in a bit, Bill > On Feb 4, 2015, at 1:43 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > any help on this. after sending the topic to board for the joint meeting, I got the question what are the top 5 entreprise risks pertaining to NCSG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-01-19 9:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > Hi, > > we are asked to give input about top 5 ICANN entreprise risks and we should provide this by 5th February (few days before the singapore meeting) > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Olive > > Date: 2015-01-18 0:10 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks > To: "byron.holland at cira.ca " >, "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com " >, "louie at louie.net " >, "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch " >, "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca " >, "patrik at frobbit.se " >, "tsinha at umd.edu " >, "liman at netnod.se " >, "Metalitz, Steven" >, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com " >, "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com " >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com " >, "william.drake at uzh.ch " >, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be " >, "Michele at blacknight.com " >, "kdrazek at Verisign.com" > > Cc: "mike.silber at icann.org " >, "rmohan at afilias.info " > > > > Below is a note from the ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs. > > --------------------------------------------- > > Dear SO/AC/SG: > > The Board Risk Committee (BRC) is tasked to provide oversight and guidance into enterprise risk identification and remediation for ICANN. ICANN has developed a risk management framework and methodology that is used to identify, mitigate and monitor risks. > > The purpose of this email is to reach out to you, the SO/AC/SG Leadership, to ask your group to identify what it believes are the top five enterprise-wide risks to ICANN. This feedback process allows us to calibrate and evaluate risks identified internally with those identified by the community. > > We envision a response as an enumerated list of the top five enterprise risks that your SO or AC group believes ought to be ICANN?s top priorities. > > We ask to provide a written response via email by 5 February 2015. We anticipate discussion on these identified risks in the SO/AC Constituency meetings with the Board during ICANN 52 in Singapore. Please send all written responses directly to Enterprise-Risk at ICANN.Org . > > We understand that you may not have the time to develop a formal response from your SO or AC group. In that case, we would appreciate you providing us with your own personal views or those of a small sub-set of your SO or AC group, but please let us know if you have done so. We will iterate the process to improve it and comments on possible improvements are most welcome. > > Again, thank you in advance and we look forward to your input. > > Regards, > Mike Silber & Ram Mohan > ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs > > > David A. Olive > Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul > Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 > Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 > Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 > Email: david.olive at icann.org > www.icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Feb 4 16:56:54 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:56:54 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <54D23336.5030406@acm.org> Hi, I have to agree with this. I was put off by this enterprise model they assume. - That ICANN sees itself as a profit making business as opposed to as a public service entity - A CEO who acts as if he were responsible for producing the vision for ICANN as opposed to having a vision that comes from the community that he uses his talents to implement and deploy. - A Board and Senior Staff that are not accountable to the community avri On 04-Feb-15 14:16, William Drake wrote: > I think the first risk is if they think of ICANN as an corporate > enterprise. > > Beyond that, will have to respond after flying in a bit, > > Bill > >> On Feb 4, 2015, at 1:43 PM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> any help on this. after sending the topic to board for the joint >> meeting, I got the question what are the top 5 entreprise risks >> pertaining to NCSG. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2015-01-19 9:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi, >> >> we are asked to give input about top 5 ICANN entreprise risks and >> we should provide this by 5th February (few days before the >> singapore meeting) >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *David Olive* > > >> Date: 2015-01-18 0:10 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN >> Enterprise Risks >> To: "byron.holland at cira.ca " >> >, >> "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com >> " >> > >, "louie at louie.net >> " > >, "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch >> " >> > >, >> "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca " >> >, >> "patrik at frobbit.se " > >, "tsinha at umd.edu >> " > >, "liman at netnod.se >> " > >, "Metalitz, Steven" > >, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >> " >> > >, >> "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >> " >> > >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> " > >, "william.drake at uzh.ch >> " > >, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be >> " > >, "Michele at blacknight.com >> " > >, "kdrazek at Verisign.com >> " > > >> Cc: "mike.silber at icann.org " >> >, >> "rmohan at afilias.info " >> > >> >> >> Below is a note from the ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs. >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> Dear SO/AC/SG: >> >> >> >> The Board Risk Committee (BRC) is tasked to provide oversight and >> guidance into enterprise risk identification and remediation for >> ICANN. ICANN has developed a risk management framework and >> methodology that is used to identify, mitigate and monitor risks. >> >> >> >> The purpose of this email is to reach out to you, the SO/AC/SG >> Leadership, to ask your group to identify what it believes are >> the _top five enterprise-wide risks_ to ICANN. This feedback >> process allows us to calibrate and evaluate risks identified >> internally with those identified by the community. >> >> >> >> We envision a response as an enumerated list of the top five >> enterprise risks that your SO or AC group believes ought to be >> ICANN?s top priorities. >> >> >> >> We ask to provide a written response *via email* by *5 February >> 2015*. We anticipate discussion on these identified risks in the >> SO/AC Constituency meetings with the Board during ICANN 52 in >> Singapore. Please send all written responses directly >> to Enterprise-Risk at ICANN.Org . >> >> We understand that you may not have the time to develop a formal >> response from your SO or AC group. In that case, we would >> appreciate you providing us with your own personal views or those >> of a small sub-set of your SO or AC group, but please let us know >> if you have done so. We will iterate the process to improve it >> and comments on possible improvements are most welcome. >> >> >> >> Again, thank you in advance and we look forward to your input. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Mike Silber & Ram Mohan >> ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs >> >> >> David A. Olive >> Vice President, Policy Development Support >> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul >> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, >> Besiktas, Istanbul >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 >> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 >> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 >> Email: david.olive at icann.org >> www.icann.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Feb 4 18:18:50 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:18:50 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca> i keep repeating myself. It is nonsense to ask us all for our top five risks, without giving us the framework they are using to assess risk. Garbage in, garbage out. They should know better. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-02-04 7:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > any help on this. after sending the topic to board for the joint > meeting, I got the question what are the top 5 entreprise risks > pertaining to NCSG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-01-19 9:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi, > > we are asked to give input about top 5 ICANN entreprise risks and > we should provide this by 5th February (few days before the > singapore meeting) > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *David Olive* > > Date: 2015-01-18 0:10 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN > Enterprise Risks > To: "byron.holland at cira.ca " > >, > "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com > " > >, "louie at louie.net > " >, "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch > " > >, > "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca " > >, > "patrik at frobbit.se " >, "tsinha at umd.edu > " >, > "liman at netnod.se " >, "Metalitz, Steven" >, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com > " > >, > "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com " > >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com > " >, "william.drake at uzh.ch > " >, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be > " >, "Michele at blacknight.com > " >, "kdrazek at Verisign.com" > > > Cc: "mike.silber at icann.org " > >, > "rmohan at afilias.info " > > > > > Below is a note from the ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs. > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > Dear SO/AC/SG: > > The Board Risk Committee (BRC) is tasked to provide oversight and > guidance into enterprise risk identification and remediation for > ICANN. ICANN has developed a risk management framework and > methodology that is used to identify, mitigate and monitor risks. > > The purpose of this email is to reach out to you, the SO/AC/SG > Leadership, to ask your group to identify what it believes are > the _top five enterprise-wide risks_ to ICANN. This feedback > process allows us to calibrate and evaluate risks identified > internally with those identified by the community. > > We envision a response as an enumerated list of the top five > enterprise risks that your SO or AC group believes ought to be > ICANN?s top priorities. > > We ask to provide a written response *via email* by *5 February > 2015*. We anticipate discussion on these identified risks in the > SO/AC Constituency meetings with the Board during ICANN 52 in > Singapore. Please send all written responses directly to > Enterprise-Risk at ICANN.Org . > > > We understand that you may not have the time to develop a formal > response from your SO or AC group. In that case, we would > appreciate you providing us with your own personal views or those > of a small sub-set of your SO or AC group, but please let us know > if you have done so. We will iterate the process to improve it and > comments on possible improvements are most welcome. > > Again, thank you in advance and we look forward to your input. > > Regards, > > Mike Silber & Ram Mohan > > ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs > > > > David A. Olive > Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul > Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, > Besiktas, Istanbul > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Direct Line:+90.212.999.6212 > Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 > Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 > Email: david.olive at icann.org > www.icann.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Wed Feb 4 18:31:53 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:31:53 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks In-Reply-To: <54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca> References:

<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Not being entirely sure what they want how about... The risk that once the tie to the US government is severed ICANN will be found guilty of being a monopoly under antitrust/competition law in California (Cartwright Ace), the USA (Sherman), the EU (TFEU 101-109) ? On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > i keep repeating myself. It is nonsense to ask us all for our top five > risks, without giving us the framework they are using to assess risk. > Garbage in, garbage out. They should know better. > Stephanie Perrin > On 2015-02-04 7:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > any help on this. after sending the topic to board for the joint > meeting, I got the question what are the top 5 entreprise risks pertaining > to NCSG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-01-19 9:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi, >> >> we are asked to give input about top 5 ICANN entreprise risks and we >> should provide this by 5th February (few days before the singapore meeting) >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Olive >> Date: 2015-01-18 0:10 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN >> Enterprise Risks >> To: "byron.holland at cira.ca" , " >> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" , " >> louie at louie.net" , "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch" < >> thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch>, "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca" < >> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "patrik at frobbit.se" , " >> tsinha at umd.edu" , "liman at netnod.se" , >> "Metalitz, Steven" , "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" < >> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com" < >> tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "william.drake at uzh.ch" , " >> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" , "Michele at blacknight.com" >> , "kdrazek at Verisign.com" < >> kdrazek at verisign.com> >> Cc: "mike.silber at icann.org" , "rmohan at afilias.info" >> >> >> >> Below is a note from the ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Dear SO/AC/SG: >> >> >> >> The Board Risk Committee (BRC) is tasked to provide oversight and >> guidance into enterprise risk identification and remediation for ICANN. >> ICANN has developed a risk management framework and methodology that is >> used to identify, mitigate and monitor risks. >> >> >> >> The purpose of this email is to reach out to you, the SO/AC/SG >> Leadership, to ask your group to identify what it believes are the *top >> five enterprise-wide risks* to ICANN. This feedback process allows us to >> calibrate and evaluate risks identified internally with those identified by >> the community. >> >> >> >> We envision a response as an enumerated list of the top five enterprise >> risks that your SO or AC group believes ought to be ICANN?s top priorities. >> >> >> >> We ask to provide a written response *via email* by *5 February 2015*. >> We anticipate discussion on these identified risks in the SO/AC >> Constituency meetings with the Board during ICANN 52 in Singapore. Please >> send all written responses directly to Enterprise-Risk at ICANN.Org. >> >> >> We understand that you may not have the time to develop a formal >> response from your SO or AC group. In that case, we would appreciate >> you providing us with your own personal views or those of a small sub-set >> of your SO or AC group, but please let us know if you have done so. We will >> iterate the process to improve it and comments on possible improvements are >> most welcome. >> >> >> >> Again, thank you in advance and we look forward to your input. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Mike Silber & Ram Mohan >> >> ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs >> >> >> >> David A. Olive >> Vice President, Policy Development Support >> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul >> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, >> Istanbul >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 >> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <%2B%201.%20202.341.3611> >> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 >> Email: david.olive at icann.org >> www.icann.org >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Wed Feb 4 18:33:47 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:33:47 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks In-Reply-To: <54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca> References:

<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Sorry...rough train caused me to hit send early. Not being entirely sure what they want, how about... The risk that once the tie to the US government is severed ICANN will be found guilty of being a monopoly under antitrust/competition law in California (Cartwright Ace), the USA (Sherman), the EU (TFEU 101-109) or in some other jurisdiction? Ed ? On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > i keep repeating myself. It is nonsense to ask us all for our top five > risks, without giving us the framework they are using to assess risk. > Garbage in, garbage out. They should know better. > Stephanie Perrin > On 2015-02-04 7:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > any help on this. after sending the topic to board for the joint > meeting, I got the question what are the top 5 entreprise risks pertaining > to NCSG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-01-19 9:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi, >> >> we are asked to give input about top 5 ICANN entreprise risks and we >> should provide this by 5th February (few days before the singapore meeting) >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Olive >> Date: 2015-01-18 0:10 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN >> Enterprise Risks >> To: "byron.holland at cira.ca" , " >> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" , " >> louie at louie.net" , "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch" < >> thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch>, "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca" < >> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "patrik at frobbit.se" , " >> tsinha at umd.edu" , "liman at netnod.se" , >> "Metalitz, Steven" , "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" < >> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com" < >> tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "william.drake at uzh.ch" , " >> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" , "Michele at blacknight.com" >> , "kdrazek at Verisign.com" < >> kdrazek at verisign.com> >> Cc: "mike.silber at icann.org" , "rmohan at afilias.info" >> >> >> >> Below is a note from the ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Dear SO/AC/SG: >> >> >> >> The Board Risk Committee (BRC) is tasked to provide oversight and >> guidance into enterprise risk identification and remediation for ICANN. >> ICANN has developed a risk management framework and methodology that is >> used to identify, mitigate and monitor risks. >> >> >> >> The purpose of this email is to reach out to you, the SO/AC/SG >> Leadership, to ask your group to identify what it believes are the *top >> five enterprise-wide risks* to ICANN. This feedback process allows us to >> calibrate and evaluate risks identified internally with those identified by >> the community. >> >> >> >> We envision a response as an enumerated list of the top five enterprise >> risks that your SO or AC group believes ought to be ICANN?s top priorities. >> >> >> >> We ask to provide a written response *via email* by *5 February 2015*. >> We anticipate discussion on these identified risks in the SO/AC >> Constituency meetings with the Board during ICANN 52 in Singapore. Please >> send all written responses directly to Enterprise-Risk at ICANN.Org. >> >> >> We understand that you may not have the time to develop a formal >> response from your SO or AC group. In that case, we would appreciate >> you providing us with your own personal views or those of a small sub-set >> of your SO or AC group, but please let us know if you have done so. We will >> iterate the process to improve it and comments on possible improvements are >> most welcome. >> >> >> >> Again, thank you in advance and we look forward to your input. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Mike Silber & Ram Mohan >> >> ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs >> >> >> >> David A. Olive >> Vice President, Policy Development Support >> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul >> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, >> Istanbul >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 >> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <%2B%201.%20202.341.3611> >> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 >> Email: david.olive at icann.org >> www.icann.org >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Wed Feb 4 18:46:01 2015 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:46:01 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks In-Reply-To: <54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca> References:

<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be> I?m fully with you Stephanie ? Too often we are getting these queries with no good background definition of what will be done with what we supply to them ? As last NCPH I?m still waiting for any response from my proposals ? how long does that have to take ? forever ? or never ? Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > Op 4-feb.-2015, om 17:18 heeft Stephanie Perrin het volgende geschreven: > > i keep repeating myself. It is nonsense to ask us all for our top five risks, without giving us the framework they are using to assess risk. Garbage in, garbage out. They should know better. > Stephanie Perrin > On 2015-02-04 7:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> any help on this. after sending the topic to board for the joint meeting, I got the question what are the top 5 entreprise risks pertaining to NCSG. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2015-01-19 9:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: >> Hi, >> >> we are asked to give input about top 5 ICANN entreprise risks and we should provide this by 5th February (few days before the singapore meeting) >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Olive > >> Date: 2015-01-18 0:10 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks >> To: "byron.holland at cira.ca " >, "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com " >, "louie at louie.net " >, "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch " >, "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca " >, "patrik at frobbit.se " >, "tsinha at umd.edu " >, "liman at netnod.se " >, "Metalitz, Steven" >, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com " >, "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com " >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com " >, "william.drake at uzh.ch " >, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be " >, "Michele at blacknight.com " >,"kdrazek at Verisign.com" > >> Cc: "mike.silber at icann.org " >, "rmohan at afilias.info " > >> >> >> Below is a note from the ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs. >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> Dear SO/AC/SG: >> >> The Board Risk Committee (BRC) is tasked to provide oversight and guidance into enterprise risk identification and remediation for ICANN. ICANN has developed a risk management framework and methodology that is used to identify, mitigate and monitor risks. >> >> The purpose of this email is to reach out to you, the SO/AC/SG Leadership, to ask your group to identify what it believes are the top five enterprise-wide risks to ICANN. This feedback process allows us to calibrate and evaluate risks identified internally with those identified by the community. >> >> We envision a response as an enumerated list of the top five enterprise risks that your SO or AC group believes ought to be ICANN?s top priorities. >> >> We ask to provide a written response via email by 5 February 2015. We anticipate discussion on these identified risks in the SO/AC Constituency meetings with the Board during ICANN 52 in Singapore. Please send all written responses directly to Enterprise-Risk at ICANN.Org . >> >> We understand that you may not have the time to develop a formal response from your SO or AC group. In that case, we would appreciate you providing us with your own personal views or those of a small sub-set of your SO or AC group, but please let us know if you have done so. We will iterate the process to improve it and comments on possible improvements are most welcome. >> >> Again, thank you in advance and we look forward to your input. >> >> Regards, >> Mike Silber & Ram Mohan >> ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs >> >> >> David A. Olive >> Vice President, Policy Development Support >> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul >> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 >> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 >> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 >> Email: david.olive at icann.org >> www.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Feb 4 20:23:38 2015 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:23:38 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Meeting Agenda Draft In-Reply-To: <26B75D98-C060-4408-84A1-215E67308911@egyptig.org> References: <26B75D98-C060-4408-84A1-215E67308911@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <0D994395-2948-477D-B830-847273249FBF@ipjustice.org> Thanks it would be great if we could talk about at the PC mtg because it would be nice to take an NCSG position on the matter. Maybe that is too ambitious, but I can ask. Thanks again, Robin On Feb 3, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a preliminary draft of the NCSG-PC meeting agenda set to take place in Singapore. I?d like to get feedback from all of you before sending it out to the rest of the list. This is the first time I?ve had to do this, so help me out. Let me know what you think. :) > > Thanks. > > Amr > > --------------------------------- > > NCSG-PC Meeting Agenda: > > Sunday, February 8th 2015 from 16:30 - 18:30 local Singapore time (UTC +8) > Room: Moor. > Remote Participation Details: To be confirmed. > > I. Preparation for GNSO Council public meeting (30 minutes): > > The agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting is still to be confirmed, however, there don?t appear to be any motions set to be voted on as of yet. > > II. Open public comment periods (20 minutes): > > 1.GNSO policy and implementation working group initial report: > > Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) program, there has been an increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how issues which are the subject of diverging opinions during the implementation process should be acted upon. Following several discussions, including the publication of a staff discussion paper and a community session during the ICANN meeting in Beijing in April 2013, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council decided in July 2013 to form a Working Group (WG) which was tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on a number of questions that specifically relate to policy and implementation in a GNSO context. > > The public comment period closes on March 3rd. Details can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en > > 2. Draft Report - Rights Protection Mechanisms Review: > > This paper is intended to provide an outline for an initial review of the effectiveness of the rights protection mechanisms established as safeguards in the New gTLD Program. Particularly, this paper will review the data and input collected in many of the key areas relating to protection of trademark rights in the domain name system, including the Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid Suspension system, and Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures. > > The public comment period closes on April 3rd. Details can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en > > III. Update on ongoing working groups (40 minutes): > > 1. Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation PDP Working Group > 2. Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group > 3. Policy and Implementation Working Group (This topic will be discussed separately with other issues with open public comment periods) > 4. IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP > 5. Board-GNSO EWG Process WG > > IV. Preparation for NCSG meeting with the ICANN board (20 minutes): > > 1. ICANN?s involvement in Web content regulation > 2. Public interest and human rights + Public Interest Commitments Specification (PICs) of the registry agreement > 3. Privacy issues at ICANN > > V. AOB (10 minutes) > > Possible topic may be the report and public comments submitted regarding the GAC subgroup on the protection of geographic names in the new gTLDs process (https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Community+Input+-+The+protection+of+Geographic+Names+in+the+New+gTLDs+process) > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From lanfran Thu Feb 5 21:43:54 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:43:54 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks In-Reply-To: <3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be> References:

<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca> <3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be> Message-ID: <54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca> I have not answered the query yet but I would offer (pro bono) the following outstanding risk: "Persistent failure to learn" On 2015-02-04 11:46 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > I?m fully with you Stephanie ? > > Too often we are getting these queries with no good background > definition of what will be done with what we supply to them ? > As last NCPH I?m still waiting for any response from my proposals ? > how long does that have to take ? forever ? or never ? > > > Rudi Vansnick > Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) > www.npoc.org > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > > > >> Op 4-feb.-2015, om 17:18 heeft Stephanie Perrin >> > > het volgende geschreven: >> >> i keep repeating myself. It is nonsense to ask us all for our top >> five risks, without giving us the framework they are using to assess >> risk. Garbage in, garbage out. They should know better. >> Stephanie Perrin >> On 2015-02-04 7:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> any help on this. after sending the topic to board for the joint >>> meeting, I got the question what are the top 5 entreprise risks >>> pertaining to NCSG. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2015-01-19 9:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> we are asked to give input about top 5 ICANN entreprise risks >>> and we should provide this by 5th February (few days before the >>> singapore meeting) >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *David Olive* >> > >>> Date: 2015-01-18 0:10 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 >>> ICANN Enterprise Risks >>> To: "byron.holland at cira.ca " >>> >, >>> "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com >>> " >>> >> >, "louie at louie.net >>> " >> >, "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch >>> " >>> >> >, >>> "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca " >>> >, >>> "patrik at frobbit.se " >>> >, "tsinha at umd.edu >>> " >> >, "liman at netnod.se >>> " >> >, "Metalitz, Steven" >> >, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >>> " >>> >> >, >>> "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >>> " >>> >> >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> " >> >, "william.drake at uzh.ch >>> " >> >, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be >>> " >> >, "Michele at blacknight.com >>> " >> >, "kdrazek at Verisign.com" >>> > >>> Cc: "mike.silber at icann.org " >>> >, >>> "rmohan at afilias.info " >>> > >>> >>> >>> Below is a note from the ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Dear SO/AC/SG: >>> >>> The Board Risk Committee (BRC) is tasked to provide oversight >>> and guidance into enterprise risk identification and remediation >>> for ICANN. ICANN has developed a risk management framework and >>> methodology that is used to identify, mitigate and monitor risks. >>> >>> The purpose of this email is to reach out to you, the SO/AC/SG >>> Leadership, to ask your group to identify what it believes are >>> the _top five enterprise-wide risks_ to ICANN. This feedback >>> process allows us to calibrate and evaluate risks identified >>> internally with those identified by the community. >>> >>> We envision a response as an enumerated list of the top five >>> enterprise risks that your SO or AC group believes ought to be >>> ICANN?s top priorities. >>> >>> We ask to provide a written response *via email* by *5 February >>> 2015*. We anticipate discussion on these identified risks in the >>> SO/AC Constituency meetings with the Board during ICANN 52 in >>> Singapore. Please send all written responses directly to >>> Enterprise-Risk at ICANN.Org . >>> >>> We understand that you may not have the time to develop a formal >>> response from your SO or AC group. In that case, we would >>> appreciate you providing us with your own personal views or >>> those of a small sub-set of your SO or AC group, but please let >>> us know if you have done so. We will iterate the process to >>> improve it and comments on possible improvements are most welcome. >>> >>> Again, thank you in advance and we look forward to your input. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mike Silber & Ram Mohan >>> ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs >>> >>> >>> David A. Olive >>> Vice President, Policy Development Support >>> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul >>> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, >>> Besiktas, Istanbul >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Direct Line:+90.212.999.6212 >>> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 >>> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 >>> Email: david.olive at icann.org >>> www.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Fri Feb 6 04:08:16 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 10:08:16 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks In-Reply-To: <54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca> References:

<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca> <3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be> <54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <6EB202BF-9E98-4989-8782-82DABE2A66B6@gmail.com> Well, that would certainly qualify as an ?enterprise-wide? risk :-) BD > On Feb 6, 2015, at 3:43 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > I have not answered the query yet but I would offer (pro bono) the following outstanding risk: "Persistent failure to learn" > > > On 2015-02-04 11:46 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >> I?m fully with you Stephanie ? >> >> Too often we are getting these queries with no good background definition of what will be done with what we supply to them ? >> As last NCPH I?m still waiting for any response from my proposals ? how long does that have to take ? forever ? or never ? >> >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) >> www.npoc.org >> >> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >> >> >> >>> Op 4-feb.-2015, om 17:18 heeft Stephanie Perrin > het volgende geschreven: >>> >>> i keep repeating myself. It is nonsense to ask us all for our top five risks, without giving us the framework they are using to assess risk. Garbage in, garbage out. They should know better. >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> On 2015-02-04 7:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> any help on this. after sending the topic to board for the joint meeting, I got the question what are the top 5 entreprise risks pertaining to NCSG. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2015-01-19 9:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> we are asked to give input about top 5 ICANN entreprise risks and we should provide this by 5th February (few days before the singapore meeting) >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: David Olive > >>>> Date: 2015-01-18 0:10 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks >>>> To: "byron.holland at cira.ca " >, "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com " >, "louie at louie.net " >, "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch " >, "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca " >, "patrik at frobbit.se " >, "tsinha at umd.edu " >, "liman at netnod.se " >, "Metalitz, Steven" >, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com " >, "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com " >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com