From avri  Mon Jan  5 02:56:01 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:56:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A survey
 regarding the CSC and MRT
In-Reply-To: <A583BC00-3589-4DCC-8535-B33C548293BC@privaterra.org>
References: <A583BC00-3589-4DCC-8535-B33C548293BC@privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <54A9E121.5060708@acm.org>


Hi,

Attached is a copy of the survey the CWG Stewardship members and
participants are talking over the next 4 days.

As the NCSG representing member, I supposed to give my best guess of a
NCSG position in the answers.

Input will be helpful.

avri

>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding
> the CSC and MRT
> Date: 	Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:26:03 -0000
> From: 	Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> Reply-To: 	jrobinson at afilias.info
> Organization: 	Afilias
> To: 	cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>  
>
> As communicated on this Group?s mailing list last week, we have worked
> on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is
> available online (*http://goo.gl/forms/qYe8wqfPIM*). 
>
>  
>
> Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as
> possible and therefore strongly encourage _every_ CWG member and
> participant to complete the survey no later than *23:59 UTC on
> Thursday, 8 January*.  Note that it should be possible to complete the
> survey in 15-30 minutes time.
>
>  
>
> We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very
> short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any
> groups that they are a part of or represent.  To the extent that
> Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is
> desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not
> possible.  Participants are asked to express their personal views.
>
>  
>
> This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments,
> as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a
> high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members
> and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive
> work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used
> to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its
> work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG.
>
>  
>
> Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form.
>
> Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
>
>  
>
> Best wishes,
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr
>
>  
>
> Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and
> that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel
> (IAP) and Contract Co.
>
>  
>
>
>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150104/09041591/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWG CSC:MRT Survey - PDF.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1151321 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150104/09041591/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150104/09041591/attachment-0003.html>


From mshears  Mon Jan  5 15:40:18 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:40:18 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A
 survey regarding the CSC and MRT
In-Reply-To: <54A9E121.5060708@acm.org>
References: <A583BC00-3589-4DCC-8535-B33C548293BC@privaterra.org>
	<54A9E121.5060708@acm.org>
Message-ID: <54AA9442.1070700@cdt.org>

Hi - I attach a _draft_ for thought.  With some questions included.

Matthew

On 1/5/2015 12:56 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a copy of the survey the CWG Stewardship members and 
> participants are talking over the next 4 days.
>
> As the NCSG representing member, I supposed to give my best guess of a 
> NCSG position in the answers.
>
> Input will be helpful.
>
> avri
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding 
>> the CSC and MRT
>> Date: 	Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:26:03 -0000
>> From: 	Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>> Reply-To: 	jrobinson at afilias.info
>> Organization: 	Afilias
>> To: 	cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> As communicated on this Group?s mailing list last week, we have 
>> worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The 
>> survey, is available online (*http://goo.gl/forms/qYe8wqfPIM*).
>>
>> Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as 
>> possible and therefore strongly encourage _every_ CWG member and 
>> participant to complete the survey no later than *23:59 UTC on 
>> Thursday, 8 January*. Note that it should be possible to complete the 
>> survey in 15-30 minutes time.
>>
>> We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very 
>> short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any 
>> groups that they are a part of or represent.  To the extent that 
>> Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is 
>> desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not 
>> possible.  Participants are asked to express their personal views.
>>
>> This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, 
>> as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get 
>> a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members 
>> and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive 
>> work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used 
>> to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing 
>> its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the 
>> ICG.
>>
>> Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr
>>
>> Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and 
>> that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel 
>> (IAP) and Contract Co.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150105/0d5b3901/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWG CSC_MRT Survey - PDF-2 shears draft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1155631 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150105/0d5b3901/attachment-0001.pdf>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Jan  5 21:30:19 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 14:30:19 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A
 survey regarding the CSC and MRT
In-Reply-To: <54AA9442.1070700@cdt.org>
References: <A583BC00-3589-4DCC-8535-B33C548293BC@privaterra.org>	<54A9E121.5060708@acm.org>
	<54AA9442.1070700@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <54AAE64B.8000009@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks, very helpful.  I was going to fill it out (I am a lurker on that 
CWG) but wanted to make sure I was not goring somebody's favorite ox.  
Good to discuss a common position.
Steph
On 2015-01-05, 8:40, Matthew Shears wrote:
> Hi - I attach a _draft_ for thought.  With some questions included.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 1/5/2015 12:56 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached is a copy of the survey the CWG Stewardship members and 
>> participants are talking over the next 4 days.
>>
>> As the NCSG representing member, I supposed to give my best guess of 
>> a NCSG position in the answers.
>>
>> Input will be helpful.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: 	[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding 
>>> the CSC and MRT
>>> Date: 	Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:26:03 -0000
>>> From: 	Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>> Reply-To: 	jrobinson at afilias.info
>>> Organization: 	Afilias
>>> To: 	cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> As communicated on this Group's mailing list last week, we have 
>>> worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The 
>>> survey, is available online (*http://goo.gl/forms/qYe8wqfPIM*).
>>>
>>> Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as 
>>> possible and therefore strongly encourage _every_ CWG member and 
>>> participant to complete the survey no later than *23:59 UTC on 
>>> Thursday, 8 January*. Note that it should be possible to complete 
>>> the survey in 15-30 minutes time.
>>>
>>> We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very 
>>> short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any 
>>> groups that they are a part of or represent.  To the extent that 
>>> Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is 
>>> desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not 
>>> possible.  Participants are asked to express their personal views.
>>>
>>> This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public 
>>> comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal 
>>> is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants 
>>> (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to 
>>> the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the 
>>> survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public 
>>> comments and continuing its work toward development of a final 
>>> proposal for submission to the ICG.
>>>
>>> Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr
>>>
>>> Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and 
>>> that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel 
>>> (IAP) and Contract Co.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150105/e7ebb228/attachment.html>


From emorris  Tue Jan  6 05:35:03 2015
From: emorris (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 22:35:03 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on Draft Operating Plan
In-Reply-To: <54AAE64B.8000009@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <A583BC00-3589-4DCC-8535-B33C548293BC@privaterra.org>	<54A9E121.5060708@acm.org>
	<54AA9442.1070700@cdt.org> <54AAE64B.8000009@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <WC20150106033503.5900F5@milk.toast.net>


Hi everybody,

With the Reply period closing tonight I threw together a last minute public 
comment on ICANN's Draft Five Year Operating Plan and submitted it as a 
personal comment in my name. If anybody would be interested in putting 
together a late submission on behalf of the NCSG (my submission certainly 
can be improved upon) I'd be happy to work together on that. The OP is a 
fairly important document and I wanted to at least get something submitted 
on behalf of the noncommercial community. Text of my submission follows.

Best,

Ed

---

I would first like to thank the ICANN staff for the considerable effort they 
have put into developing the Draft 5 Year Operating Plan. Although a member 
of both the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Noncommercial 
Stakeholders Group (NCSG), and currently representing the later on the GNSO 
Council, these comments and questions are solely my own and do not 
necessarily reflect the concerns or positions of any organization of which I 
am a member.
 
First, a general comment. While I genuinely like the Metric / Dependency / 
Phasing design of the Plan, in the future I would like to see more 
specificity in the Key Performance Indicators (Metrics) and Phasing sections 
of the Plan. Instead of mentioning the criteria in general terms, specific 
targeted goals, often numeric in nature, should be indicated. This document 
should be useful not only as a guide going forward for ICANN staff and 
management, but should also be purposed for use by the community in 
evaluating the performance of staff and management.  The metrics and phasing 
text in this document is too vague to allow for its extensive use in this 
manner.
 
 
Questions / Comments
 
 
1. I applaud strategic goal 1.1 (S.G. 1.1), to ?further globalize and 
regionalize ICANN functions.?  Yet I am concerned that the only mention of 
languages is a commitment to making ?meeting sessions available in 
multiple languages; languages / scripts represented in ICANN community 
participation?.  ICANN needs to do better.
 
I?m not sure what entirely is meant by the later part of this commitment. 
If it is a commitment for ICANN to assist community groups such as SO?s 
and AC?s to better operate in multiple language I applaud this offering. 
No longer should or can ICANN afford to operate at any level solely in the 
English language. Specifics as to the programmatic assistance ICANN intends 
to provide the community would be most welcome. I am concerned that there is 
no specific mention of any aspect of languages in the phasing section of 
S.G. 1.1. Languages themselves are not even mentioned in S.G. 1.2 (regional 
engagement), which itself must be an error of omission.
 
I am also concerned about the term ?multiple languages?. Simply 
translating meetings and materials into the six official United Nations 
languages is not sufficient. There are ten languages in the world with over 
100 million native speakers; 60 languages with over 20 million native 
speakers. If ICANN truly wants to globalize and regionalize ICANN functions 
it needs to commit to produce basic materials in as many languages as 
possible and to expand intelligently the number of languages it offers more 
extensive services, such as real time translation of meetings, in.
 
One can not participate in ICANN if one can not understand any of what is 
going on. ?One World / One Internet? is only a phrase unless and until 
ICANN?s communications and participatory strategies encompass a truly 
global linguistic commitment. The Finnish speaking teenager in Ivalo, the 
Begali speaking grandma in Kolkata and the Korean speaking teacher in Yanji 
all should have online access to basic ICANN documents in their native 
tongue.
 
2. I am very concerned about the indication in the FY 17 Phasing of S.G. 1.3 
that SO/AC special request processes are to be discontinued. At a time when 
the ICANN community is being asked to do more and more, a reduced financial 
commitment by ICANN to the community is unwise. Are there plans to replace 
the special request process with other programs of financial assistance? If 
so, what are they?
 
3. In the S.G. 3.3 portfolio mention is made of ICANN Technical University. 
This institution is mentioned nowhere else in this document nor is indexed 
by the major search engines. Please educate myself and the community on the 
nature of our own I.T.U. and it?s proposed role in ?developing a 
globally diverse culture of expertise? (S.G. 3.3).
 
4. Although certainly supportive of S.G. 4.1 (?Encourage engagement with 
the existing Internet governance ecosystem at national, regional and global 
levels?) I question whether the single metric (?number of MOU?s with 
international organizations with mutual recognition of roles with ICANN?) 
in S.G. 4.1 is an exhaustive performance indicator for this S.G. Surely 
engagement must extend beyond formal institution to institution agreements 
and should include engagement and participation by community members, ICANN 
staff and Board in the wider IG world and vice versa. Metrics for this type 
of engagement should be developed and included in S.G. 4.
 
5. While certainly supporting the participation of more governments within 
the GAC (sole metric for S.G. 4.2), I do question why this stakeholder is 
receiving such special consideration in the five year draft plan as opposed 
to other stakeholders. Indeed, much of Strategic Objective 4 (?Promote 
ICANN?s Role and Multistakeholder Approach) is government and IGO centric 
to the exclusion of all other stakeholders. This certainly is not true 
multistakeholderism, a concept ICANN lauds in philosophy but often has 
trouble implementing in practice.
 
I would suggest that ICANN needs to commit itself to helping strengthen the 
commitment of all identifiable stakeholder groups to the global Internet 
ecosystem, and not to give special consideration to a group, governments, 
which are already privileged both in the ICANN governance structure and 
elsewhere.
 
6. S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a ?steward of the public interest? 
as part of Strategic Objective 5: ? Develop and Implement a Global Public 
Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN?s Mission?. The sole metric of S.G. 
5.1 refers to a ?common consensus based definition of public interest?. 
Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it?  If not, how does 
ICANN propose to develop one?
 
 
Thank you for considering these comments.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Edward Morris
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150105/4f6975c6/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Jan  6 06:18:14 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:18:14 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on Draft Operating Plan
In-Reply-To: <WC20150106033503.5900F5@milk.toast.net>
References: <A583BC00-3589-4DCC-8535-B33C548293BC@privaterra.org>
	<54A9E121.5060708@acm.org> <54AA9442.1070700@cdt.org>
	<54AAE64B.8000009@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<WC20150106033503.5900F5@milk.toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=YwvknCS-YLSu5jpgoT2vhDXruc8joajZGZk5NRf1Scg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

thanks for this. I sent previously a note to ICANN staff responsible for
this public comment  regarding submitting late within next days. I would
welcome adding some comments to the statement and updating it as a SG
submission.

@Amr I think that will be your first call as PC chair :)

As a small comment: as I am a non-english native and expressing a
controversial position here , I am cautious about multilingualism in
inflating number. I am worried that can end up as a trap of not real
engagement and instead encouraging a form of ghettoization, creating a
dependance or worse being just a PR for ICANN. as arabic speaker, I see a
lot of material translated in arabic language but I have no evidence that
such measure improved the number of participants beyond the usual suspects.
another form of trap would be conflating internationalization with
multilingualism.

Best Regards,

Rafik

2015-01-06 12:35 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <emorris at milk.toast.net>:

>
> Hi everybody,
>
> With the Reply period closing tonight I threw together a last minute
> public comment on ICANN's Draft Five Year Operating Plan and submitted
> it as a personal comment in my name. If anybody would be interested in
> putting together a late submission on behalf of the NCSG (my submission
> certainly can be improved upon) I'd be happy to work together on that. The
> OP is a fairly important document and I wanted to at least get something
> submitted on behalf of the noncommercial community. Text of my submission
> follows.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> ---
>
> I would first like to thank the ICANN staff for the considerable effort
> they have put into developing the Draft 5 Year Operating Plan. Although a
> member of both the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the
> Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG), and currently representing the
> later on the GNSO Council, these comments and questions are solely my own
> and do not necessarily reflect the concerns or positions of any
> organization of which I am a member.
>
> First, a general comment. While I genuinely like the Metric / Dependency /
> Phasing design of the Plan, in the future I would like to see more
> specificity in the Key Performance Indicators (Metrics) and Phasing
> sections of the Plan. Instead of mentioning the criteria in general terms,
> specific targeted goals, often numeric in nature, should be indicated. This
> document should be useful not only as a guide going forward for ICANN staff
> and management, but should also be purposed for use by the community in
> evaluating the performance of staff and management.  The metrics and
> phasing text in this document is too vague to allow for its extensive use
> in this manner.
>
>
> Questions / Comments
>
>
> 1. I applaud strategic goal 1.1 (S.G. 1.1), to ?further globalize and
> regionalize ICANN functions.?  Yet I am concerned that the only mention of
> languages is a commitment to making ?meeting sessions available in multiple
> languages; languages / scripts represented in ICANN community
> participation?.  ICANN needs to do better.
>
> I?m not sure what entirely is meant by the later part of this commitment.
> If it is a commitment for ICANN to assist community groups such as SO?s and
> AC?s to better operate in multiple language I applaud this offering. No
> longer should or can ICANN afford to operate at any level solely in the
> English language. Specifics as to the programmatic assistance ICANN intends
> to provide the community would be most welcome. I am concerned that there
> is no specific mention of any aspect of languages in the phasing section of
> S.G. 1.1. Languages themselves are not even mentioned in S.G. 1.2 (regional
> engagement), which itself must be an error of omission.
>
> I am also concerned about the term ?multiple languages?. Simply
> translating meetings and materials into the six official United Nations
> languages is not sufficient. There are ten languages in the world with over
> 100 million native speakers; 60 languages with over 20 million native
> speakers. If ICANN truly wants to globalize and regionalize ICANN functions
> it needs to commit to produce basic materials in as many languages as
> possible and to expand intelligently the number of languages it offers more
> extensive services, such as real time translation of meetings, in.
>
> One can not participate in ICANN if one can not understand any of what is
> going on. ?One World / One Internet? is only a phrase unless and until
> ICANN?s communications and participatory strategies encompass a truly
> global linguistic commitment. The Finnish speaking teenager in Ivalo, the
> Begali speaking grandma in Kolkata and the Korean speaking teacher in Yanji
> all should have online access to basic ICANN documents in their native
> tongue.
>
> 2. I am very concerned about the indication in the FY 17 Phasing of S.G.
> 1.3 that SO/AC special request processes are to be discontinued. At a time
> when the ICANN community is being asked to do more and more, a reduced
> financial commitment by ICANN to the community is unwise. Are there plans
> to replace the special request process with other programs of financial
> assistance? If so, what are they?
>
> 3. In the S.G. 3.3 portfolio mention is made of ICANN Technical
> University. This institution is mentioned nowhere else in this document nor
> is indexed by the major search engines. Please educate myself and the
> community on the nature of our own I.T.U. and it?s proposed role in
> ?developing a globally diverse culture of expertise? (S.G. 3.3).
>
> 4. Although certainly supportive of S.G. 4.1 (?Encourage engagement with
> the existing Internet governance ecosystem at national, regional and global
> levels?) I question whether the single metric (?number of MOU?s with
> international organizations with mutual recognition of roles with ICANN?)
> in S.G. 4.1 is an exhaustive performance indicator for this S.G. Surely
> engagement must extend beyond formal institution to institution agreements
> and should include engagement and participation by community members, ICANN
> staff and Board in the wider IG world and vice versa. Metrics for this type
> of engagement should be developed and included in S.G. 4.
>
> 5. While certainly supporting the participation of more governments within
> the GAC (sole metric for S.G. 4.2), I do question why this stakeholder is
> receiving such special consideration in the five year draft plan as opposed
> to other stakeholders. Indeed, much of Strategic Objective 4 (?Promote
> ICANN?s Role and Multistakeholder Approach) is government and IGO centric
> to the exclusion of all other stakeholders. This certainly is not true
> multistakeholderism, a concept ICANN lauds in philosophy but often has
> trouble implementing in practice.
>
> I would suggest that ICANN needs to commit itself to helping strengthen
> the commitment of all identifiable stakeholder groups to the global
> Internet ecosystem, and not to give special consideration to a group,
> governments, which are already privileged both in the ICANN governance
> structure and elsewhere.
>
> 6. S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a ?steward of the public interest? as
> part of Strategic Objective 5: ? Develop and Implement a Global Public
> Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN?s Mission?. The sole metric of S.G. 5.1
> refers to a ?common consensus based definition of public interest?. Does
> such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it?  If not, how does
> ICANN propose to develop one?
>
>
> Thank you for considering these comments.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Edward Morris
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150106/543e0472/attachment-0001.html>


From emorris  Tue Jan  6 06:59:46 2015
From: emorris (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 23:59:46 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on Draft Operating Plan
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=YwvknCS-YLSu5jpgoT2vhDXruc8joajZGZk5NRf1Scg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A583BC00-3589-4DCC-8535-B33C548293BC@privaterra.org>
	<54A9E121.5060708@acm.org> <54AA9442.1070700@cdt.org>
	<54AAE64B.8000009@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<WC20150106033503.5900F5@milk.toast.net>
	<CAH5sTh=YwvknCS-YLSu5jpgoT2vhDXruc8joajZGZk5NRf1Scg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <WC20150106045946.610124@milk.toast.net>

Hi Rafik,


- thanks for this. I sent previously a note to ICANN staff responsible for 
this public comment  regarding submitting late within next days. I would 
welcome adding some comments to the statement and updating it as a SG 
submission.

- at Amr I think that will be your first call as PC chair :)


Happy to help anyway I can.


- As a small comment: as I am a non-english native and expressing a 
controversial position here , I am cautious about multilingualism in 
inflating number. I am worried that can end up as a trap of not real 
engagement and instead encouraging a form of ghettoization, creating a 
dependance or worse being just a PR for ICANN. as arabic speaker, I see a 
lot of material translated in arabic language but I have no evidence that 
such measure improved the number of participants beyond the usual suspects. 
another form of trap would be conflating internationalization with 
multilingualism. 
  

Interesting. I've had a very different experience, one rooted both in law 
and in the accession of the Nordic countries into the European Union.

During the elections in the mid 90's there was no guarantee Swedish and 
Finnish were going to be used as official languages in the EU. It was felt 
that, heck, all the Finns and Swedes speak English, why bother? Well, in 
order to win the election the pro-EU folks got a commitment from the EU that 
the two Nordic languages would be made official languages. Once in the EU 
our libraries were flooded with EU materials in English, Finnish and Swedish 
(the later two being the official languages of Finland). The English 
materials would usually arrive first but I noticed my friends, mostly 
educated English speaking Finns, would wait for the materials that arrived 
later in Finnish. It was just more comfortable for them.

I have a confession to make myself. Although a native English speaker I 
prefer to write in Swedish. You may notice someday that when I'm taking 
notes at an ICANN meeting it will be in Swedish. I'd certainly like some 
Swedish language materials. I can operate in both languages but the Mayor of 
Rovaniemi, a friend, does not speak English. Only Finnish. Should he not be 
able to access basic ICANN documents in his native language? 

Most of the world does not speak English. All of ICANN must. The most 
popular language in the world is Mandarin yet ICANN couldn't even get 
Peter's name spelled correctly in Chinese characters on the ballot in the 
recent NCUC EC election. That bothers me.

I know there are cost issues involved. Yet if the EU can operate in 24 
languages is it unreasonable to ask ICANN to produce most documents in 10 
and basic documents in as many languages as possible?  Think of children 
doing research on the internet. Shouldn't ICANN strive to have a page or two 
or three online in their own language explaining what exactly this ICANN 
thing is about? Are we sure there are not people who don't get involved 
precisely because of the language issue? 

I'd be interested in knowing the perspectives of others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150105/494c83ca/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Jan  6 07:28:26 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:28:26 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on Draft Operating Plan
In-Reply-To: <WC20150106045946.610124@milk.toast.net>
References: <A583BC00-3589-4DCC-8535-B33C548293BC@privaterra.org>
	<54A9E121.5060708@acm.org> <54AA9442.1070700@cdt.org>
	<54AAE64B.8000009@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<WC20150106033503.5900F5@milk.toast.net>
	<CAH5sTh=YwvknCS-YLSu5jpgoT2vhDXruc8joajZGZk5NRf1Scg@mail.gmail.com>
	<WC20150106045946.610124@milk.toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkzqXi5h9m6p2vtmRjSvb+YNncVVRyyzJhFKe_WYW0A=g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

I have no hard feeling on the topic and I never talked about the cost for
ICANN anyway . but working in MENA context to get more  people from CS
involved on IG, I learned some stuff hindering participation and language
is not necessarily the barrier .

anyway I don't want that the whole thread become focused around this issue,
I would instead encourage others to skim the operating plan
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-2014-11-11-en
and share comments.

Rafik

ps about the ballot issue , it was probably an encoding setting problem
(the voting system actually support multilingualism
https://tally.icann.org/cgi/results?a=pr&amp;e=ab78241734b ). I would think
working the universal acceptance for IDN gTLD would be more beneficial
instead for users of non-latin script.

2015-01-06 13:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <emorris at milk.toast.net>:

>  Hi Rafik,
>
>
> - thanks for this. I sent previously a note to ICANN staff responsible for
> this public comment  regarding submitting late within next days. I would
> welcome adding some comments to the statement and updating it as a SG
> submission.
>
> - at Amr I think that will be your first call as PC chair :)
>
>
> Happy to help anyway I can.
>
>
> - As a small comment: as I am a non-english native and expressing a
> controversial position here , I am cautious about multilingualism in
> inflating number. I am worried that can end up as a trap of not real
> engagement and instead encouraging a form of ghettoization, creating a
> dependance or worse being just a PR for ICANN. as arabic speaker, I see a
> lot of material translated in arabic language but I have no evidence that
> such measure improved the number of participants beyond the usual suspects.
> another form of trap would be conflating internationalization with
> multilingualism.
>
>
> Interesting. I've had a very different experience, one rooted both in law
> and in the accession of the Nordic countries into the European Union.
>
> During the elections in the mid 90's there was no guarantee Swedish and
> Finnish were going to be used as official languages in the EU. It was felt
> that, heck, all the Finns and Swedes speak English, why bother? Well, in
> order to win the election the pro-EU folks got a commitment from the EU
> that the two Nordic languages would be made official languages. Once in the
> EU our libraries were flooded with EU materials in English, Finnish and
> Swedish (the later two being the official languages of Finland). The
> English materials would usually arrive first but I noticed my friends,
> mostly educated English speaking Finns, would wait for the materials that
> arrived later in Finnish. It was just more comfortable for them.
>
> I have a confession to make myself. Although a native English speaker I
> prefer to write in Swedish. You may notice someday that when I'm taking
> notes at an ICANN meeting it will be in Swedish. I'd certainly like some
> Swedish language materials. I can operate in both languages but the Mayor
> of Rovaniemi, a friend, does not speak English. Only Finnish. Should he not
> be able to access basic ICANN documents in his native language?
>
> Most of the world does not speak English. All of ICANN must. The most
> popular language in the world is Mandarin yet ICANN couldn't even get
> Peter's name spelled correctly in Chinese characters on the ballot in the
> recent NCUC EC election. That bothers me.
>
> I know there are cost issues involved. Yet if the EU can operate in 24
> languages is it unreasonable to ask ICANN to produce most documents in 10
> and basic documents in as many languages as possible?  Think of children
> doing research on the internet. Shouldn't ICANN strive to have a page or
> two or three online in their own language explaining what exactly this
> ICANN thing is about? Are we sure there are not people who don't get
> involved precisely because of the language issue?
>
> I'd be interested in knowing the perspectives of others.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150106/e0683eea/attachment.html>


From emorris  Tue Jan  6 16:45:13 2015
From: emorris (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:45:13 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on Draft Operating Plan
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkzqXi5h9m6p2vtmRjSvb+YNncVVRyyzJhFKe_WYW0A=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A583BC00-3589-4DCC-8535-B33C548293BC@privaterra.org>
	<54A9E121.5060708@acm.org> <54AA9442.1070700@cdt.org>
	<54AAE64B.8000009@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<WC20150106033503.5900F5@milk.toast.net>
	<CAH5sTh=YwvknCS-YLSu5jpgoT2vhDXruc8joajZGZk5NRf1Scg@mail.gmail.com>
	<WC20150106045946.610124@milk.toast.net>
	<CAH5sThkzqXi5h9m6p2vtmRjSvb+YNncVVRyyzJhFKe_WYW0A=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <WC20150106144513.21015D@milk.toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

Agree that it would be great to get some more input on this. Certainly could 
beef up our response to 'public interest': with what is going on in 
Accountability it really seems to me staff is pushing this concept hard 
because they view it as a sort of "get out of jail free card", that is, 
permission to do what they want by citing the 'public interest'. We need to 
develop some sort of consistent response that we can use in multiple flora, 
including this one.

Best,

Ed

-
Hi Ed,

I have no hard feeling on the topic and I never talked about the cost for 
ICANN anyway . but working in MENA context to get more  people from CS 
involved on IG, I learned some stuff hindering participation and language is 
not necessarily the barrier . 

anyway I don't want that the whole thread become focused around this issue, 
I would instead encourage others to skim the operating plan 
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-2014-11-11-en 
and share comments. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150106/dbae80c1/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Jan  6 20:22:23 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:22:23 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
In-Reply-To: <00a301d02993$c8ea1620$5abe4260$@afilias.info>
References: <00a301d02993$c8ea1620$5abe4260$@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <54AC27DF.2070000@acm.org>


anyone? anything?

avri


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
Date: 	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:33:09 -0000
From: 	Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Reply-To: 	jrobinson at afilias.info
Organization: 	Afilias
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org
CC: 	edmon at REGISTRY.ASIA, Ching Chiao <chiao at brandma.co>, Ram Mohan
<rmohan at afilias.info>



Councillors,

 

A reminder that this letter (re-attached) seeks initial input by 30
January 2014.

 

Is anyone willing to pick this up and assist please?

 

Thank-you.

 

 

Jonathan

 

*From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
*Sent:* 08 December 2014 10:10
*To:* council at gnso.icann.org GNSO (council at gnso.icann.org)
*Subject:* FW: IDN Implementation Guidelines

 

All,

 

Please see attached and note that the request seeks some initial input
by 30 January 2015.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Jonathan

 

*From:*Akram Atallah [mailto:akram.atallah at icann.org]
*Sent:* 04 December 2014 00:24
*To:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>; Jonathan Robinson
*Cc:* Mary Wong; Cyrus Namazi; Sarmad Hussain;
bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
<mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; Marika Konings
*Subject:* IDN Implementation Guidelines

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

In the ICANN 50 meeting, the GNSO council and members met with the Board
Variant Working Group (BV-WG) and suggested to update the IDN
Implementation Guidelines, the last revision was in 2011.  

 

Based on follow up discussions, during the ICANN 51 meeting the BV-WG
directed the staff to reach out to the GNSO and ccNSO to collect an
initial list of issues which should be addressed if this update is
undertaken.  This request is outlined in the attached letter.

 

Thank you for your support in this matter.

 

 

--

Best,

Akram



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150106/72b42eec/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IDN Implementation Guidelines - GNSO.PDF
Type: application/pdf
Size: 420129 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150106/72b42eec/attachment-0001.pdf>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Jan  6 20:49:14 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:49:14 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
In-Reply-To: <54AC27DF.2070000@acm.org>
References: <00a301d02993$c8ea1620$5abe4260$@afilias.info>
	<54AC27DF.2070000@acm.org>
Message-ID: <54AC2E2A.9050703@mail.utoronto.ca>

Unfortunately, this is not my area of expertise.
Stephanie
On 15-01-06 1:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> anyone? anything?
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[council] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
> Date: 	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:33:09 -0000
> From: 	Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> Reply-To: 	jrobinson at afilias.info
> Organization: 	Afilias
> To: 	council at gnso.icann.org
> CC: 	edmon at REGISTRY.ASIA, Ching Chiao <chiao at brandma.co>, Ram Mohan 
> <rmohan at afilias.info>
>
>
>
> Councillors,
>
> A reminder that this letter (re-attached) seeks initial input by 30 
> January 2014.
>
> Is anyone willing to pick this up and assist please?
>
> Thank-you.
>
> Jonathan
>
> *From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
> *Sent:* 08 December 2014 10:10
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org GNSO (council at gnso.icann.org)
> *Subject:* FW: IDN Implementation Guidelines
>
> All,
>
> Please see attached and note that the request seeks some initial input 
> by 30 January 2015.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jonathan
>
> *From:*Akram Atallah [mailto:akram.atallah at icann.org]
> *Sent:* 04 December 2014 00:24
> *To:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com 
> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>; Jonathan Robinson
> *Cc:* Mary Wong; Cyrus Namazi; Sarmad Hussain; 
> bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au 
> <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; Marika Konings
> *Subject:* IDN Implementation Guidelines
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> In the ICANN 50 meeting, the GNSO council and members met with the 
> Board Variant Working Group (BV-WG) and suggested to update the IDN 
> Implementation Guidelines, the last revision was in 2011.
>
> Based on follow up discussions, during the ICANN 51 meeting the BV-WG 
> directed the staff to reach out to the GNSO and ccNSO to collect an 
> initial list of issues which should be addressed if this update is 
> undertaken.  This request is outlined in the attached letter.
>
> Thank you for your support in this matter.
>
> --
>
> Best,
>
> Akram
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150106/686b72dd/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Jan  6 21:56:28 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:56:28 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
In-Reply-To: <54AC2E2A.9050703@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <00a301d02993$c8ea1620$5abe4260$@afilias.info>	<54AC27DF.2070000@acm.org>
	<54AC2E2A.9050703@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <54AC3DEC.8020003@acm.org>

Hi,

we don't all need to be able to do everything.
and even though i worked on the JIG  WG and have some clue, I just don't
have the bandwidth for this.

avri

On 06-Jan-15 13:49, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Unfortunately, this is not my area of expertise.
> Stephanie
> On 15-01-06 1:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> anyone? anything?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	[council] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
>> Date: 	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:33:09 -0000
>> From: 	Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>> Reply-To: 	jrobinson at afilias.info
>> Organization: 	Afilias
>> To: 	council at gnso.icann.org
>> CC: 	edmon at REGISTRY.ASIA, Ching Chiao <chiao at brandma.co>, Ram Mohan
>> <rmohan at afilias.info>
>>
>>
>>
>> Councillors,
>>
>>  
>>
>> A reminder that this letter (re-attached) seeks initial input by 30
>> January 2014.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Is anyone willing to pick this up and assist please?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thank-you.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
>> *Sent:* 08 December 2014 10:10
>> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org GNSO (council at gnso.icann.org)
>> *Subject:* FW: IDN Implementation Guidelines
>>
>>  
>>
>> All,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Please see attached and note that the request seeks some initial
>> input by 30 January 2015.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*Akram Atallah [mailto:akram.atallah at icann.org]
>> *Sent:* 04 December 2014 00:24
>> *To:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
>> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>; Jonathan Robinson
>> *Cc:* Mary Wong; Cyrus Namazi; Sarmad Hussain;
>> bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>> <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; Marika Konings
>> *Subject:* IDN Implementation Guidelines
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>
>>  
>>
>> In the ICANN 50 meeting, the GNSO council and members met with the
>> Board Variant Working Group (BV-WG) and suggested to update the IDN
>> Implementation Guidelines, the last revision was in 2011.  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Based on follow up discussions, during the ICANN 51 meeting the BV-WG
>> directed the staff to reach out to the GNSO and ccNSO to collect an
>> initial list of issues which should be addressed if this update is
>> undertaken.  This request is outlined in the attached letter.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thank you for your support in this matter.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Akram
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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/20150106/f62266ec/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Jan  7 02:42:14 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:42:14 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
	discussion
In-Reply-To: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229AD6DE6@LAEX02.MSK.local>
References: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6229AD6DE6@LAEX02.MSK.local>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmHMSKuvUpsRRME7455qU6MRM68mRnKp8+cDiBy9pzN+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

proposals from CSG with the regard to next week meeting.
I am happy with proposal #2, I would even be tempted to have regular
confcall with them between ICANN meetings if it helps to discuss some
topics. for proposal #1 , I think that is not far from what discussed
previously about rotation but looking for your input here.

on other side, is there any proposal we want to put on table with the
regard to NCPH internal matters?

Thanks,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com>
Date: 2015-01-07 9:23 GMT+09:00
Subject: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <
william.drake at uzh.ch>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "
lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <
krosette at cov.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, Elisa
Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Jimson Olufuye <
jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>, Marilyn
Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>


 Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,



As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH intersessional
meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues regarding the functioning of
our House and the fulfillment of its responsibilities could be facilitated
by having some concrete proposals on the table prior to our arrival in
Washington.

 In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial Stakeholder
Group executive committee, I offer the following proposals for your
consideration, and for discussion both via e-mail prior to the
intersessional meeting and during our face to face discussion in
Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday morning (?slot C?).  Please
feel free to share these proposals with your colleagues as appropriate.

1.  *Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair*: We propose to replace the
current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The privilege to
nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated annually between the
two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor from the non-commercial side
(David Cake) has been selected each of the past two years, we propose that
the commercial side exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial in
2016.  For election, the nominee would have to win an absolute majority of
votes (currently 7) including at least one vote from each stakeholder
group, in a ?nominee v. none of the above? poll.  (The NCA appointee to our
house would continue to be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not
to reject the nominee of the other side other than for compelling reasons
that are communicated in advance to the other side.  Finally, we would set
the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep both sides of the
House informed of relevant activities within the Council, including by
meeting with each side of the House upon request, at least once each
calendar quarter.

2.  *?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting schedule*:
We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN public meeting
(beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot will be reserved for a
meeting of leadership of the groups making up the House, to discuss current
issues of mutual concern. (If there is mutual agreement and it is
logistically feasible, this slot could be made into a broader meeting of
House participants attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting
would be negotiated in advance among the groups, and the meeting would be
recorded and transcribed for those members of the groups unable to attend.

These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure of the
NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require adjustment if those
structures change.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I look
forward to your comments and reactions.

Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150107/fb801e40/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Jan  7 03:35:09 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:35:09 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
In-Reply-To: <54AC3DEC.8020003@acm.org>
References: <00a301d02993$c8ea1620$5abe4260$@afilias.info>
	<54AC27DF.2070000@acm.org>
	<54AC2E2A.9050703@mail.utoronto.ca> <54AC3DEC.8020003@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkxZTdcNkjXBXPkJcBUJh249h_JVsi=hgPqgpGnzfhj5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

indeed, that is why we should work on prioritization of what we have or
should cover and maybe having some focal persons by topic to follow and
send alerts when needed. that may help indirectly to get more people
involved and let them be focused on specific area

Rafik

2015-01-07 4:56 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>  Hi,
>
> we don't all need to be able to do everything.
> and even though i worked on the JIG  WG and have some clue, I just don't
> have the bandwidth for this.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 06-Jan-15 13:49, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, this is not my area of expertise.
> Stephanie
> On 15-01-06 1:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> anyone? anything?
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------  Subject: [council] RE: IDN
> Implementation Guidelines  Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:33:09 -0000  From: Jonathan
> Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info> <jrobinson at afilias.info>  Reply-To:
> jrobinson at afilias.info  Organization: Afilias  To: council at gnso.icann.org  CC:
> edmon at REGISTRY.ASIA, Ching Chiao <chiao at brandma.co> <chiao at brandma.co>,
> Ram Mohan <rmohan at afilias.info> <rmohan at afilias.info>
>
>  Councillors,
>
>
>
> A reminder that this letter (re-attached) seeks initial input by 30
> January 2014.
>
>
>
> Is anyone willing to pick this up and assist please?
>
>
>
> Thank-you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info
> <jrobinson at afilias.info>]
> *Sent:* 08 December 2014 10:10
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org GNSO (council at gnso.icann.org)
> *Subject:* FW: IDN Implementation Guidelines
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Please see attached and note that the request seeks some initial input by
> 30 January 2015.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Akram Atallah [mailto:akram.atallah at icann.org
> <akram.atallah at icann.org>]
> *Sent:* 04 December 2014 00:24
> *To:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jonathan Robinson
> *Cc:* Mary Wong; Cyrus Namazi; Sarmad Hussain;
> bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au; Marika Konings
> *Subject:* IDN Implementation Guidelines
>
>
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
>
>
> In the ICANN 50 meeting, the GNSO council and members met with the Board
> Variant Working Group (BV-WG) and suggested to update the IDN
> Implementation Guidelines, the last revision was in 2011.
>
>
>
> Based on follow up discussions, during the ICANN 51 meeting the BV-WG
> directed the staff to reach out to the GNSO and ccNSO to collect an initial
> list of issues which should be addressed if this update is undertaken.
> This request is outlined in the attached letter.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your support in this matter.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best,
>
> Akram
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150107/f793e3e9/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Jan  7 03:44:45 2015
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:44:45 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl --
	proposal for	discussion
Message-ID: <r8990v42adma8vo7m6vljbty.1420595085695@email.android.com>


Hi,

One is pretty much the method that was established several years ago. Then it was only for 2 cycles. Then they wanted to abrogate it and we went into so-called ad hoc mode. Sure let's do this until they decided they don't want to anymore. Like when we pick someone they don't want.

And if the leadership wants to meet for an hour per meeting and you want to formalize it, no big deal.

avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> </div><div>Date:01/06/2015  7:42 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>, ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for	discussion </div><div>
</div>Hi everyone,

proposals from CSG with the regard to next week meeting.
I am happy with proposal #2, I would even be tempted to have regular confcall with them between ICANN meetings if it helps to discuss some topics. for proposal #1 , I think that is not far from what discussed previously about rotation but looking for your input here.

on other side, is there any proposal we want to put on table with the regard to NCPH internal matters?

Thanks,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com>
Date: 2015-01-07 9:23 GMT+09:00
Subject: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>


Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,

 

As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH intersessional meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues regarding the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of its responsibilities could be facilitated by having some concrete proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington.

 In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via e-mail prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face to face discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday morning (?slot C?).  Please feel free to share these proposals with your colleagues as appropriate.

1.  Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair: We propose to replace the current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The privilege to nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated annually between the two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor from the non-commercial side (David Cake) has been selected each of the past two years, we propose that the commercial side exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial in 2016.  For election, the nominee would have to win an absolute majority of votes (currently 7) including at least one vote from each stakeholder group, in a ?nominee v. none of the above? poll.  (The NCA appointee to our house would continue to be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not to reject the nominee of the other side other than for compelling reasons that are communicated in advance to the other side.  Finally, we would set the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep both sides of the House informed of relevant activities within the Council, including by meeting with each side of the House upon request, at least once each  calendar quarter.

2.  ?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting schedule:  We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot will be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups making  up the House, to discuss current issues of mutual concern. (If there is mutual agreement and it is logistically feasible, this slot could be made into a broader meeting of House participants attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting would be negotiated in advance among the groups, and the meeting would be recorded and transcribed for those members of the groups unable to attend.

These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure of the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require adjustment if those structures change.   

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I look forward to your comments and reactions. 

Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President   

 

 

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150106/ff35b930/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Jan  7 03:49:41 2015
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:49:41 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
Message-ID: <fp8q9m3rsu7ut3lm5som3dj3.1420595381188@email.android.com>

Hi,

I have never seen prioritization work. It becomes another activity that needs to be prioritized with limited bandwidth. And when an interrupt happens, volunteer groups often go into a thrash and things get dropped.

But sure, let's prioritize.


avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> </div><div>Date:01/06/2015  8:35 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> </div><div>Cc: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines </div><div>
</div>Hi Avri,

indeed, that is why we should work on prioritization of what we have or should cover and maybe having some focal persons by topic to follow and send alerts when needed. that may help indirectly to get more people involved and let them be focused on specific area

Rafik 

2015-01-07 4:56 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
Hi,

we don't all need to be able to do everything.
and even though i worked on the JIG  WG and have some clue, I just don't have the bandwidth for this.

avri


On 06-Jan-15 13:49, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
Unfortunately, this is not my area of expertise.
Stephanie
On 15-01-06 1:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

anyone? anything?

avri


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:	[council] RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
Date:	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:33:09 -0000
From:	Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Reply-To:	jrobinson at afilias.info
Organization:	Afilias
To:	council at gnso.icann.org
CC:	edmon at REGISTRY.ASIA, Ching Chiao <chiao at brandma.co>, Ram Mohan <rmohan at afilias.info>

Councillors,

 

A reminder that this letter                 (re-attached) seeks initial input by 30 January 2014.

 

Is anyone willing to pick this up and assist please?

 

Thank-you.

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] 
Sent: 08 December 2014 10:10
To: council at gnso.icann.org GNSO (council at gnso.icann.org)
Subject: FW: IDN Implementation Guidelines

 

All,

 

Please see attached and note that the request seeks some initial input by 30 January 2015.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: Akram Atallah [mailto:akram.atallah at icann.org] 
Sent: 04 December 2014 00:24
To: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jonathan Robinson
Cc: Mary Wong; Cyrus Namazi; Sarmad Hussain; bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au; Marika Konings
Subject: IDN Implementation Guidelines

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

In the ICANN 50 meeting, the GNSO council and members met with the Board Variant Working Group (BV-WG) and suggested to update the IDN Implementation Guidelines, the                         last revision was in 2011.

 

Based on follow up                         discussions, during the ICANN 51 meeting the BV-WG directed the staff to reach out to the GNSO and ccNSO to collect an initial list of                         issues which should be addressed if this update is undertaken.  This request is outlined in the attached letter.

 

Thank you for your support in this matter.

 

 

--

Best,

Akram





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



_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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/20150106/d6264a07/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Wed Jan  7 11:04:43 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:04:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Confcall] NCSG Policy meeting Friday 9th January
	15:00UTC
Message-ID: <6C5F6AEB-6214-4C9C-AD28-9FE5CDEAC8BF@gmail.com>

Hi

Can I make a suggestion?  We are about to spend two full days with the CSG in DC, and per usual they have been strategizing and will come in with specific proposals/objectives, people responsible for leading on topics, an agenda for meetings with Fadi and Larry, etc.  We in contrast have had zero discussion to get our act together, and will be bringing a healthy complement of people who don?t have much if any background on intra-House dynamics and issues.  

I don?t even know who all is coming on our side. What I?m aware of is

NCSG slots: EC
Rafik
Matt
Someone from NPOC?Rudi?

NCSG slots: Councilors
Avri
Marilia
Ed
David
Stephanie
*Did we replace Amr with someone or just lose the slot?

+Kathy Kleiman as the local unfunded traveler 

NCUC slots
Bill
Stefania
Joao
Grace
Peter
Walid

(no local unfunded traveler)

NPOC slots (I?m guessing)
Rudi
Klaus
Lori
who else?

So that we don?t get totally out-negotiated and also use the experience to strengthen intra-NCSG coordination, wouldn?t it make sense this one time to use the NCSG call to focus first on the DC meeting, and to try to ensure that as many attendees as possible participate in it?  Standard Council stuff could go second, and we also will have plenty of time together in DC if we want to talk more about the Council meeting.

In sum, I?m proposing switching items II and IV on Rafik?s draft agenda.

Thoughts?

Bill


> On Jan 7, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Klaus,
> 
> Thanks for the comments,
> As I said, I am sorry for the short notice. since we have NPCH meetings next week including Monday and Tuesday, the options were to have or not have confcall in our usual day, tuesday. I think having a call even like this would be helpful to prepare for the GNSO confcall. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2015-01-07 16:55 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com <mailto:kdrstoll at gmail.com>>:
> Hello, 
> 
> Sorry I will not be able to attend as I am on a trans Atlantic flight at this time. I also think that the very short notice is extremely unhelpful!
> 
> Yours
> 
> Klaus
> 
> On 1/7/2015 2:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> 
>> 
>> Please book in your calendar  at  Friday 9th January 2015 at 15:00 UTC for the NCSG conference call (Please click the link to see meeting time in your time zone: http://bit.ly/1xWyYME <http://tinyurl.com/l75vspl> )
>> we are holding the call exceptionally in Friday because of non-contracted party meetings next week. I am really sorry for the short notice. this call may be shorter than usual. 
>> 
>> Everybody is encouraged to attend. We usually cover:
>> - the GNSO council call agenda  and discussing its items . Councillors and NCSG members involved in related working group will give more insight about the motions
>> - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements , open public comments and discussing how NCSG should act.
>> - Any other relevant item 
>> 
>> Why it is important to attend?
>> 
>> it is good opportunity, happening monthly, to catch-up with the ongoing policies and finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers to get snapshot of activities within NCSG , GNSO and ICANN, and  also interacting with GNSO councillors .
>> 
>> We have this initial draft agenda below, please send me any other suggestion for item you would like to add e.g. AOB . I will send a reminder again 24 hours prior to the call.
>> 
>> Draft Discussion Agenda: 
>> https://community.icann.org/x/YY8QAw <https://community.icann.org/x/YY8QAw>
>> I.    Roll-call 
>> II.   15th January GNSO Meeting Preparation
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meeting+2015-01-15 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meeting+2015-01-15>
>>  A.  GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership about the GNSO call agenda items.
>>  B.  Discussion Items 
>> III.   Quick Update on ICANN policies
>> * Working Groups / Panels/ Expert groups e.g. (non exhaustive list) 
>> IANA Stewardship transition cross-community Working Group, Proxy and Privacy accreditation,  Expert Working Group, GNSO review working party etc
>> A- Cross Community Working Group on Accountability. 
>> B- IANA Stewardship transition cross-community Working Group
>> * Open Comment Periods 
>>   See:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>
>> 
>> IV.  AOB
>> A- Non-contracted party house meeting information
>>     
>> Looking forward to interact with our members next week. If you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please send email off-list to Maryam (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>) and she will assist you. 
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Rafik Dammak
>> 
>> NCSG chair
>> 
>> =========================================================================================
>> 
>> Remote participation details
>> Please find the AC room, passcode and dial in details below (it is also here https://community.icann.org/x/Bh7xAg <https://community.icann.org/x/Bh7xAg>)
>>  
>> Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/?launcher=false <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/?launcher=false>
>>  
>> Passcodes/Pin codes:
>> Participant passcode: NCSG PC
>> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dial in numbers:
>> Country
>>  
>> Toll Numbers
>> Freephone/
>> Toll Free Number
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ARGENTINA           
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 0800-777-0519 <tel:0800-777-0519>
>> AUSTRALIA           
>> 
>> ADELAIDE:      
>> 
>> 61-8-8121-4842           
>> 
>> 1-800-657-260
>> 
>> AUSTRALIA           
>> 
>> BRISBANE:      
>> 
>> 61-7-3102-0944           
>> 
>> 1-800-657-260
>> 
>> AUSTRALIA           
>> 
>> CANBERRA:      
>> 
>> 61-2-6100-1944           
>> 
>> 1-800-657-260
>> 
>> AUSTRALIA           
>> 
>> MELBOURNE:     
>> 
>> 61-3-9010-7713           
>> 
>> 1-800-657-260
>> 
>> AUSTRALIA           
>> 
>> PERTH:         
>> 
>> 61-8-9467-5223           
>> 
>> 1-800-657-260
>> 
>> AUSTRALIA           
>> 
>> SYDNEY:        
>> 
>> 61-2-8205-8129           
>> 
>> 1-800-657-260
>> 
>> AUSTRIA             
>> 
>>               
>> 43-1-92-81-113           
>> 
>> 0800-005-259
>> 
>> BELGIUM             
>> 
>>               
>> 32-2-400-9861            
>> 
>> 0800-3-8795
>> 
>> BRAZIL              
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 0800-7610651 <tel:0800-7610651>
>> CHILE               
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 1230-020-2863
>> 
>> CHINA               
>> 
>> CHINA A:       
>> 
>> 86-400-810-4789          
>> 
>> 10800-712-1670
>> 
>> CHINA               
>> 
>> CHINA B:       
>> 
>> 86-400-810-4789          
>> 
>> 10800-120-1670
>> 
>> COLOMBIA            
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 01800-9-156474
>> 
>> CZECH REPUBLIC      
>> 
>>               
>> 420-2-25-98-56-64        
>> 
>> 800-700-177
>> 
>> DENMARK             
>> 
>>               
>> 45-7014-0284             
>> 
>> 8088-8324
>> 
>> ESTONIA             
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 800-011-1093
>> 
>> FINLAND             
>> 
>>               
>> 358-9-5424-7162          
>> 
>> 0-800-9-14610
>> 
>> FRANCE              
>> 
>> LYON:          
>> 
>> 33-4-26-69-12-85         
>> 
>> 080-511-1496
>> 
>> FRANCE              
>> 
>> MARSEILLE:     
>> 
>> 33-4-86-06-00-85         
>> 
>> 080-511-1496
>> 
>> FRANCE              
>> 
>> PARIS:         
>> 
>> 33-1-70-70-60-72         
>> 
>> 080-511-1496
>> 
>> GERMANY             
>> 
>>               
>> 49-69-2222-20362         
>> 
>> 0800-664-4247 <tel:0800-664-4247>
>> GREECE              
>> 
>>               
>> 30-80-1-100-0687         
>> 
>> 00800-12-7312
>> 
>> HONG KONG           
>> 
>>               
>> 852-3001-3863            
>> 
>> 800-962-856
>> 
>> HUNGARY             
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 06-800-12755
>> 
>> INDIA               
>> 
>> INDIA A:       
>> 
>>                         
>> 000-800-852-1268
>> 
>> INDIA               
>> 
>> INDIA B:       
>> 
>>                         
>> 000-800-001-6305
>> 
>> INDIA               
>> 
>> INDIA C:       
>> 
>>                         
>> 1800-300-00491
>> 
>> INDONESIA           
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 001-803-011-3982
>> 
>> IRELAND             
>> 
>>               
>> 353-1-246-7646           
>> 
>> 1800-992-368
>> 
>> ISRAEL              
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 1-80-9216162
>> 
>> ITALY               
>> 
>> MILAN:         
>> 
>> 39-02-3600-6007          
>> 
>> 800-986-383
>> 
>> JAPAN               
>> 
>> OSAKA:         
>> 
>> 81-6-7739-4799 <tel:81-6-7739-4799>           
>> 
>> 0066-33-132439
>> 
>> JAPAN               
>> 
>> TOKYO:         
>> 
>> 81-3-5539-5191 <tel:81-3-5539-5191>           
>> 
>> 0066-33-132439
>> 
>> LATVIA              
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 8000-3185
>> 
>> LUXEMBOURG          
>> 
>>               
>> 352-27-000-1364          
>> 
>> 
>> MALAYSIA            
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 1-800-81-3065
>> 
>> MEXICO              
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 001-866-376-9696
>> 
>> NETHERLANDS         
>> 
>>               
>> 31-20-718-8588           
>> 
>> 0800-023-4378 <tel:0800-023-4378>
>> NEW ZEALAND         
>> 
>>               
>> 64-9-970-4771            
>> 
>> 0800-447-722
>> 
>> NORWAY              
>> 
>>               
>> 47-21-590-062            
>> 
>> 800-15157
>> 
>> PANAMA              
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 011-001-800-5072065
>> 
>> PERU                
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 0800-53713
>> 
>> PHILIPPINES         
>> 
>>               
>> 63-2-858-3716            
>> 
>> 
>> POLAND              
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 00-800-1212572
>> 
>> PORTUGAL            
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 8008-14052
>> 
>> RUSSIA              
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 8-10-8002-0144011
>> 
>> SAUDI ARABIA        
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 800-8-110087
>> 
>> SINGAPORE           
>> 
>>               
>> 65-6883-9230             
>> 
>> 800-120-4663
>> 
>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC     
>> 
>>               
>> 421-2-322-422-25         
>> 
>> 
>> SOUTH AFRICA        
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 080-09-80414
>> 
>> SOUTH KOREA         
>> 
>>               
>> 82-2-6744-1083           
>> 
>> 00798-14800-7352
>> 
>> SPAIN               
>> 
>>               
>> 34-91-414-25-33          
>> 
>> 800-300-053
>> 
>> SWEDEN              
>> 
>>               
>> 46-8-566-19-348          
>> 
>> 0200-884-622
>> 
>> SWITZERLAND         
>> 
>>               
>> 41-44-580-6398           
>> 
>> 0800-120-032
>> 
>> TAIWAN              
>> 
>>               
>> 886-2-2795-7379          
>> 
>> 00801-137-797
>> 
>> THAILAND            
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 001-800-1206-66056
>> 
>> UNITED KINGDOM      
>> 
>> BIRMINGHAM:  
>> 
>> 44-121-210-9025          
>> 
>> 0808-238-6029
>> 
>> UNITED KINGDOM      
>> 
>> GLASGOW:       
>> 
>> 44-141-202-3225          
>> 
>> 0808-238-6029
>> 
>> UNITED KINGDOM      
>> 
>> LEEDS:         
>> 
>> 44-113-301-2125          
>> 
>> 0808-238-6029
>> 
>> UNITED KINGDOM      
>> 
>> LONDON:        
>> 
>> 44-20-7108-6370          
>> 
>> 0808-238-6029
>> 
>> UNITED KINGDOM      
>> 
>> MANCHESTER:
>> 
>> 44-161-601-1425          
>> 
>> 0808-238-6029
>> 
>> URUGUAY             
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 000-413-598-3421
>> 
>> USA                 
>> 
>>               
>> 1-517-345-9004           
>> 
>> 866-692-5726
>> 
>> VENEZUELA           
>> 
>>               
>>                         
>> 0800-1-00-3702
>> 
>> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.
>> 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150107/008498e8/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Wed Jan  7 11:06:00 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:06:00 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
	discussion
Message-ID: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>

Hi

As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC meeting.  Below is a proposal from Steve.  Note that their suggested procedure for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is pretty much what we agreed years ago but they then refused to acknowledge the agreement when we nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those who were around then might recall the fun when Marilyn insisted there?d been no agreement and I proceeded to read out the emails in which she?d agreed.  It?d be good if we went in aware of the history here and prepared to respond.

What do people think of the second proposal?  I?m fine with it in principle but don?t know when we?d schedule it.  In the past what we?ve done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or leaders (dinner in London).  We might consider a working breakfast on CD, I don?t know?thoughts?

Bill

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake	<william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina Rosette	<krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Elisa Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, Jimson Olufuye	<jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
> Subject: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion 
> Date: January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
> 
> Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,
>  
> As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH intersessional meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues regarding the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of its responsibilities could be facilitated by having some concrete proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington. 
> 
>  In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via e-mail prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face to face discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday morning (?slot C?).  Please feel free to share these proposals with your colleagues as appropriate.
> 
> 1.  Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair: We propose to replace the current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The privilege to nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated annually between the two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor from the non-commercial side (David Cake) has been selected each of the past two years, we propose that the commercial side exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial in 2016.  For election, the nominee would have to win an absolute majority of votes (currently 7) including at least one vote from each stakeholder group, in a ?nominee v. none of the above? poll.  (The NCA appointee to our house would continue to be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not to reject the nominee of the other side other than for compelling reasons that are communicated in advance to the other side.  Finally, we would set the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep both sides of the House informed of relevant activities within the Council, including by meeting with each side of the House upon request, at least once each calendar quarter. 
> 
> 2.  ?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting schedule:  We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot will be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups making up the House, to discuss current issues of mutual concern. (If there is mutual agreement and it is logistically feasible, this slot could be made into a broader meeting of House participants attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting would be negotiated in advance among the groups, and the meeting would be recorded and transcribed for those members of the groups unable to attend.
> 
> These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure of the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require adjustment if those structures change.   
> 
> Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I look forward to your comments and reactions. 
> 
> Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President   
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150107/3a68ab3e/attachment.html>


From mshears  Wed Jan  7 11:29:52 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 09:29:52 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
 discussion
In-Reply-To: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>
References: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54ACFC90.3010602@cdt.org>

Bill - I think the second proposal is a sensible one.  Don't know enough 
about the dynamics of the first to have an opinion.

Matthew

On 1/7/2015 9:06 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC meeting. 
>  Below is a proposal from Steve.  Note that their suggested procedure 
> for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is pretty much what we agreed 
> years ago but they then refused to acknowledge the agreement when we 
> nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those who were around then might recall the 
> fun when Marilyn insisted there?d been no agreement and I proceeded to 
> read out the emails in which she?d agreed.  It?d be good if we went in 
> aware of the history here and prepared to respond.
>
> What do people think of the second proposal?  I?m fine with it in 
> principle but don?t know when we?d schedule it.  In the past what 
> we?ve done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or leaders 
> (dinner in London).  We might consider a working breakfast on CD, I 
> don?t know?thoughts?
>
> Bill
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>> *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Tony Holmes 
>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, 
>> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" 
>> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina 
>> Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, 
>> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" 
>> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Elisa 
>> Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com 
>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, Jimson Olufuye 
>> <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, 
>> Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu 
>> <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, "Marilyn Cade" 
>> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
>> *Subject: **NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion *
>> *Date: *January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
>>
>> Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,
>>
>> As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH 
>> intersessional meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues regarding 
>> the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of its 
>> responsibilities could be facilitated by having some concrete 
>> proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington.
>>
>>  In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial 
>> Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following 
>> proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via e-mail 
>> prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face to face 
>> discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday morning 
>> (?slot C?).  Please feel free to share these proposals with your 
>> colleagues as appropriate.
>>
>> 1. _Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair_: We propose to replace the 
>> current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The privilege to 
>> nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated annually 
>> between the two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor from the 
>> non-commercial side (David Cake) has been selected each of the past 
>> two years, we propose that the commercial side exercise this 
>> privilege in 2015, non-commercial in 2016.  For election, the nominee 
>> would have to win an absolute majority of votes (currently 7) 
>> including at least one vote from each stakeholder group, in a 
>> ?nominee v. none of the above? poll.  (The NCA appointee to our house 
>> would continue to be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not 
>> to reject the nominee of the other side other than for compelling 
>> reasons that are communicated in advance to the other side. Finally, 
>> we would set the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep 
>> both sides of the House informed of relevant activities within the 
>> Council, including by meeting with each side of the House upon 
>> request, at least once each calendar quarter.
>>
>> 2. _?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting 
>> schedule_: We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN 
>> public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot will 
>> be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups making up the 
>> House, to discuss current issues of mutual concern. (If there is 
>> mutual agreement and it is logistically feasible, this slot could be 
>> made into a broader meeting of House participants attending the ICANN 
>> meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting would be negotiated in advance 
>> among the groups, and the meeting would be recorded and transcribed 
>> for those members of the groups unable to attend.
>>
>> These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure of 
>> the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require 
>> adjustment if those structures change.
>>
>> Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I 
>> look forward to your comments and reactions.
>>
>> Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150107/45a1ddd1/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jan  7 17:54:44 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:54:44 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
 discussion
In-Reply-To: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>
References: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54AD56C4.8080602@mail.utoronto.ca>

What exactly are "compelling reasons" for rejecting a candidate?
And do we have the bandwidth to prepare for that leaders summit they are 
proposing?
SP
On 15-01-07 4:06 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC meeting. 
>  Below is a proposal from Steve.  Note that their suggested procedure 
> for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is pretty much what we agreed 
> years ago but they then refused to acknowledge the agreement when we 
> nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those who were around then might recall the 
> fun when Marilyn insisted there'd been no agreement and I proceeded to 
> read out the emails in which she'd agreed.  It'd be good if we went in 
> aware of the history here and prepared to respond.
>
> What do people think of the second proposal?  I'm fine with it in 
> principle but don't know when we'd schedule it.  In the past what 
> we've done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or leaders 
> (dinner in London).  We might consider a working breakfast on CD, I 
> don't know...thoughts?
>
> Bill
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>> *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Tony Holmes 
>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, 
>> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" 
>> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina 
>> Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, 
>> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" 
>> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Elisa 
>> Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com 
>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, Jimson Olufuye 
>> <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, 
>> Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu 
>> <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, "Marilyn Cade" 
>> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
>> *Subject: **NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion *
>> *Date: *January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
>>
>> Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,
>>
>> As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH 
>> intersessional meeting, our discussion of "In-House" issues regarding 
>> the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of its 
>> responsibilities could be facilitated by having some concrete 
>> proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington.
>>
>>  In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial 
>> Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following 
>> proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via e-mail 
>> prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face to face 
>> discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday morning 
>> ("slot C").  Please feel free to share these proposals with your 
>> colleagues as appropriate.
>>
>> 1. _Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair_: We propose to replace the 
>> current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The privilege to 
>> nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated annually 
>> between the two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor from the 
>> non-commercial side (David Cake) has been selected each of the past 
>> two years, we propose that the commercial side exercise this 
>> privilege in 2015, non-commercial in 2016.  For election, the nominee 
>> would have to win an absolute majority of votes (currently 7) 
>> including at least one vote from each stakeholder group, in a 
>> "nominee v. none of the above" poll.  (The NCA appointee to our house 
>> would continue to be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not 
>> to reject the nominee of the other side other than for compelling 
>> reasons that are communicated in advance to the other side. Finally, 
>> we would set the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep 
>> both sides of the House informed of relevant activities within the 
>> Council, including by meeting with each side of the House upon 
>> request, at least once each calendar quarter.
>>
>> 2. _"Hard-wiring" House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting 
>> schedule_: We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN 
>> public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot will 
>> be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups making up the 
>> House, to discuss current issues of mutual concern. (If there is 
>> mutual agreement and it is logistically feasible, this slot could be 
>> made into a broader meeting of House participants attending the ICANN 
>> meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting would be negotiated in advance 
>> among the groups, and the meeting would be recorded and transcribed 
>> for those members of the groups unable to attend.
>>
>> These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure of 
>> the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require 
>> adjustment if those structures change.
>>
>> Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I 
>> look forward to your comments and reactions.
>>
>> Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150107/06641366/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Jan  7 18:14:41 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 01:14:41 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
	discussion
In-Reply-To: <54AD56C4.8080602@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>
	<54AD56C4.8080602@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=_+HgtU7U0VuiZO_Cc=i_jnHpeniwWjX9MLjyzs8m1kA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Stephanie,

Where do you see the word summit? They are suggesting 1 hour meeting during
icann meeting, we had before informal gathering and the proposal is  to get
somethimg more formal.

Rafik
On Jan 8, 2015 12:54 AM, "Stephanie Perrin" <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>  What exactly are "compelling reasons" for rejecting a candidate?
> And do we have the bandwidth to prepare for that leaders summit they are
> proposing?
> SP
> On 15-01-07 4:06 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>  As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC meeting.
> Below is a proposal from Steve.  Note that their suggested procedure
> for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is pretty much what we agreed
> years ago but they then refused to acknowledge the agreement when we
> nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those who were around then might recall the fun
> when Marilyn insisted there?d been no agreement and I proceeded to read out
> the emails in which she?d agreed.  It?d be good if we went in aware of the
> history here and prepared to respond.
>
>  What do people think of the second proposal?  I?m fine with it in
> principle but don?t know when we?d schedule it.  In the past what we?ve
> done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or leaders (dinner in
> London).  We might consider a working breakfast on CD, I don?t
> know?thoughts?
>
>  Bill
>
>  Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
>  *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "
> lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <
> krosette at cov.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>,
> "Elisa Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Jimson Olufuye <
> jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>,
> "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>  *Subject: **NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion *
>  *Date: *January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
>
>  Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,
>
>
> As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH intersessional
> meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues regarding the functioning of
> our House and the fulfillment of its responsibilities could be facilitated
> by having some concrete proposals on the table prior to our arrival in
> Washington.
>
>  In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial Stakeholder
> Group executive committee, I offer the following proposals for your
> consideration, and for discussion both via e-mail prior to the
> intersessional meeting and during our face to face discussion in
> Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday morning (?slot C?).  Please
> feel free to share these proposals with your colleagues as appropriate.
>
> 1.  *Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair*: We propose to replace the
> current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The privilege to
> nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated annually between the
> two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor from the non-commercial side
> (David Cake) has been selected each of the past two years, we propose that
> the commercial side exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial in
> 2016.  For election, the nominee would have to win an absolute majority of
> votes (currently 7) including at least one vote from each stakeholder
> group, in a ?nominee v. none of the above? poll.  (The NCA appointee to our
> house would continue to be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not
> to reject the nominee of the other side other than for compelling reasons
> that are communicated in advance to the other side.  Finally, we would
> set the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep both sides of the
> House informed of relevant activities within the Council, including by
> meeting with each side of the House upon request, at least once each
> calendar quarter.
>
> 2.  *?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting schedule*:
> We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN public meeting
> (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot will be reserved for a
> meeting of leadership of the groups making up the House, to discuss current
> issues of mutual concern. (If there is mutual agreement and it is
> logistically feasible, this slot could be made into a broader meeting of
> House participants attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting
> would be negotiated in advance among the groups, and the meeting would be
> recorded and transcribed for those members of the groups unable to attend.
>
> These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure of the
> NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require adjustment if those
> structures change.
>
> Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I look
> forward to your comments and reactions.
>
> Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150108/11f24f43/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Jan  7 19:02:11 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:02:11 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
	discussion
In-Reply-To: <54ACFC90.3010602@cdt.org>
References: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>
	<54ACFC90.3010602@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <077F43F1-2844-423E-9714-2DA06529D78E@ipjustice.org>

I think both of Steve's proposals are sensible and we should go with them.

Sure there is subjectivity about what a "compelling reason" might be to reject a candidate, but I think it is reasonable request.  It provides for flexibility that everyone will want, but also advance notice about what to expect going forward.

Meeting for an hour at the ICANN meetings could help us to work better on those issues of common concern to both sides of the house.

Best,
Robin

On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:

> Bill - I think the second proposal is a sensible one.  Don't know enough about the dynamics of the first to have an opinion.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 1/7/2015 9:06 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC meeting.  Below is a proposal from Steve.  Note that their suggested procedure for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is pretty much what we agreed years ago but they then refused to acknowledge the agreement when we nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those who were around then might recall the fun when Marilyn insisted there?d been no agreement and I proceeded to read out the emails in which she?d agreed.  It?d be good if we went in aware of the history here and prepared to respond.
>> 
>> What do people think of the second proposal?  I?m fine with it in principle but don?t know when we?d schedule it.  In the past what we?ve done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or leaders (dinner in London).  We might consider a working breakfast on CD, I don?t know?thoughts?
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, "Elisa Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>>> Subject: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion 
>>> Date: January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
>>> 
>>> Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,
>>>  
>>> As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH intersessional meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues regarding the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of its responsibilities could be facilitated by having some concrete proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington. 
>>> 
>>>  In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via e-mail prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face to face discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday morning (?slot C?).  Please feel free to share these proposals with your colleagues as appropriate.
>>> 
>>> 1.  Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair: We propose to replace the current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The privilege to nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated annually between the two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor from the                   non-commercial side (David Cake) has been selected each of the past two years, we propose that the commercial side exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial in 2016.  For election, the nominee would have to win an absolute majority of votes (currently 7) including at least one vote from each stakeholder group, in a ?nominee v. none of the above? poll.  (The NCA appointee to our house would continue to be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not to reject the nominee of the other side other than for compelling reasons that are communicated in advance to the other side.  Finally, we would set the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep both sides of the House informed of relevant activities within the Council, including by meeting with each side of the House upon request, at least once each calendar quarter. 
>>> 
>>> 2.  ?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting schedule:  We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot will be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups making up the House, to discuss current issues of mutual concern. (If there is mutual agreement and it is logistically feasible, this slot could be made into a broader meeting of House participants attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting would be negotiated in advance among the groups, and the meeting would be recorded and transcribed for those members of the groups unable to attend.
>>> 
>>> These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure of the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require adjustment if those structures change.   
>>> 
>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I look forward to your comments and reactions. 
>>> 
>>> Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President   
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150107/2155ab14/attachment.html>
-------------- 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150107/2155ab14/attachment.sig>


From wjdrake  Wed Jan  7 19:29:25 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:29:25 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
	discussion
In-Reply-To: <077F43F1-2844-423E-9714-2DA06529D78E@ipjustice.org>
References: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>
	<54ACFC90.3010602@cdt.org>
	<077F43F1-2844-423E-9714-2DA06529D78E@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <BD0C1DA5-B620-497C-ABD0-7A60B907A520@gmail.com>

Hi

Wouldn?t we want an agreement (in writing with these guys) on what is and isn?t a compelling reason?  Folks who were around a few years back will remember that when we nominated Wendy for GNSO Council Vice Chair (it was our turn, exactly as envisaged here) they said no, and then pretended not to remember we?d agreed to rotate and generally defer a bit to the other side, certainly with respect to simply nominating. VC is an admin position, it?s not like the VCs have some imperial power to set or force a substantive agenda without Council agreement, so to me this seemed a bit out of scope and mildly vindictive.  So, e.g., a ?compelling reason? cannot be we don?t like the positions the person has taken in Council debates, or the strength with which they?ve argued them.  It?d have to be more like there?s a conflict of interest involving some big issues that?ll be addressed or gross incompetence, lack of prior participation in Council work, something like that, no?

Bill

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
> I think both of Steve's proposals are sensible and we should go with them.
> 
> Sure there is subjectivity about what a "compelling reason" might be to reject a candidate, but I think it is reasonable request.  It provides for flexibility that everyone will want, but also advance notice about what to expect going forward.
> 
> Meeting for an hour at the ICANN meetings could help us to work better on those issues of common concern to both sides of the house.
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> 
>> Bill - I think the second proposal is a sensible one.  Don't know enough about the dynamics of the first to have an opinion.
>> 
>> Matthew
>> 
>> On 1/7/2015 9:06 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC meeting.  Below is a proposal from Steve.  Note that their suggested procedure for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is pretty much what we agreed years ago but they then refused to acknowledge the agreement when we nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those who were around then might recall the fun when Marilyn insisted there?d been no agreement and I proceeded to read out the emails in which she?d agreed.  It?d be good if we went in aware of the history here and prepared to respond.
>>> 
>>> What do people think of the second proposal?  I?m fine with it in principle but don?t know when we?d schedule it.  In the past what we?ve done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or leaders (dinner in London).  We might consider a working breakfast on CD, I don?t know?thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Elisa Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
>>>> Subject: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion 
>>>> Date: January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
>>>> 
>>>> Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,
>>>>  
>>>> As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH intersessional meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues regarding the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of its responsibilities could be facilitated by having some concrete proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington. 
>>>> 
>>>>  In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via e-mail prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face to face discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday morning (?slot C?).  Please feel free to share these proposals with your colleagues as appropriate.
>>>> 
>>>> 1.  Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair: We propose to replace the current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The privilege to nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated annually between the two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor from the non-commercial side (David Cake) has been selected each of the past two years, we propose that the commercial side exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial in 2016.  For election, the nominee would have to win an absolute majority of votes (currently 7) including at least one vote from each stakeholder group, in a ?nominee v. none of the above? poll.  (The NCA appointee to our house would continue to be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not to reject the nominee of the other side other than for compelling reasons that are communicated in advance to the other side.  Finally, we would set the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep both sides of the House informed of relevant activities within the Council, including by meeting with each side of the House upon request, at least once each calendar quarter. 
>>>> 
>>>> 2.  ?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting schedule:  We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot will be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups making up the House, to discuss current issues of mutual concern. (If there is mutual agreement and it is logistically feasible, this slot could be made into a broader meeting of House participants attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting would be negotiated in advance among the groups, and the meeting would be recorded and transcribed for those members of the groups unable to attend.
>>>> 
>>>> These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure of the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require adjustment if those structures change.   
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I look forward to your comments and reactions. 
>>>> 
>>>> Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President   
>>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150107/86d929cd/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jan  7 20:13:20 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:13:20 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
 discussion
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=_+HgtU7U0VuiZO_Cc=i_jnHpeniwWjX9MLjyzs8m1kA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>	<54AD56C4.8080602@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=_+HgtU7U0VuiZO_Cc=i_jnHpeniwWjX9MLjyzs8m1kA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54AD7740.20407@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am using the word loosely, and I am always curious when something 
moves from an informal chit chat over food to something more formal.  
Hence the elevation of this leaders only meeting to use the word "summit".
Call me a cynical old bureaucrat.  at least I am aware of my perrinoia....
:-)

On 2015-01-07, 11:14, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Where do you see the word summit? They are suggesting 1 hour meeting 
> during icann meeting, we had before informal gathering and the 
> proposal is  to get somethimg more formal.
>
> Rafik
>
> On Jan 8, 2015 12:54 AM, "Stephanie Perrin" 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     What exactly are "compelling reasons" for rejecting a candidate?
>     And do we have the bandwidth to prepare for that leaders summit
>     they are proposing?
>     SP
>     On 15-01-07 4:06 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>     Hi
>>
>>     As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC
>>     meeting.  Below is a proposal from Steve. Note that their
>>     suggested procedure for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is
>>     pretty much what we agreed years ago but they then refused to
>>     acknowledge the agreement when we nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those
>>     who were around then might recall the fun when Marilyn insisted
>>     there?d been no agreement and I proceeded to read out the emails
>>     in which she?d agreed.  It?d be good if we went in aware of the
>>     history here and prepared to respond.
>>
>>     What do people think of the second proposal?  I?m fine with it in
>>     principle but don?t know when we?d schedule it.  In the past what
>>     we?ve done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or
>>     leaders (dinner in London).  We might consider a working
>>     breakfast on CD, I don?t know?thoughts?
>>
>>     Bill
>>
>>>     Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>     *From: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>     *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake
>>>     <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Tony
>>>     Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>>>     <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org
>>>     <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" <lori.schulman at ascd.org
>>>     <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina Rosette
>>>     <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>,
>>>     "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>"
>>>     <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Elisa
>>>     Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
>>>     <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, Jimson Olufuye
>>>     <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>,
>>>     Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
>>>     <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, "Marilyn Cade"
>>>     <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
>>>     *Subject: **NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
>>>     discussion *
>>>     *Date: *January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
>>>
>>>     Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,
>>>
>>>     As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH
>>>     intersessional meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues
>>>     regarding the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of
>>>     its responsibilities could be facilitated by having some
>>>     concrete proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington.
>>>
>>>      In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial
>>>     Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following
>>>     proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via
>>>     e-mail prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face
>>>     to face discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next
>>>     Monday morning (?slot C?).  Please feel free to share these
>>>     proposals with your colleagues as appropriate.
>>>
>>>     1. _Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair_: We propose to replace
>>>     the current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The
>>>     privilege to nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be
>>>     rotated annually between the two Stakeholder Groups. Since a
>>>     counselor from the non-commercial side (David Cake) has been
>>>     selected each of the past two years, we propose that the
>>>     commercial side exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial
>>>     in 2016.  For election, the nominee would have to win an
>>>     absolute majority of votes (currently 7) including at least one
>>>     vote from each stakeholder group, in a ?nominee v. none of the
>>>     above? poll.  (The NCA appointee to our house would continue to
>>>     be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not to reject the
>>>     nominee of the other side other than for compelling reasons that
>>>     are communicated in advance to the other side.  Finally, we
>>>     would set the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep
>>>     both sides of the House informed of relevant activities within
>>>     the Council, including by meeting with each side of the House
>>>     upon request, at least once each calendar quarter.
>>>
>>>     2. _?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting
>>>     schedule_:  We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN
>>>     public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot
>>>     will be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups
>>>     making up the House, to discuss current issues of mutual
>>>     concern. (If there is mutual agreement and it is logistically
>>>     feasible, this slot could be made into a broader meeting of
>>>     House participants attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the
>>>     meeting would be negotiated in advance among the groups, and the
>>>     meeting would be recorded and transcribed for those members of
>>>     the groups unable to attend.
>>>
>>>     These proposals are made in the context of the existing
>>>     structure of the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could
>>>     require adjustment if those structures change.
>>>
>>>     Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals. 
>>>     I look forward to your comments and reactions.
>>>
>>>     Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150107/644a9e54/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jan  7 20:49:59 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:49:59 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
	discussion
In-Reply-To: <BD0C1DA5-B620-497C-ABD0-7A60B907A520@gmail.com>
References: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>	<54ACFC90.3010602@cdt.org>	<077F43F1-2844-423E-9714-2DA06529D78E@ipjustice.org>
	<BD0C1DA5-B620-497C-ABD0-7A60B907A520@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54AD7FD7.8050406@mail.utoronto.ca>

I would certainly like some guidelines, if not a definition.  I know if 
I were proposed, the compelling reasons would include, we hate her, she 
is a privacy nut, and she had a dissenting opinion on the EWG report.  
All non-compelling reasons, in my view.
cheers Steph
On 15-01-07 12:29 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Wouldn't we want an agreement (in writing with these guys) on what is 
> and isn't a compelling reason?  Folks who were around a few years back 
> will remember that when we nominated Wendy for GNSO Council Vice Chair 
> (it was our turn, exactly as envisaged here) they said no, and then 
> pretended not to remember we'd agreed to rotate and generally defer a 
> bit to the other side, certainly with respect to simply nominating. VC 
> is an admin position, it's not like the VCs have some imperial power 
> to set or force a substantive agenda without Council agreement, so to 
> me this seemed a bit out of scope and mildly vindictive.  So, e.g., a 
> "compelling reason" cannot be we don't like the positions the person 
> has taken in Council debates, or the strength with which they've 
> argued them.  It'd have to be more like there's a conflict of interest 
> involving some big issues that'll be addressed or gross incompetence, 
> lack of prior participation in Council work, something like that, no?
>
> Bill
>
>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org 
>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I think both of Steve's proposals are sensible and we should go with 
>> them.
>>
>> Sure there is subjectivity about what a "compelling reason" might be 
>> to reject a candidate, but I think it is reasonable request.  It 
>> provides for flexibility that everyone will want, but also advance 
>> notice about what to expect going forward.
>>
>> Meeting for an hour at the ICANN meetings could help us to work 
>> better on those issues of common concern to both sides of the house.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>
>>> Bill - I think the second proposal is a sensible one.  Don't know 
>>> enough about the dynamics of the first to have an opinion.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> On 1/7/2015 9:06 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC 
>>>> meeting.  Below is a proposal from Steve.  Note that their 
>>>> suggested procedure for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is 
>>>> pretty much what we agreed years ago but they then refused to 
>>>> acknowledge the agreement when we nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those 
>>>> who were around then might recall the fun when Marilyn insisted 
>>>> there'd been no agreement and I proceeded to read out the emails in 
>>>> which she'd agreed.  It'd be good if we went in aware of the 
>>>> history here and prepared to respond.
>>>>
>>>> What do people think of the second proposal?  I'm fine with it in 
>>>> principle but don't know when we'd schedule it.  In the past what 
>>>> we've done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or leaders 
>>>> (dinner in London).  We might consider a working breakfast on CD, I 
>>>> don't know...thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>>> *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake 
>>>>> <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Tony Holmes 
>>>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com 
>>>>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org 
>>>>> <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" <lori.schulman at ascd.org 
>>>>> <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina Rosette 
>>>>> <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, 
>>>>> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" 
>>>>> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Elisa 
>>>>> Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com 
>>>>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, Jimson Olufuye 
>>>>> <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, 
>>>>> Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu 
>>>>> <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, "Marilyn Cade" 
>>>>> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
>>>>> *Subject: **NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for 
>>>>> discussion *
>>>>> *Date: *January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
>>>>>
>>>>> Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,
>>>>>
>>>>> As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH 
>>>>> intersessional meeting, our discussion of "In-House" issues 
>>>>> regarding the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of its 
>>>>> responsibilities could be facilitated by having some concrete 
>>>>> proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington.
>>>>>
>>>>>  In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial 
>>>>> Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following 
>>>>> proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via 
>>>>> e-mail prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face to 
>>>>> face discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday 
>>>>> morning ("slot C").  Please feel free to share these proposals 
>>>>> with your colleagues as appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. _Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair_: We propose to replace 
>>>>> the current ad hoc selection system with the following: The 
>>>>> privilege to nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated 
>>>>> annually between the two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor 
>>>>> from the non-commercial side (David Cake) has been selected each 
>>>>> of the past two years, we propose that the commercial side 
>>>>> exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial in 2016.  For 
>>>>> election, the nominee would have to win an absolute majority of 
>>>>> votes (currently 7) including at least one vote from each 
>>>>> stakeholder group, in a "nominee v. none of the above" poll.  (The 
>>>>> NCA appointee to our house would continue to be eligible to 
>>>>> vote.)  Both sides would commit not to reject the nominee of the 
>>>>> other side other than for compelling reasons that are communicated 
>>>>> in advance to the other side.  Finally, we would set the clear 
>>>>> expectation that the vice chair would keep both sides of the House 
>>>>> informed of relevant activities within the Council, including by 
>>>>> meeting with each side of the House upon request, at least once 
>>>>> each calendar quarter.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. _"Hard-wiring" House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting 
>>>>> schedule_:  We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN 
>>>>> public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot 
>>>>> will be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups making 
>>>>> up the House, to discuss current issues of mutual concern. (If 
>>>>> there is mutual agreement and it is logistically feasible, this 
>>>>> slot could be made into a broader meeting of House participants 
>>>>> attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting would be 
>>>>> negotiated in advance among the groups, and the meeting would be 
>>>>> recorded and transcribed for those members of the groups unable to 
>>>>> attend.
>>>>>
>>>>> These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure 
>>>>> of the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require 
>>>>> adjustment if those structures change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I 
>>>>> look forward to your comments and reactions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President
>>>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150107/62477a95/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Jan  7 22:10:41 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:10:41 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
	discussion
In-Reply-To: <BD0C1DA5-B620-497C-ABD0-7A60B907A520@gmail.com>
References: <8000526B-289E-4910-A0A9-769FA0725E84@gmail.com>	<54ACFC90.3010602@cdt.org>	<077F43F1-2844-423E-9714-2DA06529D78E@ipjustice.org>
	<BD0C1DA5-B620-497C-ABD0-7A60B907A520@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54AD92C1.6090004@acm.org>

yes

On 07-Jan-15 12:29, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Wouldn?t we want an agreement (in writing with these guys) on what is
> and isn?t a compelling reason?  Folks who were around a few years back
> will remember that when we nominated Wendy for GNSO Council Vice Chair
> (it was our turn, exactly as envisaged here) they said no, and then
> pretended not to remember we?d agreed to rotate and generally defer a
> bit to the other side, certainly with respect to simply nominating. VC
> is an admin position, it?s not like the VCs have some imperial power
> to set or force a substantive agenda without Council agreement, so to
> me this seemed a bit out of scope and mildly vindictive.  So, e.g., a
> ?compelling reason? cannot be we don?t like the positions the person
> has taken in Council debates, or the strength with which they?ve
> argued them.  It?d have to be more like there?s a conflict of interest
> involving some big issues that?ll be addressed or gross incompetence,
> lack of prior participation in Council work, something like that, no?
>
> Bill
>
>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I think both of Steve's proposals are sensible and we should go with
>> them.
>>
>> Sure there is subjectivity about what a "compelling reason" might be
>> to reject a candidate, but I think it is reasonable request.  It
>> provides for flexibility that everyone will want, but also advance
>> notice about what to expect going forward.
>>
>> Meeting for an hour at the ICANN meetings could help us to work
>> better on those issues of common concern to both sides of the house.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>
>>> Bill - I think the second proposal is a sensible one.  Don't know
>>> enough about the dynamics of the first to have an opinion.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> On 1/7/2015 9:06 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC
>>>> meeting.  Below is a proposal from Steve.  Note that their
>>>> suggested procedure for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is
>>>> pretty much what we agreed years ago but they then refused to
>>>> acknowledge the agreement when we nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those
>>>> who were around then might recall the fun when Marilyn insisted
>>>> there?d been no agreement and I proceeded to read out the emails in
>>>> which she?d agreed.  It?d be good if we went in aware of the
>>>> history here and prepared to respond.
>>>>
>>>> What do people think of the second proposal?  I?m fine with it in
>>>> principle but don?t know when we?d schedule it.  In the past what
>>>> we?ve done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or leaders
>>>> (dinner in London).  We might consider a working breakfast on CD, I
>>>> don?t know?thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>>> *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake
>>>>> <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Tony Holmes
>>>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>>>>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org
>>>>> <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" <lori.schulman at ascd.org
>>>>> <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina Rosette
>>>>> <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>,
>>>>> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>"
>>>>> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Elisa
>>>>> Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
>>>>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, Jimson Olufuye
>>>>> <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>,
>>>>> Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
>>>>> <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, "Marilyn Cade"
>>>>> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
>>>>> *Subject: **NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for
>>>>> discussion *
>>>>> *Date: *January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
>>>>>
>>>>> Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>> As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH
>>>>> intersessional meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues
>>>>> regarding the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of its
>>>>> responsibilities could be facilitated by having some concrete
>>>>> proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington. 
>>>>>
>>>>>  In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial
>>>>> Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following
>>>>> proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via
>>>>> e-mail prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face to
>>>>> face discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday
>>>>> morning (?slot C?).  Please feel free to share these proposals
>>>>> with your colleagues as appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.  _Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair_: We propose to replace
>>>>> the current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The
>>>>> privilege to nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated
>>>>> annually between the two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor
>>>>> from the non-commercial side (David Cake) has been selected each
>>>>> of the past two years, we propose that the commercial side
>>>>> exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial in 2016.  For
>>>>> election, the nominee would have to win an absolute majority of
>>>>> votes (currently 7) including at least one vote from each
>>>>> stakeholder group, in a ?nominee v. none of the above? poll.  (The
>>>>> NCA appointee to our house would continue to be eligible to
>>>>> vote.)  Both sides would commit not to reject the nominee of the
>>>>> other side other than for compelling reasons that are
>>>>> communicated in advance to the other side.  Finally, we would set
>>>>> the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep both sides of
>>>>> the House informed of relevant activities within the Council,
>>>>> including by meeting with each side of the House upon request, at
>>>>> least once each calendar quarter. 
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.  _?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting
>>>>> schedule_:  We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN
>>>>> public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot
>>>>> will be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups making
>>>>> up the House, to discuss current issues of mutual concern. (If
>>>>> there is mutual agreement and it is logistically feasible, this
>>>>> slot could be made into a broader meeting of House participants
>>>>> attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting would be
>>>>> negotiated in advance among the groups, and the meeting would be
>>>>> recorded and transcribed for those members of the groups unable to
>>>>> attend.
>>>>>
>>>>> These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure
>>>>> of the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require
>>>>> adjustment if those structures change.   
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I
>>>>> look forward to your comments and reactions. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President   
>>>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150107/43b48217/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Fri Jan  9 02:13:40 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:13:40 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] European Proposed Regulations with regard to Domain Names
 and Trade Marks
In-Reply-To: <54AF1B16.3080903@yorku.ca>
References: <54AF1B16.3080903@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <54AF1D34.2060502@yorku.ca>

NCSG Policy Committee

Last month as Chair of the NPOC Policy Committee I kicked off a 
discussion of proposed European Community regulations with regard to 
trademarks and domain names that, if enacted, would open a Pandora?s Box 
of problems with regard, in particular, to domain name use in the 
Not-for-Profit and Civil Society sectors. After some consultation and 
dialogue I have drafted an NPOC position which is attached. Time is 
short since the European trilogue is likely to start shortly and we want 
the members of that trilogue to have time to digest what we have to say. 
I am forwarding this to the NCSG Policy Committee for information and in 
case NCSG would like to take a position on the issue as well. The 
Intellectual Property constituency is also preparing comments.

The /attached draft version document/ will go to about ten relevant 
individual members of the European Parliament and representatives from 
European countries who will be engaged in the European Parliament?s 
trilogue process involved in the "Proposal for a Directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council to approximate the laws of the 
Member States relating to trade marks?.  The trilogue process is very 
opaque informal tripartite process attended by representatives of the 
European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission, 
and in which representatives of the EU?s three main institutions try to 
forge compromises on often-clashing positions. Here is a link to help 
understand it: https://euobserver.com/investigations/123555

The NPOC submission is concerned with one particular part of the Council 
of the European Union ?Proposal for a Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council to approximate the laws of the Member 
States relating to trade marks?. The proposal wording, reproduced below, 
can be found on page 35 of the document at: 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11827-2014-INIT/en/pdf:

Section 3: Rights conferred and limitations; Article 10: Rights 
conferred by a trade mark; Item 3: reads:

/    ?The following, in particular, may be prohibited under paragraph 2; 
[page 35]: (d) using the sign as a trade or company name, *or as a 
domain name, or as a part thereof*;?
/
NPOC recommends deleting ?*as a part thereof? *from the proposed 
regulations. Note: The Intellectual Property constituency and others are 
also submitting comments to the some members of the trilogue process.

This wording risks opening a Pandora?s Box of problems, including scope 
for predatory litigation, with regard to otherwise quite proper domain 
names. As well, it is an unnecessary regulation since domain name 
trademark violations are adequately covered under other normal trademark 
protections.


Sam Lanfranco, Chair, NPOC Policy Committee.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150108/4d6f1341/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EU_EC_DomainNameSubmission.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 32176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150108/4d6f1341/attachment-0001.pdf>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Jan 18 11:24:30 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 18:24:30 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: A way forward for highly-sensitive strings -
	ALAC Resolution
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnC9iHgD8x8rmvWeb53nqAX2cpOZf_-ySbPDzWtUy_yfQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

as a follow-up of the discussion regarding PICs, there is push to have a
"working party" on the topic. the topic of PICs was raised during NCPH
meeting and BC definitely discussed that with Fadi in that time.
while we have some differences regarding the freeze and we acknowledge the
need of reviewing the process, I guess we should get involved and
expressing clearly our concerns.
@Amr please follow-up with this.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
Date: 2015-01-14 7:03 GMT+09:00
Subject: FW: A way forward for highly-sensitive strings - ALAC Resolution
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>


Dear Rafik,



As we discussed, please see below.  We welcome the NCSG joining in support
of the Working Party, recognizing that there are some differences regarding
the concept of the freeze itself.



I look forward to hearing from you soon and wish you safe travels home.



Kind regards,



RA



*Ron Andruff*

*ONR Consulting, Inc.*

*www.ICANNSherpa.com <http://www.ICANNSherpa.com>  *



*From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 13, 2015 16:56
*To:* 'Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch'
*Cc:* 'Alan Greenberg'
*Subject:* A way forward for highly-sensitive strings - ALAC Resolution
*Importance:* High



Dear Thomas,



I send you best wishes for 2015!

Yesterday at our Non-Contracted Parties House Intercessional here in
Washington, I made an intervention with Fadi on the issue of trust.  I used
the GAC call for PICS and ALAC?s resolution as an example.  Fadi asked to
discuss this further with me today, and we did.  He fully agrees with us
that we have to get this right ? and that if some registries have to wait a
few months while we do this then so be it.  He asked me to send him the
recommendations that we discussed, vis-?-vis how to implement the ALAC
resolution.  As I understand that there is a call scheduled with the GAC
for tomorrow (14 January) and another with the ALAC on 22 January, the
email I sent to Fadi today is noted below for your information.



In summary, I believe that if you, as the GAC Chair, support this
recommendation then we have a real opportunity to finally get the issues
around PICS sorted.



Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification.  Happy
to discuss.



Kind regards,



RA





Dear Fadi,

Further to our discussion at the NCPH Intercessional today, the purpose of
this mail is to provide you with a recommendation on how to address ALAC?s
(GAC?s and BC?s) concerns around the *PICS requested by the GAC at Beijing
ICANN 46*.

The ALAC resolution (
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-public-interest-comments-16oct14-en.pdf
) calls for:

1.    The ALAC advises the Board of ICANN to immediately "freeze" (that is,
cease contracting of or delegating) the 28 [RA note: this number has since
been revised to include all Cat. 1 strings, which is 42 in total] TLD
strings identified by the GAC as requiring enhanced safeguards ("Category
1, Safeguards 1-8"), pending further community review and subsequent
changes to the Public Interest provisions of the TLD agreements;

2.    The ALAC forms a sub-committee, comprised of At-Large and other ICANN
community members, to examine the current PIC mechanism, as well as any
other Public Interest safeguards that may be deployed for relevant TLDs,
and to recommend enhancements that better protect consumers and end-users
in an expedited manner;
3.    The ALAC assigns a liaison to the newly-formed ICANN Contract
Compliance and Safeguards group (subject to its approval), in order to
ensure that the At-Large Community is aware of the initiatives and progress
of the Department on an on-going basis.

Our recommended way forward (recognizing that there is currently a
meeting/call scheduled for 22 January 2015 between sub-groups from the NGPC
and ALAC) would be as follows:

A.      In the interest of accountability, building trust and demonstrating
ICANN?s desire to meet the GAC/BC/ALAC concerns, put a hold (freeze) on the
highly-regulated strings that are incorporated in Category 1, as noted
above, subject to the specific concerns being addressed.  This action alone
would greatly serve in restoring the Community?s and the GAC?s faith in the
Board, simply because it would clearly demonstrate that the Board will stop
? for the first time in ICANN history ? and allow the Community the
essential time to look again at how to get this critical issue right.

B.      Gather a Working Party (described as a ALAC sub-committee above)
that includes NGPC, ALAC, GAC, BC and other interested community members to
begin working on resolving this matter to do exactly what has been noted in
#2 above, with the first meeting scheduled for Singapore.  This *Working
Party?s goal would be to submit recommendations to the NGPC/Board prior to
the Dublin ICANN 54 meeting*.  To be clear, that target is two meetings
following Singapore (and notably 8 meetings since the GAC?s initial PICS
request). Recommendations could possibly come before that target date,
which could serve to free some applications sooner than that target.



Please let me know if you need any clarification or amplification of this
recommendation.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter at your soonest
convenience.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

RA






*Ron Andruff*

*ONR Consulting, Inc.*

*www.ICANNSherpa.com <http://www.ICANNSherpa.com>  *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150118/cf5faded/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Jan 19 01:30:11 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 18:30:11 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft privacy update
Message-ID: <54BC4203.1050808@mail.utoronto.ca>

Here is a draft privacy update.  It would be very helpful if anyone who 
is aware of the links could fill them in .  Let me know if it fits the 
bill, and how you want to proceed.  I also have a draft two pager on the 
COE document which perhaps could usefully be attached. Comments most 
welcome.
Cheers Stephanie
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of the Council of Europe Report.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 143907 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150118/e0e95855/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Privacy Update at ICANN.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 140747 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150118/e0e95855/attachment-0003.docx>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Jan 19 02:06:36 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:06:36 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5
 ICANN Enterprise Risks
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=ZO8N1GaZujS9hUAMDqXsHAtk1YKTf3-o3zUgODAUiKg@mail.gmail.com>

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 <david.olive at icann.org>
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" <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "
jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "
louie at louie.net" <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" <patrik at frobbit.se>, "
tsinha at umd.edu" <tsinha at umd.edu>, "liman at netnod.se" <liman at netnod.se>,
"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, "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" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, "Michele at blacknight.com" <
Michele at blacknight.com>, "kdrazek at Verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Cc: "mike.silber at icann.org" <mike.silber at icann.org>, "rmohan at afilias.info" <
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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150119/a91dc3e2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5040 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150119/a91dc3e2/attachment.p7s>


From aelsadr  Mon Jan 19 16:47:24 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:47:24 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
Message-ID: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>

Hi all,

I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course of this year.

I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:

1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate emails.

2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.

3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the different working groups.

4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.

5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.

6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if necessary.

Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be highly appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150119/d32282e6/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Jan 19 16:58:50 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:58:50 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

thanks for these proposal,
regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions (if
there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for
this year

Rafik

2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the
> PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of
> you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything I
> can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>
> I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what
> I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and
> would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what
> I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>
> 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements
> (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are important to our
> membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue.
> There are obviously some open issues on the table right now, especially in
> the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address
> in separate emails.
>
> 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by
> the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus
> building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts
> to the contrary.
>
> 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is
> important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to
> public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the
> NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some
> initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the
> different working groups.
>
> 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions
> before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every
> monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC
> stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness
> on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m
> hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on
> all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>
> 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take
> place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.
>
> 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if
> necessary.
>
> Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be highly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150119/36bf666b/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Jan 20 02:17:21 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:17:21 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>

Hi,

Amr, glad to see you on the job.

I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call
for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that
are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very
far.  I think we did 1.

avri

On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Amr,
>
> thanks for these proposal, 
> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the
> motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for
> strategy/planning for this year 
>
> Rafik 
>
> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off
>     for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a
>     pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but
>     promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course
>     of this year.
>
>     I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I
>     see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more
>     efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you.
>     These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have
>     slipped my mind:
>
>     1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with
>     announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which
>     issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would
>     take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open
>     issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the
>     NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate
>     emails.
>
>     2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and
>     approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the
>     current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent,
>     unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>
>     3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This
>     is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked
>     similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally
>     plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least
>     make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit comments
>     when comments are asked for by the different working groups.
>
>     4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of
>     motions before council to be delivered to the general membership
>     prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more
>     council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on
>     the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy
>     recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will
>     also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of
>     the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>
>     5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings
>     that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next
>     month in Singapore.
>
>     6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack
>     when/if necessary.
>
>     Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would
>     be highly appreciated.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150120/11351a2a/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Jan 20 02:51:28 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:51:28 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was
helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an
accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore

Rafik

2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>  Hi,
>
> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>
> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call
> for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are
> going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I
> think we did 1.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
>  thanks for these proposal,
> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions
> (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for
> this year
>
>  Rafik
>
> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>  I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for
>> the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most
>> of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything
>> I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>
>>  I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see
>> what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and
>> would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what
>> I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>
>>  1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with
>> announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are
>> important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on
>> each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right
>> now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I
>> will try to address in separate emails.
>>
>>  2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved
>> by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus
>> building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts
>> to the contrary.
>>
>>  3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is
>> important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to
>> public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the
>> NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some
>> initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the
>> different working groups.
>>
>>  4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions
>> before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every
>> monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC
>> stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness
>> on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m
>> hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on
>> all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>
>>  5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that
>> take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in
>> Singapore.
>>
>>  6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack
>> when/if necessary.
>>
>>  Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be
>> highly appreciated.
>>
>>  Thanks.
>>
>>  Amr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150120/5cccd8ad/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Jan 20 05:04:30 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:04:30 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
Message-ID: <54BDC5BE.1090607@mail.utoronto.ca>

I would suggest that we have a discussion on privacy topics in general, 
and wrap up the proposed policy paper we had going on a pad.  Folks have 
lost interest but we said we would comment so we should deliver.  I am 
busy working on it...not going to write the whole policy for them, but 
certainly an outline.
cheers Stephanie
On 2015-01-19 19:17, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>
> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly 
> call for the membership on one or another of the massive policy 
> efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but 
> never got very far.  I think we did 1.
>
> avri
>
> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Amr,
>>
>> thanks for these proposal,
>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the 
>> motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for 
>> strategy/planning for this year
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off
>>     for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a
>>     pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but
>>     promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course
>>     of this year.
>>
>>     I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I
>>     see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more
>>     efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you.
>>     These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have
>>     slipped my mind:
>>
>>     1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with
>>     announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which
>>     issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would
>>     take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open
>>     issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the
>>     NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate
>>     emails.
>>
>>     2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and
>>     approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the
>>     current consensus building approach we now use. Silence =
>>     consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>>
>>     3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This
>>     is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked
>>     similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I
>>     personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs,
>>     but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to
>>     submit comments when comments are asked for by the different
>>     working groups.
>>
>>     4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of
>>     motions before council to be delivered to the general membership
>>     prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more
>>     council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on
>>     the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy
>>     recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will
>>     also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of
>>     the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>
>>     5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings
>>     that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being
>>     next month in Singapore.
>>
>>     6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack
>>     when/if necessary.
>>
>>     Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would
>>     be highly appreciated.
>>
>>     Thanks.
>>
>>     Amr
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150119/3de0fc45/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Jan 20 15:15:43 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:15:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
Message-ID: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?m trying to get the ongoing PC projects listed, and who might be interested in following up on each of them. Here?s what I have so far, but I?d appreciate a heads-up on anything I am missing:

I. Open GNSO Public Comment Periods (PCP):

1. Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG initial report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-12-16-en) - PCP closes February 1st.
2. Policy and Implementation WG initial report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en) - PCP closes March 3rd.

I?m on both these WGs, and serving as GNSO council liaison to both of them. I?m willing to coordinate/draft responses to both of them.

II. Other Open Public Comment Periods of possible interest:

1. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en) - PCP closes Feb 27th. This is probably something we might find interesting, and may want to write something up on. Anyone on the PC willing to take a lead on it?

III. Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks - Rafik sent an earlier message about this to the PC list, as did Bill to the NCUC list. The deadline to submit feedback is Feb 5th, so a bit pressing.

IV. There are ongoing discussions regarding the ?public interest? context within ICANN:

1. On one hand, there is the review of the PICs and its review process. There seems to be a suggestion to create a working party (I guess similar to that dealing with the GNSO review) to do the work on this, while freezing the new gTLD strings until this issue is resolved. I think it would be great if we could finalise our position on how we believe this should move forward before the Singapore meeting.

2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this prior to the Singapore meeting, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care to volunteer for this one?

V. NPOC?s statement to the EU on proposed regulation with regard to domain names and trademarks:

I?m obviously coming back to this quite late, but would appreciate an update from Sam on the aftermath of this. I?m guessing the statement was submitted, but am not sure what was being asked of the NCSG-PC on this topic. It was certainly a great statement on NPOC?s part, but it being an NPOC statement, it didn?t require NCSG endorsement of any kind, and I didn?t get the impression that was being asked for anyway. @Sam: Is there anything NPOC would like us to do about this right now?

I?ll be following up with each of these individually, but would appreciate anything I missed being flagged.

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150120/845be35f/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Jan 20 14:36:35 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:36:35 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <54BDC5BE.1090607@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org> <54BDC5BE.1090607@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <0AC2E644-209D-408B-8C67-FFCD70CDBFB4@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for all your work on the privacy front Stephanie. Isn?t the privacy list (privacy at ipjustice.org) supposed to be where discussions on privacy topics are supposed to take place? I do believe that privacy and WHOIS should always be high on our priority list, but just wondering where the work needs to be done. I don?t believe all the work on privacy from the ground-up needs to be done on the PC. We certainly will have a role, but I doubt we need to hold all the discussions here. Is there a reason I?m missing that we should?

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 20, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I would suggest that we have a discussion on privacy topics in general, and wrap up the proposed policy paper we had going on a pad.  Folks have lost interest but we said we would comment so we should deliver.  I am busy working on it...not going to write the whole policy for them, but certainly an outline. 
> cheers Stephanie
> On 2015-01-19 19:17, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>> 
>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I think we did 1.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> 
>>> thanks for these proposal, 
>>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for this year 
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>> 
>>> I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>> 
>>> 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate emails.
>>> 
>>> 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>>> 
>>> 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the different working groups.
>>> 
>>> 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>> 
>>> 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.
>>> 
>>> 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if necessary.
>>> 
>>> Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be highly appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 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/20150120/449fd04d/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Jan 20 14:20:26 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:20:26 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft privacy update
In-Reply-To: <54BC4203.1050808@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <54BC4203.1050808@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <86091F07-8219-421A-8240-FAF41CC8E2F1@egyptig.org>

Hi Stephanie,

Could you provide some clarification on the WG concerning WHOIS conflict with the 2013 RAA? Not sure I heard anything about this? Is this meant to refer to the advisory group on ICANN?s procedure for handling WHOIS conflict with local laws?

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:30 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Here is a draft privacy update.  It would be very helpful if anyone who is aware of the links could fill them in .  Let me know if it fits the bill, and how you want to proceed.  I also have a draft two pager on the COE document which perhaps could usefully be attached. Comments most welcome.
> Cheers Stephanie
> <Summary of the Council of Europe Report.docx><NCSG Privacy Update at ICANN.docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Tue Jan 20 14:30:54 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:30:54 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B6E9AB39-EE0C-4CC0-913B-99312E105AD4@egyptig.org>

Hi,

A regular/monthly topic call sounds like a good idea, especially if it draws interest and participation from a wider membership base. However, if I recall correctly, the IANA stewardship call didn?t have too many participants who were not already engaged in the CWG. Still a worthwhile endeavour, I believe.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> Hi,
> 
> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
> 
> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I think we did 1.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> thanks for these proposal, 
>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for this year 
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>> 
>> I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>> 
>> 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate emails.
>> 
>> 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>> 
>> 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the different working groups.
>> 
>> 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>> 
>> 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.
>> 
>> 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if necessary.
>> 
>> Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be highly appreciated.
>> 
>> 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/20150120/dbbb8064/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Jan 21 02:33:17 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:33:17 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <B6E9AB39-EE0C-4CC0-913B-99312E105AD4@egyptig.org>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6E9AB39-EE0C-4CC0-913B-99312E105AD4@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=aZAMyvomSqK1QJn=cosOu02h=hLJLtb3kRWfVya8_aw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

we had only 1 call as experiment and with short notice, hard to evaluate in
such case. in fact, I think there were some new members attending the call
 which is encouraging. if we make the call regular and predictable, I would
expect more attendance. anyway, I can work on  preparing for the next ones
e.g. Accountability, PDP for newcomers etc

Best Regards,

Rafik

2015-01-20 21:30 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> A regular/monthly topic call sounds like a good idea, especially if it
> draws interest and participation from a wider membership base. However, if
> I recall correctly, the IANA stewardship call didn?t have too many
> participants who were not already engaged in the CWG. Still a worthwhile
> endeavour, I believe.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was
> helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an
> accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>
>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call
>> for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are
>> going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I
>> think we did 1.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>>
>>  thanks for these proposal,
>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions
>> (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for
>> this year
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>  I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for
>>> the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most
>>> of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything
>>> I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>>
>>>  I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see
>>> what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and
>>> would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what
>>> I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>
>>>  1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with
>>> announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are
>>> important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on
>>> each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right
>>> now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I
>>> will try to address in separate emails.
>>>
>>>  2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved
>>> by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus
>>> building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts
>>> to the contrary.
>>>
>>>  3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is
>>> important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to
>>> public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the
>>> NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some
>>> initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the
>>> different working groups.
>>>
>>>  4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions
>>> before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every
>>> monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC
>>> stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness
>>> on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m
>>> hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on
>>> all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>
>>>  5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that
>>> take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in
>>> Singapore.
>>>
>>>  6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack
>>> when/if necessary.
>>>
>>>  Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be
>>> highly appreciated.
>>>
>>>  Thanks.
>>>
>>>  Amr
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150121/38481b4f/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Jan 21 04:53:08 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:53:08 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,


2015-01-20 22:15 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I?m trying to get the ongoing PC projects listed, and who might be
> interested in following up on each of them. Here?s what I have so far, but
> I?d appreciate a heads-up on anything I am missing:
>
> I. Open GNSO Public Comment Periods (PCP):
>
> 1. Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG initial
> report (
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-12-16-en)
> - PCP closes *February 1st*.
>

I thought you volunteered for drafting/collecting comments :)


> 2. Policy and Implementation WG initial report (
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en)
> - PCP closes *March 3rd*.
>
>
please add the response to curative rights working group questionnaire
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2014-December/002154.html ,
unfortunately nobody volunteered for that.

I?m on both these WGs, and serving as GNSO council liaison to both of them.
> I?m willing to coordinate/draft responses to both of them.
>
> II. Other Open Public Comment Periods of possible interest:
>
> 1. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en) -
> PCP closes *Feb 27th*. This is probably something we might find
> interesting, and may want to write something up on. Anyone on the PC
> willing to take a lead on it?
>
> III. Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise
> Risks - Rafik sent an earlier message about this to the PC list, as did
> Bill to the NCUC list. The deadline to submit feedback is *Feb 5th*, so a
> bit pressing.
>

at least I have to submit 5 topics myself, any input would be helpful.


>
> IV. There are ongoing discussions regarding the ?public interest? context
> within ICANN:
>
> 1. On one hand, there is the review of the PICs and its review process.
> There seems to be a suggestion to create a working party (I guess similar
> to that dealing with the GNSO review) to do the work on this, while
> freezing the new gTLD strings until this issue is resolved. I think it
> would be great if we could finalise our position on how we believe this
> should move forward *before the Singapore meeting*.
>
>
+1, for reference
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2015-January/002228.html


> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the
> ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of
> the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion
> with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some
> kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this *prior
> to the Singapore meeting*, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG
> meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then,
> then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this.
> Anyone care to volunteer for this one?
>

Bill talked about working on paper when we have the discussion in NCSG
list, not sure if he will do it or not.
for topics with the board, please propose that in NCSG list in the related
thread.


>
> V. NPOC?s statement to the EU on proposed regulation with regard to domain
> names and trademarks:
>
> I?m obviously coming back to this quite late, but would appreciate an
> update from Sam on the aftermath of this. I?m guessing the statement was
> submitted, but am not sure what was being asked of the NCSG-PC on this
> topic. It was certainly a great statement on NPOC?s part, but it being an
> NPOC statement, it didn?t require NCSG endorsement of any kind, and I
> didn?t get the impression that was being asked for anyway. @Sam: Is there
> anything NPOC would like us to do about this right now?
>
>
I would like to add:
- working on counter-proposal on VC election process. I think Avri
volunteered for that.
- GNSO review: we are supposed to receive one-pager position from CSG. we
may need to follow-up with the statement made during NCPH meeting @David
any update on the latest version?

Best

Rafik


> I?ll be following up with each of these individually, but would appreciate
> anything I missed being flagged.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150121/ebe4b175/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jan 21 05:13:41 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:13:41 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft privacy update
In-Reply-To: <86091F07-8219-421A-8240-FAF41CC8E2F1@egyptig.org>
References: <54BC4203.1050808@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<86091F07-8219-421A-8240-FAF41CC8E2F1@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <54BF1965.6070704@mail.utoronto.ca>

I can try, sadly many of us missed the first meeting for technical 
reasons, and we really do not know much about what is going on.
I will try to dig up some more...
SP
On 2015-01-20 7:20, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Could you provide some clarification on the WG concerning WHOIS conflict with the 2013 RAA? Not sure I heard anything about this? Is this meant to refer to the advisory group on ICANN?s procedure for handling WHOIS conflict with local laws?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:30 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> Here is a draft privacy update.  It would be very helpful if anyone who is aware of the links could fill them in .  Let me know if it fits the bill, and how you want to proceed.  I also have a draft two pager on the COE document which perhaps could usefully be attached. Comments most welcome.
>> Cheers Stephanie
>> <Summary of the Council of Europe Report.docx><NCSG Privacy Update at ICANN.docx>_______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Wed Jan 21 15:59:33 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:59:33 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11E7082C-BCAA-4A94-8D13-3A8BFA1D6A48@egyptig.org>

Hi,

On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:53 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> 
> 2015-01-20 22:15 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Hi,
> 
> I?m trying to get the ongoing PC projects listed, and who might be interested in following up on each of them. Here?s what I have so far, but I?d appreciate a heads-up on anything I am missing:
> 
> I. Open GNSO Public Comment Periods (PCP):
> 
> 1. Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG initial report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-12-16-en) - PCP closes February 1st.
> 
> I thought you volunteered for drafting/collecting comments :)

Yup. This one?s on me. So is the one on policy and implementation.

>   
> 2. Policy and Implementation WG initial report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en) - PCP closes March 3rd.
> 
> 
> please add the response to curative rights working group questionnairehttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2014-December/002154.html , unfortunately nobody volunteered for that.

Thanks for the reminder on this. Comments seem to be due this Friday. I?ll reach out to Kathy and Imran, who I believe are the two active NCSG members on this WG.

> 
> I?m on both these WGs, and serving as GNSO council liaison to both of them. I?m willing to coordinate/draft responses to both of them.
> 
> II. Other Open Public Comment Periods of possible interest:
> 
> 1. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en) - PCP closes Feb 27th. This is probably something we might find interesting, and may want to write something up on. Anyone on the PC willing to take a lead on it?
> 
> III. Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks - Rafik sent an earlier message about this to the PC list, as did Bill to the NCUC list. The deadline to submit feedback is Feb 5th, so a bit pressing.
> 
> at least I have to submit 5 topics myself, any input would be helpful.
>  
> 
> IV. There are ongoing discussions regarding the ?public interest? context within ICANN:
> 
> 1. On one hand, there is the review of the PICs and its review process. There seems to be a suggestion to create a working party (I guess similar to that dealing with the GNSO review) to do the work on this, while freezing the new gTLD strings until this issue is resolved. I think it would be great if we could finalise our position on how we believe this should move forward before the Singapore meeting.
> 
> 
> +1, for reference http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2015-January/002228.html 
>  
> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this prior to the Singapore meeting, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care to volunteer for this one?
> 
> Bill talked about working on paper when we have the discussion in NCSG list, not sure if he will do it or not. 
> for topics with the board, please propose that in NCSG list in the related thread.

Noted. Come to think of it, you?re probably right. The conversation about the PICs and PI in general should probably be taking place on the discuss-list until the PC has a specific direction to move on it.

>  
> 
> V. NPOC?s statement to the EU on proposed regulation with regard to domain names and trademarks:
> 
> I?m obviously coming back to this quite late, but would appreciate an update from Sam on the aftermath of this. I?m guessing the statement was submitted, but am not sure what was being asked of the NCSG-PC on this topic. It was certainly a great statement on NPOC?s part, but it being an NPOC statement, it didn?t require NCSG endorsement of any kind, and I didn?t get the impression that was being asked for anyway. @Sam: Is there anything NPOC would like us to do about this right now?
> 
> 
> I would like to add:
> - working on counter-proposal on VC election process. I think Avri volunteered for that.
> - GNSO review: we are supposed to receive one-pager position from CSG. we may need to follow-up with the statement made during NCPH meeting @David any update on the latest version?

Thanks again for both of these. I?m guessing these came out of the DC meeting, which I?m still catching up on.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150121/bdcb3dcd/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Jan 21 18:01:21 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:01:21 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Translation & Transliteration of
	Contact Information PDP draft initial report open for public comment
In-Reply-To: <323F5DBC-EA2A-4002-97AA-56B31B49E263@egyptig.org>
References: <DB4PR01MB046163C0617B63328D4D5CCCDD6C0@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<323F5DBC-EA2A-4002-97AA-56B31B49E263@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <C7921A3E-8532-4A26-B883-F74895D0DF0C@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?ve made a first draft of comments to be submitted in response to the public comment period on the initial report of the translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. The draft can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vlwGo-jbItBJ3R5ycrs30-Q3i_3Fbh2HeyJskN6JXo4/edit

The deadline to submit comments is February first, so I would appreciate any and all comment as soon as possible so that the the NCSG policy committee can endorse the input before the submission deadline.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
> 
> Thanks for sharing this with the NCUC (I?ve cc?ed the NCSG-Discuss list as well). This is the first GNSO PDP in which I?ve participated and fully endorse the recommendations in the initial report. I?d be happy to help draft input to the public comment period by the NCSG, but having had my views reflected rather adequately in the working group?s recommendations, I?d also be grateful to hear the views of others.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> As promised in the recent NCSG call, here is a link to the Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report and public comment:
>> 
>> www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-16-en 
>> 
>> The report contains the WG's discussion and puts the arguments it has gathered to the community. It provides both detailed arguments in favor and opposing mandatory transformation and indicates that a majority of the Working Group currently recommends against mandatory transformation and/or transliteration of Contact Information. The Working Group hopes that community feedback will maximize its consensus level for the Final Report and, therefore, its members strongly encourage the Community to provide additional arguments in favor/opposing mandatory transformation of contact information data further to facilitate the WG's consensus building process.
>> 
>> Public comment is open till February 1, 2015.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Chris Dillon.
>> Co-Chair of Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>> --
>> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss




From robin  Thu Jan 22 01:40:55 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:40:55 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=aZAMyvomSqK1QJn=cosOu02h=hLJLtb3kRWfVya8_aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6E9AB39-EE0C-4CC0-913B-99312E105AD4@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aZAMyvomSqK1QJn=cosOu02h=hLJLtb3kRWfVya8_aw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EFCF87F7-9EB9-4DF4-A4FB-B616181E2CAE@ipjustice.org>

I think its a great idea to hold the two calls each month.  Basically one 2 days before the GNSO Council Mtg and the other two weeks later.  Having the mtgs scheduled several months in advance is one of the best ways to ensure participation.  So we could schedule these mtgs now for the next 3-4 months and get them on the calendar now.  It might also be possible to rotate the time zone at which the mtgs are held between the two opposite sides of the globe.  So 1 call each month could be at a time convenient for Europe and the 2nd monthly mtg at a time convenient for Asia-Pacific for example.  And use the same two time zones for 3-4 months.

Thanks for getting this discussion kicked off!

Best,
Robin


On Jan 20, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> we had only 1 call as experiment and with short notice, hard to evaluate in such case. in fact, I think there were some new members attending the call  which is encouraging. if we make the call regular and predictable, I would expect more attendance. anyway, I can work on  preparing for the next ones e.g. Accountability, PDP for newcomers etc 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2015-01-20 21:30 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Hi,
> 
> A regular/monthly topic call sounds like a good idea, especially if it draws interest and participation from a wider membership base. However, if I recall correctly, the IANA stewardship call didn?t have too many participants who were not already engaged in the CWG. Still a worthwhile endeavour, I believe.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>> 
>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I think we did 1.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> 
>>> thanks for these proposal, 
>>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for this year 
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>> 
>>> I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>> 
>>> 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate emails.
>>> 
>>> 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>>> 
>>> 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the different working groups.
>>> 
>>> 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>> 
>>> 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.
>>> 
>>> 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if necessary.
>>> 
>>> Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be highly appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150121/e8f233c1/attachment.html>
-------------- 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150121/e8f233c1/attachment.sig>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Jan 22 02:07:04 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:07:04 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <EFCF87F7-9EB9-4DF4-A4FB-B616181E2CAE@ipjustice.org>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6E9AB39-EE0C-4CC0-913B-99312E105AD4@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=aZAMyvomSqK1QJn=cosOu02h=hLJLtb3kRWfVya8_aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EFCF87F7-9EB9-4DF4-A4FB-B616181E2CAE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm3uZ4ZeO8OwoSrYki6Dd9yxr5fio0SDT1v1Ens_GPtcw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

I responded to the question regarding planning previously: in paper is a
good idea , in practice it is hard. we are depending of GNSO WG (
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar) and CCWG schedules and
they are not usually  set enough time in advance (CCWG added more
complexity with calls for sub-teams). I am not even talking about other
ICANN related stuff like webinars etc (or internet related events that
people may attend).

what we got is regularity : the monthly call every tuesday prior to GNSO
confcall. the only change is the time. we tried in last calls to change
time and ask people via doodle poll and I am fine with time rotations.

what I am thinking is that we can plan 4 to 3 weeks before the call to
avoid clashes with other WG calls, while it is straightforward to prepare
agenda for the policy call, the topic call needs more preparation and
speakers . we can set 3 or 4 topics for the next months and see how it
works.
we are trying already to get people aware by sending ics invitations and
reminders in due time

finally, are you ready for an accountability call and shall we do that
after Singapore meeting?

Rafik

2015-01-22 8:40 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:

> I think its a great idea to hold the two calls each month.  Basically one
> 2 days before the GNSO Council Mtg and the other two weeks later.  Having
> the mtgs scheduled several months in advance is one of the best ways to
> ensure participation.  So we could schedule these mtgs now for the next 3-4
> months and get them on the calendar now.  It might also be possible to
> rotate the time zone at which the mtgs are held between the two opposite
> sides of the globe.  So 1 call each month could be at a time convenient for
> Europe and the 2nd monthly mtg at a time convenient for Asia-Pacific for
> example.  And use the same two time zones for 3-4 months.
>
> Thanks for getting this discussion kicked off!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> we had only 1 call as experiment and with short notice, hard to evaluate
> in such case. in fact, I think there were some new members attending the
> call  which is encouraging. if we make the call regular and predictable, I
> would expect more attendance. anyway, I can work on  preparing for the next
> ones e.g. Accountability, PDP for newcomers etc
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-01-20 21:30 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> A regular/monthly topic call sounds like a good idea, especially if it
>> draws interest and participation from a wider membership base. However, if
>> I recall correctly, the IANA stewardship call didn?t have too many
>> participants who were not already engaged in the CWG. Still a worthwhile
>> endeavour, I believe.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and
>> was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an
>> accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>>
>>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call
>>> for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are
>>> going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I
>>> think we did 1.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Amr,
>>>
>>>  thanks for these proposal,
>>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions
>>> (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for
>>> this year
>>>
>>>  Rafik
>>>
>>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>  I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for
>>>> the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most
>>>> of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything
>>>> I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>>>
>>>>  I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see
>>>> what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and
>>>> would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what
>>>> I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>>
>>>>  1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with
>>>> announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are
>>>> important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on
>>>> each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right
>>>> now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I
>>>> will try to address in separate emails.
>>>>
>>>>  2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved
>>>> by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus
>>>> building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts
>>>> to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>  3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is
>>>> important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to
>>>> public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the
>>>> NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some
>>>> initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the
>>>> different working groups.
>>>>
>>>>  4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of
>>>> motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to
>>>> every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is
>>>> PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising
>>>> awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG
>>>> membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not
>>>> as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>>
>>>>  5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that
>>>> take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in
>>>> Singapore.
>>>>
>>>>  6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack
>>>> when/if necessary.
>>>>
>>>>  Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be
>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>  Amr
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150122/5316c9c7/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Jan 22 10:23:55 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 03:23:55 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <EFCF87F7-9EB9-4DF4-A4FB-B616181E2CAE@ipjustice.org>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>	<B6E9AB39-EE0C-4CC0-913B-99312E105AD4@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sTh=aZAMyvomSqK1QJn=cosOu02h=hLJLtb3kRWfVya8_aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EFCF87F7-9EB9-4DF4-A4FB-B616181E2CAE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <54C0B39B.3010005@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think all this sounds excellent.  Two calls a month allows for some of 
the inevitable absences which we all must have from time to time.  
Advance planning is the only way, life is getting quite booked up for 
all of us.  Perhaps Maryem could schedule these calls soon?
cheers stephanie
On 2015-01-21 18:40, Robin Gross wrote:
> I think its a great idea to hold the two calls each month.  Basically 
> one 2 days before the GNSO Council Mtg and the other two weeks later. 
>  Having the mtgs scheduled several months in advance is one of the 
> best ways to ensure participation.  So we could schedule these mtgs 
> now for the next 3-4 months and get them on the calendar now.  It 
> might also be possible to rotate the time zone at which the mtgs are 
> held between the two opposite sides of the globe.  So 1 call each 
> month could be at a time convenient for Europe and the 2nd monthly mtg 
> at a time convenient for Asia-Pacific for example.  And use the same 
> two time zones for 3-4 months.
>
> Thanks for getting this discussion kicked off!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>> Hi Amr,
>>
>> we had only 1 call as experiment and with short notice, hard to 
>> evaluate in such case. in fact, I think there were some new members 
>> attending the call  which is encouraging. if we make the call regular 
>> and predictable, I would expect more attendance. anyway, I can work 
>> on  preparing for the next ones e.g. Accountability, PDP for 
>> newcomers etc
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-01-20 21:30 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     A regular/monthly topic call sounds like a good idea, especially
>>     if it draws interest and participation from a wider membership
>>     base. However, if I recall correctly, the IANA stewardship call
>>     didn?t have too many participants who were not already engaged in
>>     the CWG. Still a worthwhile endeavour, I believe.
>>
>>     Thanks.
>>
>>     Amr
>>
>>     On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM
>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>
>>>     Hi Avri,
>>>
>>>     yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA
>>>     stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg
>>>     proposal. I think we can an accountability call after frankfurt
>>>     meeting and just before singapore
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>>
>>>         Hi,
>>>
>>>         Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>>
>>>         I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one
>>>         monthly call for the membership on one or another of the
>>>         massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I
>>>         talked about doing this but never got very far.  I think we
>>>         did 1.
>>>
>>>         avri
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>         Hi Amr,
>>>>
>>>>         thanks for these proposal,
>>>>         regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for
>>>>         the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1
>>>>         hour for strategy/planning for this year
>>>>
>>>>         Rafik
>>>>
>>>>         2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>         <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>
>>>>             Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>             I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new
>>>>             duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a
>>>>             disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy
>>>>             these past couple of weeks, but promise to do
>>>>             everything I can to make up for it over the course of
>>>>             this year.
>>>>
>>>>             I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you
>>>>             on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform
>>>>             its function more efficiently, and would be grateful
>>>>             for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on
>>>>             what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my
>>>>             mind:
>>>>
>>>>             1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods;
>>>>             with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to
>>>>             determine which issues are important to our membership,
>>>>             and identifying who would take the lead on each open
>>>>             issue. There are obviously some open issues on the
>>>>             table right now, especially in the aftermath of the
>>>>             NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address
>>>>             in separate emails.
>>>>
>>>>             2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments
>>>>             drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a
>>>>             reason to change the current consensus building
>>>>             approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there
>>>>             are thoughts to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>             3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO
>>>>             WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective to
>>>>             prep comments when asked similar to public comment
>>>>             periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update
>>>>             the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make
>>>>             sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit
>>>>             comments when comments are asked for by the different
>>>>             working groups.
>>>>
>>>>             4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short
>>>>             briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the
>>>>             general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy
>>>>             call. I know this is more council work than it is PC
>>>>             stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart
>>>>             from raising awareness on various GNSO policy
>>>>             recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping
>>>>             this will also help inform councillors who are not as
>>>>             up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>>
>>>>             5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC
>>>>             meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings;
>>>>             the first being next month in Singapore.
>>>>
>>>>             6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up
>>>>             the slack when/if necessary.
>>>>
>>>>             Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of
>>>>             you would be highly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>             Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>             Amr
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <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/20150122/e2e49c92/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Thu Jan 22 15:50:21 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:50:21 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>

Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a necessity but unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average member.

Cheers

Bill

> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
> Hi,
> 
> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
> 
> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I think we did 1.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> thanks for these proposal, 
>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for this year 
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>> 
>> I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>> 
>> 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate emails.
>> 
>> 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>> 
>> 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the different working groups.
>> 
>> 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>> 
>> 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.
>> 
>> 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if necessary.
>> 
>> Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be highly appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150122/834cd9a3/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Thu Jan 22 15:59:59 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:59:59 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E37A2750-574A-449E-BFEE-FAB233B16CDB@gmail.com>

Hi

> On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:53 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this prior to the Singapore meeting, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care to volunteer for this one?
> 
> Bill talked about working on paper when we have the discussion in NCSG list, not sure if he will do it or not. 
> for topics with the board, please propose that in NCSG list in the related thread.

What I talked about was starting a structured dialogue around the topic internally and with the larger community, including at a NCPH pre-meeting conference in BA, all of which could lead to some efforts to put relevant bits down on paper in an ordered fashion that could then inform further efforts etc.  This would have to be an iterative effort that takes on support over time (or doesn?t), methinks.

These conversations could start in Singy, but I don?t see with the time available how we?d have something baked prior that?d be of any value.   I?m guessing that people will be too overwhelmed by all that?s on our plates already, but if someone really motivated to prove this wrong, great.

Best

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150122/4aad6e14/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Jan 22 20:14:10 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:14:10 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <E37A2750-574A-449E-BFEE-FAB233B16CDB@gmail.com>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<E37A2750-574A-449E-BFEE-FAB233B16CDB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3wicuEvXuOHWcWMPN__Mz3TwJget+3k27HpJy38Deu2A@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

Thanks so much for this Amr. Once you collect the info and volunteers,
where and how do you suggest we make the information available?  It would
be good to have it visible.

I volunteer to work on the public interest front. I agree with Bill that it
is more realistic to have an input and structured discussion about it in
Buenos Aires. But one thing we can do for Singapore is to have some
discussion about the relation between the public interest and human rights
in ICANN.

Is there a list where the public interest topics are being discussed? Can
someone point me?

Thanks
Mar?lia

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:59 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:53 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the
>> ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of
>> the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion
>> with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some
>> kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this *prior
>> to the Singapore meeting*, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG
>> meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then,
>> then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this.
>> Anyone care to volunteer for this one?
>>
>
> Bill talked about working on paper when we have the discussion in NCSG
> list, not sure if he will do it or not.
> for topics with the board, please propose that in NCSG list in the related
> thread.
>
>
> What I talked about was starting a structured dialogue around the topic
> internally and with the larger community, including at a NCPH pre-meeting
> conference in BA, all of which could lead to some efforts to put relevant
> bits down on paper in an ordered fashion that could then inform further
> efforts etc.  This would have to be an iterative effort that takes on
> support over time (or doesn?t), methinks.
>
> These conversations could start in Singy, but I don?t see with the time
> available how we?d have something baked prior that?d be of any value.   I?m
> guessing that people will be too overwhelmed by all that?s on our plates
> already, but if someone really motivated to prove this wrong, great.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150122/a8ed8968/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Jan 22 20:23:59 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:23:59 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with the topic specific calls as well. In our regular calls we only
have the chance to fly over the topics, not to go deeper. That would be an
opportunity.

Should we list 3-4 topics of relevance and try this for the next months to
see how it goes?

Mar?lia

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a necessity but
> unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average member.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was
> helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an
> accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>
>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call
>> for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are
>> going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I
>> think we did 1.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>>
>>  thanks for these proposal,
>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions
>> (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for
>> this year
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>  I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for
>>> the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most
>>> of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything
>>> I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>>
>>>  I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see
>>> what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and
>>> would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what
>>> I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>
>>>  1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with
>>> announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are
>>> important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on
>>> each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right
>>> now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I
>>> will try to address in separate emails.
>>>
>>>  2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved
>>> by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus
>>> building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts
>>> to the contrary.
>>>
>>>  3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is
>>> important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to
>>> public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the
>>> NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some
>>> initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the
>>> different working groups.
>>>
>>>  4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions
>>> before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every
>>> monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC
>>> stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness
>>> on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m
>>> hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on
>>> all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>
>>>  5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that
>>> take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in
>>> Singapore.
>>>
>>>  6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack
>>> when/if necessary.
>>>
>>>  Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be
>>> highly appreciated.
>>>
>>>  Thanks.
>>>
>>>  Amr
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
*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/20150122/87c08434/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Jan 23 00:35:25 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:35:25 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Idea for scheduling NCSG Calls in 2015
Message-ID: <3B8870D0-DF82-4625-B7F7-C87CCF24C474@ipjustice.org>

All,

Looking at the GNSO's Master Calender:
    http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
We know the GNSO Council will be meeting on the following dates in 2015:
 Feb 11 (ICANN #52 in Singapore)
 March 19  18:00 UTC
 April 16  11:00 UTC
 May 21  15:00 UTC
 June 24 (ICANN #53 in BA)
 July 23  11:00 UTC
 September 3  15:00 UTC
 September 24  18:00 UTC
 October 21  (ICANN #54 in Dublin)

So why don't we calendar our prep calls accordingly now?  The NCSG monthly call intended to focus on GNSO Council Matters can remain on the Tuesday before the Thursday GNSO Council Mtg and would be chaired by the NCSG PC Chair.  And the 2nd NCSG monthly call can dive more deeply into substantive matters depending on the key issues of the moment and NCSG priorities (much broader than council mtg preparation) and it would be chaired by the NCSG Chair.

So we could have a calendar of meetings along the following lines:

1.  The NCSG monthly meeting that is more focused on the GNSO Council Prep could be calendared for the following dates, which correspond to the Tuesday preceding the GNSO Council Thursday calls and the Sunday preceding the GNSO Council Public Meetings.  The timezone of the meeting could be one that is most convenient for members of the NCSG PC.

February 8
March 17
April 14
May 19
June 21(ICANN #53 in BA)
July 21
Sept 1
Sept 22
October 18 (ICANN #54 in Dublin)

2.  The broader or issue specific NCSG monthly call could be calendared approximately 2 weeks later (on a Thursday) and with an opposite time zone as follows:
January 29 
February 26 
April 2 
May 7 
June 11 
July 2 
August 13
September 10
October 8

Of course we can stay flexible and reschedule any of the meetings as needed, but having a general framework and regularity and advance planning will help us to be more effective on these issues, I am sure.  And sharing more of the workload of chairing meetings and rotating time zones will also make it more accessible and less burdensome for participants.

Thoughts?  

Best,
Robin


 



-------------- 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150122/18aafef3/attachment.sig>


From dave  Fri Jan 23 06:48:38 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:48:38 +1100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11A22A6C-E002-4C5F-A500-B25E1FDA21EA@difference.com.au>

I agree. 
The Council has actually been fairly quiet recently, and I find the focus on the details of the council agenda does leave us with insufficient time to discuss the many big efforts going on outside the Council currently.

David

On 23 Jan 2015, at 5:23 am, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with the topic specific calls as well. In our regular calls we only have the chance to fly over the topics, not to go deeper. That would be an opportunity.
> 
> Should we list 3-4 topics of relevance and try this for the next months to see how it goes?
> 
> Mar?lia
> 
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a necessity but unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average member.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>> 
>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I think we did 1.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> 
>>> thanks for these proposal, 
>>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for this year 
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>> 
>>> I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>> 
>>> 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate emails.
>>> 
>>> 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>>> 
>>> 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the different working groups.
>>> 
>>> 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>> 
>>> 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.
>>> 
>>> 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if necessary.
>>> 
>>> Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be highly appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150123/a7a6670a/attachment.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/20150123/a7a6670a/attachment.sig>


From wjdrake  Thu Jan 22 15:59:59 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:59:59 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E37A2750-574A-449E-BFEE-FAB233B16CDB@gmail.com>

Hi

> On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:53 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this prior to the Singapore meeting, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care to volunteer for this one?
> 
> Bill talked about working on paper when we have the discussion in NCSG list, not sure if he will do it or not. 
> for topics with the board, please propose that in NCSG list in the related thread.

What I talked about was starting a structured dialogue around the topic internally and with the larger community, including at a NCPH pre-meeting conference in BA, all of which could lead to some efforts to put relevant bits down on paper in an ordered fashion that could then inform further efforts etc.  This would have to be an iterative effort that takes on support over time (or doesn?t), methinks.

These conversations could start in Singy, but I don?t see with the time available how we?d have something baked prior that?d be of any value.   I?m guessing that people will be too overwhelmed by all that?s on our plates already, but if someone really motivated to prove this wrong, great.

Best

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150122/4aad6e14/attachment-0003.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Jan 23 10:44:19 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:44:19 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Idea for scheduling NCSG Calls in 2015
In-Reply-To: <3B8870D0-DF82-4625-B7F7-C87CCF24C474@ipjustice.org>
References: <3B8870D0-DF82-4625-B7F7-C87CCF24C474@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <54C209E3.4070202@mail.utoronto.ca>

Totally agree.
Steph
On 2015-01-22 17:35, Robin Gross wrote:
> All,
>
> Looking at the GNSO's Master Calender:
>      http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
> We know the GNSO Council will be meeting on the following dates in 2015:
>   Feb 11 (ICANN #52 in Singapore)
>   March 19  18:00 UTC
>   April 16  11:00 UTC
>   May 21  15:00 UTC
>   June 24 (ICANN #53 in BA)
>   July 23  11:00 UTC
>   September 3  15:00 UTC
>   September 24  18:00 UTC
>   October 21  (ICANN #54 in Dublin)
>
> So why don't we calendar our prep calls accordingly now?  The NCSG monthly call intended to focus on GNSO Council Matters can remain on the Tuesday before the Thursday GNSO Council Mtg and would be chaired by the NCSG PC Chair.  And the 2nd NCSG monthly call can dive more deeply into substantive matters depending on the key issues of the moment and NCSG priorities (much broader than council mtg preparation) and it would be chaired by the NCSG Chair.
>
> So we could have a calendar of meetings along the following lines:
>
> 1.  The NCSG monthly meeting that is more focused on the GNSO Council Prep could be calendared for the following dates, which correspond to the Tuesday preceding the GNSO Council Thursday calls and the Sunday preceding the GNSO Council Public Meetings.  The timezone of the meeting could be one that is most convenient for members of the NCSG PC.
>
> February 8
> March 17
> April 14
> May 19
> June 21(ICANN #53 in BA)
> July 21
> Sept 1
> Sept 22
> October 18 (ICANN #54 in Dublin)
>
> 2.  The broader or issue specific NCSG monthly call could be calendared approximately 2 weeks later (on a Thursday) and with an opposite time zone as follows:
> January 29
> February 26
> April 2
> May 7
> June 11
> July 2
> August 13
> September 10
> October 8
>
> Of course we can stay flexible and reschedule any of the meetings as needed, but having a general framework and regularity and advance planning will help us to be more effective on these issues, I am sure.  And sharing more of the workload of chairing meetings and rotating time zones will also make it more accessible and less burdensome for participants.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
>   
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150123/d8d9f645/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Jan 25 16:40:01 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:40:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>	<7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54C50041.8050207@mail.utoronto.ca>

I recommend we do a full debrief on all the issues behind the PPSAI 
report.  Despite the fact that we have several members on that group, 
and we have always had representation at the meetings, we will need full 
and detailed comments on the draft report.
We would need that call sooner rather than later.
cheers SP
On 2015-01-22 13:23, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> I agree with the topic specific calls as well. In our regular calls we 
> only have the chance to fly over the topics, not to go deeper. That 
> would be an opportunity.
>
> Should we list 3-4 topics of relevance and try this for the next 
> months to see how it goes?
>
> Mar?lia
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com 
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a necessity
>     but unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average member.
>
>     Cheers
>
>     Bill
>
>
>>     On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Avri,
>>
>>     yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA
>>     stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal.
>>     I think we can an accountability call after frankfurt meeting and
>>     just before singapore
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>
>>         I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one
>>         monthly call for the membership on one or another of the
>>         massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked
>>         about doing this but never got very far.  I think we did 1.
>>
>>         avri
>>
>>
>>         On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>         Hi Amr,
>>>
>>>         thanks for these proposal,
>>>         regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for
>>>         the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1
>>>         hour for strategy/planning for this year
>>>
>>>         Rafik
>>>
>>>         2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>         <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>
>>>             Hi all,
>>>
>>>             I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new
>>>             duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a
>>>             disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy
>>>             these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything
>>>             I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>>
>>>             I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you
>>>             on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform
>>>             its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for
>>>             feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I
>>>             should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>
>>>             1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods;
>>>             with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to
>>>             determine which issues are important to our membership,
>>>             and identifying who would take the lead on each open
>>>             issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table
>>>             right now, especially in the aftermath of the
>>>             NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address
>>>             in separate emails.
>>>
>>>             2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted
>>>             and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to
>>>             change the current consensus building approach we now
>>>             use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the
>>>             contrary.
>>>
>>>             3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO
>>>             WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective to
>>>             prep comments when asked similar to public comment
>>>             periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update
>>>             the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make
>>>             sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit
>>>             comments when comments are asked for by the different
>>>             working groups.
>>>
>>>             4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short
>>>             briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the
>>>             general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy
>>>             call. I know this is more council work than it is PC
>>>             stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from
>>>             raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations
>>>             amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also
>>>             help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on
>>>             all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>
>>>             5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC
>>>             meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings;
>>>             the first being next month in Singapore.
>>>
>>>             6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up
>>>             the slack when/if necessary.
>>>
>>>             Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of
>>>             you would be highly appreciated.
>>>
>>>             Thanks.
>>>
>>>             Amr
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law 
> School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - 
> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150125/9cb60ee9/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Jan 25 18:42:34 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 17:42:34 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <54C50041.8050207@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C50041.8050207@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <B9A2C42B-0CC8-4626-961C-7F4CDDC62CAE@egyptig.org>

@Stephanie: +1

This is a very important PDP, and one I believe a great deal of those interested in whois should be updated on. The initial report on this PDP will be coming soon, so maybe after it is published?

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Jan 25, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> I recommend we do a full debrief on all the issues behind the PPSAI report.  Despite the fact that we have several members on that group, and we have always had representation at the meetings, we will need full and detailed comments on the draft report.
> We would need that call sooner rather than later.
> cheers SP
>> On 2015-01-22 13:23, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> I agree with the topic specific calls as well. In our regular calls we only have the chance to fly over the topics, not to go deeper. That would be an opportunity.
>> 
>> Should we list 3-4 topics of relevance and try this for the next months to see how it goes?
>> 
>> Mar?lia
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a necessity but unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average member.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I think we did 1.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> thanks for these proposal, 
>>>>>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for this year 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate emails.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC                                                         perspective to prep comments when asked similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit                                                         comments when comments are asked for by the different working groups.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if necessary.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be highly appreciated.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mar?lia Maciel
>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>> 
>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150125/225b31d1/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Jan 26 02:12:18 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:12:18 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <B9A2C42B-0CC8-4626-961C-7F4CDDC62CAE@egyptig.org>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C50041.8050207@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<B9A2C42B-0CC8-4626-961C-7F4CDDC62CAE@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmWhOvfkhSN=3mC9-A_FzhSs0rgTiGdT_4v8MUqsOkt7g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

as proposals for topics we get and:
- Accountability update (presented by Robin?, Avri?)
- PDP overview: introduction to PDP , for newcomers (presented by Avri?)
- PPSAI update (presented by Stephanie?)?

Best,

Rafik

2015-01-26 1:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> @Stephanie: +1
>
> This is a very important PDP, and one I believe a great deal of those
> interested in whois should be updated on. The initial report on this PDP
> will be coming soon, so maybe after it is published?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Sent from mobile
>
> On Jan 25, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> I recommend we do a full debrief on all the issues behind the PPSAI
> report.  Despite the fact that we have several members on that group, and
> we have always had representation at the meetings, we will need full and
> detailed comments on the draft report.
> We would need that call sooner rather than later.
> cheers SP
> On 2015-01-22 13:23, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>  I agree with the topic specific calls as well. In our regular calls we
> only have the chance to fly over the topics, not to go deeper. That would
> be an opportunity.
>
>  Should we list 3-4 topics of relevance and try this for the next months
> to see how it goes?
>
>  Mar?lia
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a necessity but
>> unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average member.
>>
>>  Cheers
>>
>>  Bill
>>
>>
>>  On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Avri,
>>
>>  yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and
>> was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an
>> accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>>
>>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call
>>> for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are
>>> going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I
>>> think we did 1.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Amr,
>>>
>>>  thanks for these proposal,
>>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions
>>> (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for
>>> this year
>>>
>>>  Rafik
>>>
>>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>  I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for
>>>> the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most
>>>> of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything
>>>> I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>>>
>>>>  I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see
>>>> what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and
>>>> would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what
>>>> I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>>
>>>>  1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with
>>>> announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are
>>>> important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on
>>>> each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right
>>>> now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I
>>>> will try to address in separate emails.
>>>>
>>>>  2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved
>>>> by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus
>>>> building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts
>>>> to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>  3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is
>>>> important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to
>>>> public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the
>>>> NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some
>>>> initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the
>>>> different working groups.
>>>>
>>>>  4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of
>>>> motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to
>>>> every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is
>>>> PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising
>>>> awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG
>>>> membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not
>>>> as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>>
>>>>  5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that
>>>> take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in
>>>> Singapore.
>>>>
>>>>  6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack
>>>> when/if necessary.
>>>>
>>>>  Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be
>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>  Amr
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>  *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
>  DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>  Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150126/2f309830/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon Jan 26 02:51:35 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 16:51:35 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmWhOvfkhSN=3mC9-A_FzhSs0rgTiGdT_4v8MUqsOkt7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C50041.8050207@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<B9A2C42B-0CC8-4626-961C-7F4CDDC62CAE@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmWhOvfkhSN=3mC9-A_FzhSs0rgTiGdT_4v8MUqsOkt7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C7F585F6-0F78-4B57-83F3-55ED284B07FC@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Rafik.  Of course I'll be glad to update on accountability.  Can we find any time in the agenda to discuss the GAC proposal on "geographic names"?  There will be a dedicated session on the topic in Singapore.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 25, 2015, at 4:12 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> as proposals for topics we get and:
> - Accountability update (presented by Robin?, Avri?)
> - PDP overview: introduction to PDP , for newcomers (presented by Avri?)
> - PPSAI update (presented by Stephanie?)?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-01-26 1:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> @Stephanie: +1
> 
> This is a very important PDP, and one I believe a great deal of those interested in whois should be updated on. The initial report on this PDP will be coming soon, so maybe after it is published?
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> Amr
> 
> Sent from mobile
> 
> On Jan 25, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
>> I recommend we do a full debrief on all the issues behind the PPSAI report.  Despite the fact that we have several members on that group, and we have always had representation at the meetings, we will need full and detailed comments on the draft report.
>> We would need that call sooner rather than later.
>> cheers SP
>> On 2015-01-22 13:23, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>> I agree with the topic specific calls as well. In our regular calls we only have the chance to fly over the topics, not to go deeper. That would be an opportunity.
>>> 
>>> Should we list 3-4 topics of relevance and try this for the next months to see how it goes?
>>> 
>>> Mar?lia
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a necessity but unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average member.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an accountability call                                     after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>>> 
>>>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I think we did 1.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for these proposal, 
>>>>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for this year 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate emails.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked                                                         similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the different working groups.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if necessary.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be highly appreciated.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Mar?lia Maciel
>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>> 
>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150125/3cfd57c8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150125/3cfd57c8/attachment-0001.sig>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Jan 26 03:36:18 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:36:18 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <C7F585F6-0F78-4B57-83F3-55ED284B07FC@ipjustice.org>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C50041.8050207@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<B9A2C42B-0CC8-4626-961C-7F4CDDC62CAE@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmWhOvfkhSN=3mC9-A_FzhSs0rgTiGdT_4v8MUqsOkt7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7F585F6-0F78-4B57-83F3-55ED284B07FC@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmC1MMpZ25ttvzxUJNvTAcW2L0Bvxy6q_EPvHNoihU0wQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

you mean during the NCSG CD meeting?

Rafik

2015-01-26 9:51 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:

> Thanks, Rafik.  Of course I'll be glad to update on accountability.  Can
> we find any time in the agenda to discuss the GAC proposal on "geographic
> names"?  There will be a dedicated session on the topic in Singapore.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2015, at 4:12 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> as proposals for topics we get and:
> - Accountability update (presented by Robin?, Avri?)
> - PDP overview: introduction to PDP , for newcomers (presented by Avri?)
> - PPSAI update (presented by Stephanie?)?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-01-26 1:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> @Stephanie: +1
>>
>> This is a very important PDP, and one I believe a great deal of those
>> interested in whois should be updated on. The initial report on this PDP
>> will be coming soon, so maybe after it is published?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> Sent from mobile
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I recommend we do a full debrief on all the issues behind the PPSAI
>> report.  Despite the fact that we have several members on that group, and
>> we have always had representation at the meetings, we will need full and
>> detailed comments on the draft report.
>> We would need that call sooner rather than later.
>> cheers SP
>> On 2015-01-22 13:23, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>
>>  I agree with the topic specific calls as well. In our regular calls we
>> only have the chance to fly over the topics, not to go deeper. That would
>> be an opportunity.
>>
>>  Should we list 3-4 topics of relevance and try this for the next months
>> to see how it goes?
>>
>>  Mar?lia
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a necessity but
>>> unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average member.
>>>
>>>  Cheers
>>>
>>>  Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Avri,
>>>
>>>  yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and
>>> was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an
>>> accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>>>
>>>  Rafik
>>>
>>> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>
>>>>  Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>>>
>>>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call
>>>> for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are
>>>> going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I
>>>> think we did 1.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>
>>>>  thanks for these proposal,
>>>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions
>>>> (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for
>>>> this year
>>>>
>>>>  Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>  I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for
>>>>> the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most
>>>>> of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do everything
>>>>> I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see
>>>>> what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and
>>>>> would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what
>>>>> I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>>>
>>>>>  1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with
>>>>> announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues are
>>>>> important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on
>>>>> each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the table right
>>>>> now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I
>>>>> will try to address in separate emails.
>>>>>
>>>>>  2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and
>>>>> approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current
>>>>> consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are
>>>>> thoughts to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>>  3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This is
>>>>> important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to
>>>>> public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the
>>>>> NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some
>>>>> initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the
>>>>> different working groups.
>>>>>
>>>>>  4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of
>>>>> motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to
>>>>> every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is
>>>>> PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising
>>>>> awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG
>>>>> membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not
>>>>> as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>>>
>>>>>  5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings
>>>>> that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in
>>>>> Singapore.
>>>>>
>>>>>  6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack
>>>>> when/if necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be
>>>>> highly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Amr
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  *Mar?lia Maciel*
>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
>> School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>>  DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>>  Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150126/176a6b06/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Jan 26 04:31:13 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:31:13 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmWhOvfkhSN=3mC9-A_FzhSs0rgTiGdT_4v8MUqsOkt7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C50041.8050207@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<B9A2C42B-0CC8-4626-961C-7F4CDDC62CAE@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmWhOvfkhSN=3mC9-A_FzhSs0rgTiGdT_4v8MUqsOkt7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54C5A6F1.7010409@mail.utoronto.ca>

I would be happy to talk about PPSAI, but I recommend we get Kathy 
Kleiman to do so as well.  There is a lot to cover, and she has been a 
powerhouse on the working group.
cheers Steph
On 2015-01-25 19:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as proposals for topics we get and:
> - Accountability update (presented by Robin?, Avri?)
> - PDP overview: introduction to PDP , for newcomers (presented by Avri?)
> - PPSAI update (presented by Stephanie?)?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-01-26 1:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>
>     @Stephanie: +1
>
>     This is a very important PDP, and one I believe a great deal of
>     those interested in whois should be updated on. The initial report
>     on this PDP will be coming soon, so maybe after it is published?
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>
>     Sent from mobile
>
>     On Jan 25, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>>     I recommend we do a full debrief on all the issues behind the
>>     PPSAI report.  Despite the fact that we have several members on
>>     that group, and we have always had representation at the
>>     meetings, we will need full and detailed comments on the draft
>>     report.
>>     We would need that call sooner rather than later.
>>     cheers SP
>>     On 2015-01-22 13:23, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>     I agree with the topic specific calls as well. In our regular
>>>     calls we only have the chance to fly over the topics, not to go
>>>     deeper. That would be an opportunity.
>>>
>>>     Should we list 3-4 topics of relevance and try this for the next
>>>     months to see how it goes?
>>>
>>>     Mar?lia
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, William Drake
>>>     <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a
>>>         necessity but unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average
>>>         member.
>>>
>>>         Cheers
>>>
>>>         Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>>         On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Hi Avri,
>>>>
>>>>         yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA
>>>>         stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg
>>>>         proposal. I think we can an accountability call after
>>>>         frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>>>>
>>>>         Rafik
>>>>
>>>>         2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>>         <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>>>
>>>>             Hi,
>>>>
>>>>             Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>>>
>>>>             I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least
>>>>             one monthly call for the membership on one or another
>>>>             of the massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik
>>>>             and I talked about doing this but never got very far. 
>>>>             I think we did 1.
>>>>
>>>>             avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>             Hi Amr,
>>>>>
>>>>>             thanks for these proposal,
>>>>>             regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1
>>>>>             hour for the motions (if there are some substantive)
>>>>>             and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for this year
>>>>>
>>>>>             Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>             2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr
>>>>>             <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>                 I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my
>>>>>                 new duties off for the PC this year. This must
>>>>>                 have been a disappointment and a pain to most of
>>>>>                 you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but
>>>>>                 promise to do everything I can to make up for it
>>>>>                 over the course of this year.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts
>>>>>                 with you on how I see what I need to do to make
>>>>>                 the PC perform its function more efficiently, and
>>>>>                 would be grateful for feedback from all of you.
>>>>>                 These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some
>>>>>                 tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment
>>>>>                 periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the
>>>>>                 PC list to determine which issues are important to
>>>>>                 our membership, and identifying who would take the
>>>>>                 lead on each open issue. There are obviously some
>>>>>                 open issues on the table right now, especially in
>>>>>                 the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC,
>>>>>                 that I will try to address in separate emails.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments
>>>>>                 drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see
>>>>>                 a reason to change the current consensus building
>>>>>                 approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless
>>>>>                 there are thoughts to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO
>>>>>                 WGs/CWGs. This is important from a PC perspective
>>>>>                 to prep comments when asked similar to public
>>>>>                 comment periods. This does not mean I personally
>>>>>                 plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing
>>>>>                 PDPs, but at least make sure there is some
>>>>>                 initiative for NCSG to submit comments when
>>>>>                 comments are asked for by the different working
>>>>>                 groups.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping
>>>>>                 short briefs of motions before council to be
>>>>>                 delivered to the general membership prior to every
>>>>>                 monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more
>>>>>                 council work than it is PC stuff, but all the
>>>>>                 councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising
>>>>>                 awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations
>>>>>                 amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will
>>>>>                 also help inform councillors who are not as up to
>>>>>                 speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for
>>>>>                 the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN
>>>>>                 public meetings; the first being next month in
>>>>>                 Singapore.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to
>>>>>                 pick up the slack when/if necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from
>>>>>                 all of you would be highly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>>>                 PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>                 PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>                 http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     *Mar?lia Maciel*
>>>     Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV
>>>     Direito Rio
>>>     Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society -
>>>     FGV Law School
>>>     http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>>
>>>     DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>>>     <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>>>     PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>>>     Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>>>     http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150125/1c8e7dac/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Jan 26 16:34:45 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:34:45 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Translation &
	Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial
	report open for public comment
In-Reply-To: <C7921A3E-8532-4A26-B883-F74895D0DF0C@egyptig.org>
References: <DB4PR01MB046163C0617B63328D4D5CCCDD6C0@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<323F5DBC-EA2A-4002-97AA-56B31B49E263@egyptig.org>
	<C7921A3E-8532-4A26-B883-F74895D0DF0C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <31462F2D-F0E6-4C69-87F7-31AA3BD9B0DF@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?ve received a few off-list responses to this, and some changes were made by Kathy, but seeing that the submission deadline is less than a week, I?d like to now start the consensus call on this comment being endorsed by the NCSG.

There is still some ongoing debate regarding the claim that searching the WHOIS in the original language is more reliable, but this is a small matter as far as I?m concerned.

Could I please ask the policy committee members to now voice any concerns they may have with this draft comment, and state wether they are happy endorsing it or not?

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I?ve made a first draft of comments to be submitted in response to the public comment period on the initial report of the translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. The draft can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vlwGo-jbItBJ3R5ycrs30-Q3i_3Fbh2HeyJskN6JXo4/edit
> 
> The deadline to submit comments is February first, so I would appreciate any and all comment as soon as possible so that the the NCSG policy committee can endorse the input before the submission deadline.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Chris,
>> 
>> Thanks for sharing this with the NCUC (I?ve cc?ed the NCSG-Discuss list as well). This is the first GNSO PDP in which I?ve participated and fully endorse the recommendations in the initial report. I?d be happy to help draft input to the public comment period by the NCSG, but having had my views reflected rather adequately in the working group?s recommendations, I?d also be grateful to hear the views of others.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>> 
>>> As promised in the recent NCSG call, here is a link to the Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report and public comment:
>>> 
>>> www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-16-en 
>>> 
>>> The report contains the WG's discussion and puts the arguments it has gathered to the community. It provides both detailed arguments in favor and opposing mandatory transformation and indicates that a majority of the Working Group currently recommends against mandatory transformation and/or transliteration of Contact Information. The Working Group hopes that community feedback will maximize its consensus level for the Final Report and, therefore, its members strongly encourage the Community to provide additional arguments in favor/opposing mandatory transformation of contact information data further to facilitate the WG's consensus building process.
>>> 
>>> Public comment is open till February 1, 2015.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Chris Dillon.
>>> Co-Chair of Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>> --
>>> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss




From aelsadr  Mon Jan 26 16:42:16 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:42:16 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Work for 2015
In-Reply-To: <54C5A6F1.7010409@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <12F106F5-EB97-4CC4-B180-1B5D07DD7C63@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmP+L7ao+xdT9pkQUbd6w_G0noxAzoD30jC+wNLZReicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BD9E91.1020700@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk6f3Kx9mCOFtrFCiMNLfCuVRZHTMJpkasGg_fpbbNsQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CBB2827-4D05-4DA4-BAB1-40146A118301@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK0bdHhbtsOcbF--t8nM6ntVJ5SddRfB=PLVTKg3VRrV8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C50041.8050207@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<B9A2C42B-0CC8-4626-961C-7F4CDDC62CAE@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmWhOvfkhSN=3mC9-A_FzhSs0rgTiGdT_4v8MUqsOkt7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C5A6F1.7010409@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <C2A3D9BF-B1E3-41D1-8415-2A726DCB2B0E@egyptig.org>

I would say that ?powerhouse? is an appropriately accurate way to describe Kathy?s participation. :)

Amr

On Jan 26, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I would be happy to talk about PPSAI, but I recommend we get Kathy Kleiman to do so as well.  There is a lot to cover, and she has been a powerhouse on the working group.
> cheers Steph
> On 2015-01-25 19:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> as proposals for topics we get and:
>> - Accountability update (presented by Robin?, Avri?)
>> - PDP overview: introduction to PDP , for newcomers (presented by Avri?)
>> - PPSAI update (presented by Stephanie?)?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2015-01-26 1:42 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>> @Stephanie: +1
>> 
>> This is a very important PDP, and one I believe a great deal of those interested in whois should be updated on. The initial report on this PDP will be coming soon, so maybe after it is published?
>> 
>> Thanks. 
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> Sent from mobile
>> 
>> On Jan 25, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> I recommend we do a full debrief on all the issues behind the PPSAI report.  Despite the fact that we have several members on that group, and we have always had representation at the meetings, we will need full and detailed comments on the draft report.
>>> We would need that call sooner rather than later.
>>> cheers SP
>>> On 2015-01-22 13:23, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>> I agree with the topic specific calls as well. In our regular calls we only have the chance to fly over the topics, not to go deeper. That would be an opportunity.
>>>> 
>>>> Should we list 3-4 topics of relevance and try this for the next months to see how it goes?
>>>> 
>>>> Mar?lia
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Topic calls would be great. Council-based calls are a necessity but unsurprisingly less of a pull to the average member.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> yes the idea to have a topic-call, we did one for IANA stewardship and was helpful for our comment to the CCWg proposal. I think we can an accountability call after frankfurt meeting and just before singapore
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2015-01-20 9:17 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr, glad to see you on the job.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would also like to suggest that we schedule at least one monthly call for the membership on one or another of the massive policy efforts that are going on.  Rafik and I talked about doing this but never got very far.  I think we did 1.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 19-Jan-15 15:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> thanks for these proposal, 
>>>>>> regarding PC meeting in Singapore, I may suggest 1 hour for the motions (if there are some substantive) and having 1 hour for strategy/planning for this year 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2015-01-19 23:47 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I know I?ve had a really late start to kicking my new duties off for the PC this year. This must have been a disappointment and a pain to most of you. Been busy these past couple of weeks, but promise to do                                                           everything I can to make up for it over the course of this year.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I wanted to start off by sharing some thoughts with you on how I see what I need to do to make the PC perform its function more efficiently, and would be grateful for feedback from all of you. These are my ideas on what I should do, but I some tasks may have slipped my mind:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Keeping a close eye on open public comment periods; with announcements (+ reminders) to the PC list to determine which issues                                                           are important to our membership, and identifying who would take the lead on each open issue. There are obviously some open issues on the                                                           table right now, especially in the aftermath of the NCPH intercessional in DC, that I will try to address in separate emails.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Sync that with a schedule on getting comments drafted and approved by the committee. I don?t see a reason to change the current consensus building approach we now use. Silence = consent, unless there are thoughts to the contrary.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3. Following up with NCSG members in various GNSO WGs/CWGs. This                                                           is important from a PC perspective to prep comments when asked similar to public comment periods. This does not mean I personally plan to update the NCSG wiki space on ongoing PDPs, but at least make sure there is some initiative for NCSG to submit comments when comments are asked for by the different working groups.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 4. Asking councillors to take lead on prepping short briefs of motions before council to be delivered to the general membership prior to every monthly NCSG policy call. I know this is more council work than it is PC stuff, but all the councillors are on the PC. Apart from raising awareness on various GNSO policy recommendations amongst the NCSG membership, I?m hoping this will also help inform councillors who are not as up to speed on all of the motions on the meetings? agendas.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 5. I will obviously need to help set agendas for the PC meetings that take place at the ICANN public meetings; the first being next month in Singapore.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 6. I would like at least one alternate chair to pick up the slack when/if necessary.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Those are what I?ve come up with. Feedback from all of you would be                                                           highly appreciated.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Mar?lia Maciel
>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>>> 
>>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>>>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150126/25dfa57c/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Jan 26 16:46:08 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:46:08 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Idea for scheduling NCSG Calls in 2015
In-Reply-To: <3B8870D0-DF82-4625-B7F7-C87CCF24C474@ipjustice.org>
References: <3B8870D0-DF82-4625-B7F7-C87CCF24C474@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <85814A1E-7B32-4DE8-83E6-C6D3E2A62F96@egyptig.org>

Hi,

There is a council call scheduled to take place on Jan 29th as well. Not exactly sure why it is so necessary, but maybe just to make sure that councillors are up-to-speed on the the CWG and CCWG?s updates pre-Singapore.

So far there are no motions set to be voted on.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 22, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> wrote:

> All,
> 
> Looking at the GNSO's Master Calender:
>    http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
> We know the GNSO Council will be meeting on the following dates in 2015:
> Feb 11 (ICANN #52 in Singapore)
> March 19  18:00 UTC
> April 16  11:00 UTC
> May 21  15:00 UTC
> June 24 (ICANN #53 in BA)
> July 23  11:00 UTC
> September 3  15:00 UTC
> September 24  18:00 UTC
> October 21  (ICANN #54 in Dublin)
> 
> So why don't we calendar our prep calls accordingly now?  The NCSG monthly call intended to focus on GNSO Council Matters can remain on the Tuesday before the Thursday GNSO Council Mtg and would be chaired by the NCSG PC Chair.  And the 2nd NCSG monthly call can dive more deeply into substantive matters depending on the key issues of the moment and NCSG priorities (much broader than council mtg preparation) and it would be chaired by the NCSG Chair.
> 
> So we could have a calendar of meetings along the following lines:
> 
> 1.  The NCSG monthly meeting that is more focused on the GNSO Council Prep could be calendared for the following dates, which correspond to the Tuesday preceding the GNSO Council Thursday calls and the Sunday preceding the GNSO Council Public Meetings.  The timezone of the meeting could be one that is most convenient for members of the NCSG PC.
> 
> February 8
> March 17
> April 14
> May 19
> June 21(ICANN #53 in BA)
> July 21
> Sept 1
> Sept 22
> October 18 (ICANN #54 in Dublin)
> 
> 2.  The broader or issue specific NCSG monthly call could be calendared approximately 2 weeks later (on a Thursday) and with an opposite time zone as follows:
> January 29 
> February 26 
> April 2 
> May 7 
> June 11 
> July 2 
> August 13
> September 10
> October 8
> 
> Of course we can stay flexible and reschedule any of the meetings as needed, but having a general framework and regularity and advance planning will help us to be more effective on these issues, I am sure.  And sharing more of the workload of chairing meetings and rotating time zones will also make it more accessible and less burdensome for participants.
> 
> Thoughts?  
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Mon Jan 26 16:52:53 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:52:53 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3wicuEvXuOHWcWMPN__Mz3TwJget+3k27HpJy38Deu2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<E37A2750-574A-449E-BFEE-FAB233B16CDB@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3wicuEvXuOHWcWMPN__Mz3TwJget+3k27HpJy38Deu2A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <257BAA75-4666-4182-96F8-6505ACC84E8A@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Apologies about the late response on this:

On Jan 22, 2015, at 7:14 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Thanks so much for this Amr. Once you collect the info and volunteers, where and how do you suggest we make the information available?  It would be good to have it visible.

I?ll try to always keep this page up-to-date. I had done some work on this before, but that was a few months ago, before the accountability-CCWG started its work, so needs more updating. This page will help map out who is involved in current WGs, as well as who has been involved in previous ones.

> I volunteer to work on the public interest front. I agree with Bill that it is more realistic to have an input and structured discussion about it in Buenos Aires. But one thing we can do for Singapore is to have some discussion about the relation between the public interest and human rights in ICANN.

Thanks?, and I also think Bill?s approach seems quite reasonable.

> Is there a list where the public interest topics are being discussed? Can someone point me?

I don?t believe there is one at the moment.

Thanks again.

Amr


From rafik.dammak  Mon Jan 26 16:59:58 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 23:59:58 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <257BAA75-4666-4182-96F8-6505ACC84E8A@egyptig.org>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<E37A2750-574A-449E-BFEE-FAB233B16CDB@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3wicuEvXuOHWcWMPN__Mz3TwJget+3k27HpJy38Deu2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<257BAA75-4666-4182-96F8-6505ACC84E8A@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=qN3PvgcfRxdy_d9pJgx7AQ3oEf_f5MUfAb75yrJfUmA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

>
>
> On Jan 22, 2015, at 7:14 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks so much for this Amr. Once you collect the info and volunteers,
> where and how do you suggest we make the information available?  It would
> be good to have it visible.
>
> I?ll try to always keep this page up-to-date. I had done some work on this
> before, but that was a few months ago, before the accountability-CCWG
> started its work, so needs more updating. This page will help map out who
> is involved in current WGs, as well as who has been involved in previous
> ones.
>

the page of NCSG members in WGs&CCWG
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40928134 , it can
be updated and get more info there.
we can use the GNSO project list somehow.

Rafik


> > I volunteer to work on the public interest front. I agree with Bill that
> it is more realistic to have an input and structured discussion about it in
> Buenos Aires. But one thing we can do for Singapore is to have some
> discussion about the relation between the public interest and human rights
> in ICANN.
>
> Thanks?, and I also think Bill?s approach seems quite reasonable.
>
> > Is there a list where the public interest topics are being discussed?
> Can someone point me?
>
> I don?t believe there is one at the moment.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150126/f8b06f90/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Jan 26 17:25:09 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:25:09 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=qN3PvgcfRxdy_d9pJgx7AQ3oEf_f5MUfAb75yrJfUmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmCuxKG2i-P4TScbQ06U6JnyhOuT+ihtRSkp-SuN48iWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<E37A2750-574A-449E-BFEE-FAB233B16CDB@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3wicuEvXuOHWcWMPN__Mz3TwJget+3k27HpJy38Deu2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<257BAA75-4666-4182-96F8-6505ACC84E8A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=qN3PvgcfRxdy_d9pJgx7AQ3oEf_f5MUfAb75yrJfUmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A996BB46-6C11-4D75-8176-D8079DA370BA@egyptig.org>

Whoops. Forgot to put in the link to the page.

Thanks Rafik.

Amr

On Jan 26, 2015, at 3:59 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> 
> On Jan 22, 2015, at 7:14 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks so much for this Amr. Once you collect the info and volunteers, where and how do you suggest we make the information available?  It would be good to have it visible.
> 
> I?ll try to always keep this page up-to-date. I had done some work on this before, but that was a few months ago, before the accountability-CCWG started its work, so needs more updating. This page will help map out who is involved in current WGs, as well as who has been involved in previous ones.
> 
> the page of NCSG members in WGs&CCWGhttps://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40928134 , it can be updated and get more info there.
> we can use the GNSO project list somehow. 
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> > I volunteer to work on the public interest front. I agree with Bill that it is more realistic to have an input and structured discussion about it in Buenos Aires. But one thing we can do for Singapore is to have some discussion about the relation between the public interest and human rights in ICANN.
> 
> Thanks?, and I also think Bill?s approach seems quite reasonable.
> 
> > Is there a list where the public interest topics are being discussed? Can someone point me?
> 
> I don?t believe there is one at the moment.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150126/b9250d2c/attachment.html>


From mshears  Mon Jan 26 17:26:18 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:26:18 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <54C65C9A.7030106@cdt.org>

Hi Amr

Interested in IV - PI.

Thanks.

Matthew
On 1/20/2015 1:15 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I?m trying to get the ongoing PC projects listed, and who might be 
> interested in following up on each of them. Here?s what I have so far, 
> but I?d appreciate a heads-up on anything I am missing:
>
> I. Open GNSO Public Comment Periods (PCP):
>
> 1. Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG 
> initial report 
> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-12-16-en) 
> - PCP closes *February 1st*.
> 2. Policy and Implementation WG initial report 
> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en) 
> - PCP closes *March 3rd*.
>
> I?m on both these WGs, and serving as GNSO council liaison to both of 
> them. I?m willing to coordinate/draft responses to both of them.
>
> II. Other Open Public Comment Periods of possible interest:
>
> 1. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report 
> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en) 
> - PCP closes *Feb 27th*. This is probably something we might find 
> interesting, and may want to write something up on. Anyone on the PC 
> willing to take a lead on it?
>
> III. Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN 
> Enterprise Risks - Rafik sent an earlier message about this to the PC 
> list, as did Bill to the NCUC list. The deadline to submit feedback is 
> *Feb 5th*, so a bit pressing.
>
> IV. There are ongoing discussions regarding the ?public interest? 
> context within ICANN:
>
> 1. On one hand, there is the review of the PICs and its review 
> process. There seems to be a suggestion to create a working party (I 
> guess similar to that dealing with the GNSO review) to do the work on 
> this, while freezing the new gTLD strings until this issue is 
> resolved. I think it would be great if we could finalise our position 
> on how we believe this should move forward *before the Singapore meeting*.
>
> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in 
> the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing 
> work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. 
> The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and 
> certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try 
> to get on top of this *prior to the Singapore meeting*, and perhaps 
> bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. If we have 
> some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we can propose to the 
> board how to move forward with this. Anyone care to volunteer for this 
> one?
>
> V. NPOC?s statement to the EU on proposed regulation with regard to 
> domain names and trademarks:
>
> I?m obviously coming back to this quite late, but would appreciate an 
> update from Sam on the aftermath of this. I?m guessing the statement 
> was submitted, but am not sure what was being asked of the NCSG-PC on 
> this topic. It was certainly a great statement on NPOC?s part, but it 
> being an NPOC statement, it didn?t require NCSG endorsement of any 
> kind, and I didn?t get the impression that was being asked for anyway. 
> @Sam: Is there anything NPOC would like us to do about this right now?
>
> I?ll be following up with each of these individually, but would 
> appreciate anything I missed being flagged.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150126/75815b2f/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Mon Jan 26 18:41:11 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:41:11 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Translation &
 Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report open for
 public comment
In-Reply-To: <31462F2D-F0E6-4C69-87F7-31AA3BD9B0DF@egyptig.org>
References: <DB4PR01MB046163C0617B63328D4D5CCCDD6C0@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>	<323F5DBC-EA2A-4002-97AA-56B31B49E263@egyptig.org>	<C7921A3E-8532-4A26-B883-F74895D0DF0C@egyptig.org>
	<31462F2D-F0E6-4C69-87F7-31AA3BD9B0DF@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <54C66E27.1060603@acm.org>

hi,

I am fine with it, though i would prefer it without the ask on #2.

Why are we asking for a change to #2?

I am sure we are going to have to explain that one.  do we not want
these rules to apply to future systems? whatever RDS becomes it is the
future system, and Whois is, after all,  a RDS.

avri

On 26-Jan-15 09:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I?ve received a few off-list responses to this, and some changes were made by Kathy, but seeing that the submission deadline is less than a week, I?d like to now start the consensus call on this comment being endorsed by the NCSG.
>
> There is still some ongoing debate regarding the claim that searching the WHOIS in the original language is more reliable, but this is a small matter as far as I?m concerned.
>
> Could I please ask the policy committee members to now voice any concerns they may have with this draft comment, and state wether they are happy endorsing it or not?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I?ve made a first draft of comments to be submitted in response to the public comment period on the initial report of the translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. The draft can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vlwGo-jbItBJ3R5ycrs30-Q3i_3Fbh2HeyJskN6JXo4/edit
>>
>> The deadline to submit comments is February first, so I would appreciate any and all comment as soon as possible so that the the NCSG policy committee can endorse the input before the submission deadline.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing this with the NCUC (I?ve cc?ed the NCSG-Discuss list as well). This is the first GNSO PDP in which I?ve participated and fully endorse the recommendations in the initial report. I?d be happy to help draft input to the public comment period by the NCSG, but having had my views reflected rather adequately in the working group?s recommendations, I?d also be grateful to hear the views of others.
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> As promised in the recent NCSG call, here is a link to the Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report and public comment:
>>>>
>>>> www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-16-en 
>>>>
>>>> The report contains the WG's discussion and puts the arguments it has gathered to the community. It provides both detailed arguments in favor and opposing mandatory transformation and indicates that a majority of the Working Group currently recommends against mandatory transformation and/or transliteration of Contact Information. The Working Group hopes that community feedback will maximize its consensus level for the Final Report and, therefore, its members strongly encourage the Community to provide additional arguments in favor/opposing mandatory transformation of contact information data further to facilitate the WG's consensus building process.
>>>>
>>>> Public comment is open till February 1, 2015.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Chris Dillon.
>>>> Co-Chair of Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>> --
>>>> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon 
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150126/63e35c6a/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Jan 26 19:18:20 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:18:20 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Translation &
	Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial
	report open for public comment
In-Reply-To: <54C66E27.1060603@acm.org>
References: <DB4PR01MB046163C0617B63328D4D5CCCDD6C0@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>	<323F5DBC-EA2A-4002-97AA-56B31B49E263@egyptig.org>	<C7921A3E-8532-4A26-B883-F74895D0DF0C@egyptig.org>
	<31462F2D-F0E6-4C69-87F7-31AA3BD9B0DF@egyptig.org>
	<54C66E27.1060603@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CCFA0A87-3585-46EE-A4F2-33906D362282@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback Avri. The comment had originally read RDS, but was changed to (I believe) avoid implying that any of the EWG recommendations are actually GNSO policy as of yet. This was something I had also repetitively reminded the WG over the course of its work. The comment does however specify that the initial report in rec #2 should read ?WHOIS databases, now and in the future, ??, so I guess that includes the envisioned future RDS.

Some other changes will probably be made to the initial report, where the WHOIS/RDS is referred to as DNRD (Domain Name Really Daemon). I?m not entirely sure that?s even accurate, but seemed to have been used as a reference in the internationalised registration data (IRD) WG final report, which recommended an issue report that led to this PDP. That was commented on when a webinar was held presenting the recommendations in this report.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Jan 26, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> hi,
> 
> I am fine with it, though i would prefer it without the ask on #2.
> 
> Why are we asking for a change to #2?
> 
> I am sure we are going to have to explain that one.  do we not want these rules to apply to future systems? whatever RDS becomes it is the future system, and Whois is, after all,  a RDS.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 26-Jan-15 09:34, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I?ve received a few off-list responses to this, and some changes were made by Kathy, but seeing that the submission deadline is less than a week, I?d like to now start the consensus call on this comment being endorsed by the NCSG.
>> 
>> There is still some ongoing debate regarding the claim that searching the WHOIS in the original language is more reliable, but this is a small matter as far as I?m concerned.
>> 
>> Could I please ask the policy committee members to now voice any concerns they may have with this draft comment, and state wether they are happy endorsing it or not?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I?ve made a first draft of comments to be submitted in response to the public comment period on the initial report of the translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. The draft can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vlwGo-jbItBJ3R5ycrs30-Q3i_3Fbh2HeyJskN6JXo4/edit
>>> 
>>> The deadline to submit comments is February first, so I would appreciate any and all comment as soon as possible so that the the NCSG policy committee can endorse the input before the submission deadline.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for sharing this with the NCUC (I?ve cc?ed the NCSG-Discuss list as well). This is the first GNSO PDP in which I?ve participated and fully endorse the recommendations in the initial report. I?d be happy to help draft input to the public comment period by the NCSG, but having had my views reflected rather adequately in the working group?s recommendations, I?d also be grateful to hear the views of others.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks again.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>> 
>>>>> As promised in the recent NCSG call, here is a link to the Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report and public comment:
>>>>> 
>>>>> www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-16-en 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The report contains the WG's discussion and puts the arguments it has gathered to the community. It provides both detailed arguments in favor and opposing mandatory transformation and indicates that a majority of the Working Group currently recommends against mandatory transformation and/or transliteration of Contact Information. The Working Group hopes that community feedback will maximize its consensus level for the Final Report and, therefore, its members strongly encourage the Community to provide additional arguments in favor/opposing mandatory transformation of contact information data further to facilitate the WG's consensus building process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Public comment is open till February 1, 2015.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Chris Dillon.
>>>>> Co-Chair of Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>> --
>>>>> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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/20150126/59df6167/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Jan 27 03:11:58 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:11:58 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Translation &
 Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report open for
 public comment
In-Reply-To: <31462F2D-F0E6-4C69-87F7-31AA3BD9B0DF@egyptig.org>
References: <DB4PR01MB046163C0617B63328D4D5CCCDD6C0@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<323F5DBC-EA2A-4002-97AA-56B31B49E263@egyptig.org>
	<C7921A3E-8532-4A26-B883-F74895D0DF0C@egyptig.org>
	<31462F2D-F0E6-4C69-87F7-31AA3BD9B0DF@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkD=oxHmQ=8WWZv1eGO74mRpG4pDmg3E9HcS-r8RVGiHQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

I am fine with the statement. shall we add as references, previous
submissions from NCSG to the WG, I recall that we responded to the
questionnaire before.

Best Regards,
Rafik

2015-01-26 23:34 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I?ve received a few off-list responses to this, and some changes were made
> by Kathy, but seeing that the submission deadline is less than a week, I?d
> like to now start the consensus call on this comment being endorsed by the
> NCSG.
>
> There is still some ongoing debate regarding the claim that searching the
> WHOIS in the original language is more reliable, but this is a small matter
> as far as I?m concerned.
>
> Could I please ask the policy committee members to now voice any concerns
> they may have with this draft comment, and state wether they are happy
> endorsing it or not?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I?ve made a first draft of comments to be submitted in response to the
> public comment period on the initial report of the translation and
> transliteration of contact information PDP WG. The draft can be found here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vlwGo-jbItBJ3R5ycrs30-Q3i_3Fbh2HeyJskN6JXo4/edit
> >
> > The deadline to submit comments is February first, so I would appreciate
> any and all comment as soon as possible so that the the NCSG policy
> committee can endorse the input before the submission deadline.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Chris,
> >>
> >> Thanks for sharing this with the NCUC (I?ve cc?ed the NCSG-Discuss list
> as well). This is the first GNSO PDP in which I?ve participated and fully
> endorse the recommendations in the initial report. I?d be happy to help
> draft input to the public comment period by the NCSG, but having had my
> views reflected rather adequately in the working group?s recommendations,
> I?d also be grateful to hear the views of others.
> >>
> >> Thanks again.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >>
> >> On Dec 16, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear colleagues,
> >>>
> >>> As promised in the recent NCSG call, here is a link to the Translation
> & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report and
> public comment:
> >>>
> >>> www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-16-en
> >>>
> >>> The report contains the WG's discussion and puts the arguments it has
> gathered to the community. It provides both detailed arguments in favor and
> opposing mandatory transformation and indicates that a majority of the
> Working Group currently recommends against mandatory transformation and/or
> transliteration of Contact Information. The Working Group hopes that
> community feedback will maximize its consensus level for the Final Report
> and, therefore, its members strongly encourage the Community to provide
> additional arguments in favor/opposing mandatory transformation of contact
> information data further to facilitate the WG's consensus building process.
> >>>
> >>> Public comment is open till February 1, 2015.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Chris Dillon.
> >>> Co-Chair of Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
> >>> --
> >>> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital
> Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int
> 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150127/44be8503/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Jan 27 05:11:08 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:11:08 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Translation &
 Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report open for
 public comment
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkD=oxHmQ=8WWZv1eGO74mRpG4pDmg3E9HcS-r8RVGiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DB4PR01MB046163C0617B63328D4D5CCCDD6C0@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>	<323F5DBC-EA2A-4002-97AA-56B31B49E263@egyptig.org>	<C7921A3E-8532-4A26-B883-F74895D0DF0C@egyptig.org>	<31462F2D-F0E6-4C69-87F7-31AA3BD9B0DF@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThkD=oxHmQ=8WWZv1eGO74mRpG4pDmg3E9HcS-r8RVGiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54C701CC.1080904@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am happy endorsing it.  Apologies for repeating myself.
Stephanie
On 15-01-26 8:11 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Amr,
>
> I am fine with the statement. shall we add as references, previous 
> submissions from NCSG to the WG, I recall that we responded to the 
> questionnaire before.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rafik
>
> 2015-01-26 23:34 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I've received a few off-list responses to this, and some changes
>     were made by Kathy, but seeing that the submission deadline is
>     less than a week, I'd like to now start the consensus call on this
>     comment being endorsed by the NCSG.
>
>     There is still some ongoing debate regarding the claim that
>     searching the WHOIS in the original language is more reliable, but
>     this is a small matter as far as I'm concerned.
>
>     Could I please ask the policy committee members to now voice any
>     concerns they may have with this draft comment, and state wether
>     they are happy endorsing it or not?
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>
>     On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > I've made a first draft of comments to be submitted in response
>     to the public comment period on the initial report of the
>     translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. The
>     draft can be found here:
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vlwGo-jbItBJ3R5ycrs30-Q3i_3Fbh2HeyJskN6JXo4/edit
>     >
>     > The deadline to submit comments is February first, so I would
>     appreciate any and all comment as soon as possible so that the the
>     NCSG policy committee can endorse the input before the submission
>     deadline.
>     >
>     > Thanks.
>     >
>     > Amr
>     >
>     > On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> Hi Chris,
>     >>
>     >> Thanks for sharing this with the NCUC (I've cc'ed the
>     NCSG-Discuss list as well). This is the first GNSO PDP in which
>     I've participated and fully endorse the recommendations in the
>     initial report. I'd be happy to help draft input to the public
>     comment period by the NCSG, but having had my views reflected
>     rather adequately in the working group's recommendations, I'd also
>     be grateful to hear the views of others.
>     >>
>     >> Thanks again.
>     >>
>     >> Amr
>     >>
>     >> On Dec 16, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk
>     <mailto:c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> Dear colleagues,
>     >>>
>     >>> As promised in the recent NCSG call, here is a link to the
>     Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft
>     initial report and public comment:
>     >>>
>     >>> www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-16-en
>     <http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-16-en>
>     >>>
>     >>> The report contains the WG's discussion and puts the arguments
>     it has gathered to the community. It provides both detailed
>     arguments in favor and opposing mandatory transformation and
>     indicates that a majority of the Working Group currently
>     recommends against mandatory transformation and/or transliteration
>     of Contact Information. The Working Group hopes that community
>     feedback will maximize its consensus level for the Final Report
>     and, therefore, its members strongly encourage the Community to
>     provide additional arguments in favor/opposing mandatory
>     transformation of contact information data further to facilitate
>     the WG's consensus building process.
>     >>>
>     >>> Public comment is open till February 1, 2015.
>     >>>
>     >>> Regards,
>     >>>
>     >>> Chris Dillon.
>     >>> Co-Chair of Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>     Information PDP WG
>     >>> --
>     >>> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital
>     Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599
>     <tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> (int 31599)
>     www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon
>     <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>     >>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>     >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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/20150126/d87f89e5/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Tue Jan 27 06:00:43 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:00:43 +1100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <52AD5C36-0F89-401B-B72D-3392DA2D83CE@difference.com.au>


On 21 Jan 2015, at 12:15 am, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> II. Other Open Public Comment Periods of possible interest:
> 
> 1. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en) - PCP closes Feb 27th. This is probably something we might find interesting, and may want to write something up on. Anyone on the PC willing to take a lead on it?
> 
> III. Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks - Rafik sent an earlier message about this to the PC list, as did Bill to the NCUC list. The deadline to submit feedback is Feb 5th, so a bit pressing.
> 
> IV. There are ongoing discussions regarding the ?public interest? context within ICANN:
> 
> 1. On one hand, there is the review of the PICs and its review process. There seems to be a suggestion to create a working party (I guess similar to that dealing with the GNSO review) to do the work on this, while freezing the new gTLD strings until this issue is resolved. I think it would be great if we could finalise our position on how we believe this should move forward before the Singapore meeting.

	I volunteer for this work party. 

> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this prior to the Singapore meeting, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care to volunteer for this one?

	I'm happy to volunteer for this as well. I thought the discussion at the NCPH meeting in Washington gave a really good start to this discussion. 
	
	Cheers

		David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150127/d2c8c6ab/attachment.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/20150127/d2c8c6ab/attachment.sig>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Jan 27 06:06:39 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:06:39 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <52AD5C36-0F89-401B-B72D-3392DA2D83CE@difference.com.au>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<52AD5C36-0F89-401B-B72D-3392DA2D83CE@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=bLeSfCz9dG=LXvf+hCpeWs-k0AuiJeKMeq+7bk29RNg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David,



> 1. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en) -
> PCP closes *Feb 27th*. This is probably something we might find
> interesting, and may want to write something up on. Anyone on the PC
> willing to take a lead on it?
>
> III. Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise
> Risks - Rafik sent an earlier message about this to the PC list, as did
> Bill to the NCUC list. The deadline to submit feedback is *Feb 5th*, so a
> bit pressing.
>
> IV. There are ongoing discussions regarding the ?public interest? context
> within ICANN:
>
> 1. On one hand, there is the review of the PICs and its review process.
> There seems to be a suggestion to create a working party (I guess similar
> to that dealing with the GNSO review) to do the work on this, while
> freezing the new gTLD strings until this issue is resolved. I think it
> would be great if we could finalise our position on how we believe this
> should move forward *before the Singapore meeting*.
>
>
> I volunteer for this work party.
>
>
we have to take position before. I forwarded the email I received from Ron
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2015-January/002228.html

Rafik

2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the
> ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of
> the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion
> with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some
> kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this *prior
> to the Singapore meeting*, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG
> meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then,
> then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this.
> Anyone care to volunteer for this one?
>
>
> I'm happy to volunteer for this as well. I thought the discussion at the
> NCPH meeting in Washington gave a really good start to this discussion.
>  Cheers
>
> David
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150127/9ae25296/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Tue Jan 27 11:50:57 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:50:57 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <52AD5C36-0F89-401B-B72D-3392DA2D83CE@difference.com.au>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<52AD5C36-0F89-401B-B72D-3392DA2D83CE@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <40955F1A-5E61-4E6D-8E6E-D272EDDE0F58@gmail.com>


> On Jan 27, 2015, at 5:00 AM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
> 
>> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this prior to the Singapore meeting, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care to volunteer for this one?
> 
> 	I'm happy to volunteer for this as well. I thought the discussion at the NCPH meeting in Washington gave a really good start to this discussion. 

Me too.  I am also talking with Nora about it, as her team is responsible at the staff end.  I don?t think it?d be premature to raise this as one of our three questions to the board, building on the DC conversation and prior, and reflecting the variations in perspective.   I?d be happy to present it in the meeting if nobody else is itching to.

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150127/2d2aca69/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Jan 27 14:57:39 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:57:39 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Translation &
	Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial
	report open for public comment
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkD=oxHmQ=8WWZv1eGO74mRpG4pDmg3E9HcS-r8RVGiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DB4PR01MB046163C0617B63328D4D5CCCDD6C0@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<323F5DBC-EA2A-4002-97AA-56B31B49E263@egyptig.org>
	<C7921A3E-8532-4A26-B883-F74895D0DF0C@egyptig.org>
	<31462F2D-F0E6-4C69-87F7-31AA3BD9B0DF@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThkD=oxHmQ=8WWZv1eGO74mRpG4pDmg3E9HcS-r8RVGiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <90C073A8-371D-4B12-ABAB-5C224A710DC7@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Yes, we did submit answers to the questionnair when the WG was seeking community input. This can be found on the WG wiki page here. We can attach that to the current comment, but I doubt it would be revisited. The WG went through these early inputs rather throughly the first time around. Almost everything the NCSG submitted early on found its way into the initial report. The WG?s next call is this Thursday (Jan 29th) at UTC 14:00. We plan on going through as much as we can of the three comments already submitted (all of which are by the registrars).

The IPC still hasn?t submitted anything, but are sure to as well.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 27, 2015, at 2:11 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> I am fine with the statement. shall we add as references, previous submissions from NCSG to the WG, I recall that we responded to the questionnaire before.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Rafik 
> 
> 2015-01-26 23:34 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Hi,
> 
> I?ve received a few off-list responses to this, and some changes were made by Kathy, but seeing that the submission deadline is less than a week, I?d like to now start the consensus call on this comment being endorsed by the NCSG.
> 
> There is still some ongoing debate regarding the claim that searching the WHOIS in the original language is more reliable, but this is a small matter as far as I?m concerned.
> 
> Could I please ask the policy committee members to now voice any concerns they may have with this draft comment, and state wether they are happy endorsing it or not?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I?ve made a first draft of comments to be submitted in response to the public comment period on the initial report of the translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. The draft can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vlwGo-jbItBJ3R5ycrs30-Q3i_3Fbh2HeyJskN6JXo4/edit
> >
> > The deadline to submit comments is February first, so I would appreciate any and all comment as soon as possible so that the the NCSG policy committee can endorse the input before the submission deadline.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Chris,
> >>
> >> Thanks for sharing this with the NCUC (I?ve cc?ed the NCSG-Discuss list as well). This is the first GNSO PDP in which I?ve participated and fully endorse the recommendations in the initial report. I?d be happy to help draft input to the public comment period by the NCSG, but having had my views reflected rather adequately in the working group?s recommendations, I?d also be grateful to hear the views of others.
> >>
> >> Thanks again.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >>
> >> On Dec 16, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear colleagues,
> >>>
> >>> As promised in the recent NCSG call, here is a link to the Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report and public comment:
> >>>
> >>> www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-16-en
> >>>
> >>> The report contains the WG's discussion and puts the arguments it has gathered to the community. It provides both detailed arguments in favor and opposing mandatory transformation and indicates that a majority of the Working Group currently recommends against mandatory transformation and/or transliteration of Contact Information. The Working Group hopes that community feedback will maximize its consensus level for the Final Report and, therefore, its members strongly encourage the Community to provide additional arguments in favor/opposing mandatory transformation of contact information data further to facilitate the WG's consensus building process.
> >>>
> >>> Public comment is open till February 1, 2015.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Chris Dillon.
> >>> Co-Chair of Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
> >>> --
> >>> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150127/fa756ef7/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Jan 27 15:05:52 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:05:52 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <40955F1A-5E61-4E6D-8E6E-D272EDDE0F58@gmail.com>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>
	<52AD5C36-0F89-401B-B72D-3392DA2D83CE@difference.com.au>
	<40955F1A-5E61-4E6D-8E6E-D272EDDE0F58@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57AF2E6F-267C-417E-B987-E0612C5DAF8D@egyptig.org>

Hi,

On Jan 27, 2015, at 10:50 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
>> On Jan 27, 2015, at 5:00 AM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
>> 
>>> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this prior to the Singapore meeting, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care to volunteer for this one?
>> 
>> 	I'm happy to volunteer for this as well. I thought the discussion at the NCPH meeting in Washington gave a really good start to this discussion.
> 
> Me too.  I am also talking with Nora about it, as her team is responsible at the staff end.  I don?t think it?d be premature to raise this as one of our three questions to the board, building on the DC conversation and prior, and reflecting the variations in perspective.   I?d be happy to present it in the meeting if nobody else is itching to.

Same here. Going over the transcripts of the meeting with Fadi, I was really impressed (and dare I say hopeful) with where you all left things with him on public interest and human rights. The reason why I thought we may be able to have something ready by Singapore, and possibly address the board with it during our meeting with them is because this is not really a new topic on this list. We?ve been discussing it for months.

I?m fine with Bill presenting this to the board. I also don?t see the harm in anyone else furthering the discussion with them following the initial presentation of the topic.

Thanks Marilia, Matt, David and Bill for agreeing to take this on.

Amr

> 
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150127/daf50b15/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Jan 27 16:06:20 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:06:20 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <40955F1A-5E61-4E6D-8E6E-D272EDDE0F58@gmail.com>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>	<52AD5C36-0F89-401B-B72D-3392DA2D83CE@difference.com.au>
	<40955F1A-5E61-4E6D-8E6E-D272EDDE0F58@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54C79B5C.6080107@acm.org>

Hi,

I support the definition of public interest per ICANN's roles and
responsibilities, as one of our 3 items.

and it is a project i am happy to contribute to.

avri

On 27-Jan-15 04:50, William Drake wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 2015, at 5:00 AM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU
>> <mailto:dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest?
>>> in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the
>>> ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits
>>> into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on
>>> this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that
>>> we also try to get on top of this *prior to the Singapore meeting*,
>>> and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN
>>> board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we
>>> can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care
>>> to volunteer for this one?
>>
>> I'm happy to volunteer for this as well. I thought the discussion at
>> the NCPH meeting in Washington gave a really good start to this
>> discussion. 
>
> Me too.  I am also talking with Nora about it, as her team is
> responsible at the staff end.  I don?t think it?d be premature to
> raise this as one of our three questions to the board, building on the
> DC conversation and prior, and reflecting the variations in
> perspective.   I?d be happy to present it in the meeting if nobody
> else is itching to.
>
> Bill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150127/c35940c8/attachment.html>


From mshears  Tue Jan 27 20:06:50 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:06:50 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Open Projects
In-Reply-To: <54C79B5C.6080107@acm.org>
References: <D326B54C-AAB4-476D-89FD-65A80FB947CC@egyptig.org>	<52AD5C36-0F89-401B-B72D-3392DA2D83CE@difference.com.au>	<40955F1A-5E61-4E6D-8E6E-D272EDDE0F58@gmail.com>
	<54C79B5C.6080107@acm.org>
Message-ID: <54C7D3BA.7030502@cdt.org>

This was our challenge from Fadi.  Would like to work on this as well.

On 1/27/2015 2:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I support the definition of public interest per ICANN's roles and 
> responsibilities, as one of our 3 items.
>
> and it is a project i am happy to contribute to.
>
> avri
>
> On 27-Jan-15 04:50, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 27, 2015, at 5:00 AM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU 
>>> <mailto:dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? 
>>>> in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the 
>>>> ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits 
>>>> into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on 
>>>> this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that 
>>>> we also try to get on top of this*prior to the Singapore meeting*, 
>>>> and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN 
>>>> board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we 
>>>> can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care 
>>>> to volunteer for this one?
>>>
>>> I'm happy to volunteer for this as well. I thought the discussion at 
>>> the NCPH meeting in Washington gave a really good start to this 
>>> discussion.
>>
>> Me too.  I am also talking with Nora about it, as her team is 
>> responsible at the staff end.  I don?t think it?d be premature to 
>> raise this as one of our three questions to the board, building on 
>> the DC conversation and prior, and reflecting the variations in 
>> perspective.   I?d be happy to present it in the meeting if nobody 
>> else is itching to.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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/20150127/956537c8/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Jan 29 13:18:42 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:18:42 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Translation &
	Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial
	report open for public comment
In-Reply-To: <90C073A8-371D-4B12-ABAB-5C224A710DC7@egyptig.org>
References: <DB4PR01MB046163C0617B63328D4D5CCCDD6C0@DB4PR01MB0461.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<323F5DBC-EA2A-4002-97AA-56B31B49E263@egyptig.org>
	<C7921A3E-8532-4A26-B883-F74895D0DF0C@egyptig.org>
	<31462F2D-F0E6-4C69-87F7-31AA3BD9B0DF@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThkD=oxHmQ=8WWZv1eGO74mRpG4pDmg3E9HcS-r8RVGiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<90C073A8-371D-4B12-ABAB-5C224A710DC7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <B305E215-FC6D-4903-9F0A-B9C7382FDF86@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?m asking again for any concerns with this comment being endorsed by the NCSG. I?m also setting a hard deadline for those concerns to be raised by UTC 23:00 tonight (January 29th). If there aren?t any, I?ll ask Rafik to send this in as a NCSG statement.

Thanks to all who have responded so far.

Amr

On Jan 27, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Yes, we did submit answers to the questionnair when the WG was seeking community input. This can be found on the WG wiki page here. We can attach that to the current comment, but I doubt it would be revisited. The WG went through these early inputs rather throughly the first time around. Almost everything the NCSG submitted early on found its way into the initial report. The WG?s next call is this Thursday (Jan 29th) at UTC 14:00. We plan on going through as much as we can of the three comments already submitted (all of which are by the registrars).
> 
> The IPC still hasn?t submitted anything, but are sure to as well.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Jan 27, 2015, at 2:11 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> I am fine with the statement. shall we add as references, previous submissions from NCSG to the WG, I recall that we responded to the questionnaire before.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> 2015-01-26 23:34 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I?ve received a few off-list responses to this, and some changes were made by Kathy, but seeing that the submission deadline is less than a week, I?d like to now start the consensus call on this comment being endorsed by the NCSG.
>> 
>> There is still some ongoing debate regarding the claim that searching the WHOIS in the original language is more reliable, but this is a small matter as far as I?m concerned.
>> 
>> Could I please ask the policy committee members to now voice any concerns they may have with this draft comment, and state wether they are happy endorsing it or not?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I?ve made a first draft of comments to be submitted in response to the public comment period on the initial report of the translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. The draft can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vlwGo-jbItBJ3R5ycrs30-Q3i_3Fbh2HeyJskN6JXo4/edit
>> >
>> > The deadline to submit comments is February first, so I would appreciate any and all comment as soon as possible so that the the NCSG policy committee can endorse the input before the submission deadline.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Amr
>> >
>> > On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for sharing this with the NCUC (I?ve cc?ed the NCSG-Discuss list as well). This is the first GNSO PDP in which I?ve participated and fully endorse the recommendations in the initial report. I?d be happy to help draft input to the public comment period by the NCSG, but having had my views reflected rather adequately in the working group?s recommendations, I?d also be grateful to hear the views of others.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again.
>> >>
>> >> Amr
>> >>
>> >> On Dec 16, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Dear colleagues,
>> >>>
>> >>> As promised in the recent NCSG call, here is a link to the Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP draft initial report and public comment:
>> >>>
>> >>> www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-16-en
>> >>>
>> >>> The report contains the WG's discussion and puts the arguments it has gathered to the community. It provides both detailed arguments in favor and opposing mandatory transformation and indicates that a majority of the Working Group currently recommends against mandatory transformation and/or transliteration of Contact Information. The Working Group hopes that community feedback will maximize its consensus level for the Final Report and, therefore, its members strongly encourage the Community to provide additional arguments in favor/opposing mandatory transformation of contact information data further to facilitate the WG's consensus building process.
>> >>>
>> >>> Public comment is open till February 1, 2015.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Chris Dillon.
>> >>> Co-Chair of Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>> >>> --
>> >>> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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/20150129/6d1a06a0/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Jan 30 03:21:36 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:21:36 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Intersessional Question Regarding 3rd Party PIC
	Complaints
In-Reply-To: <D0EE7923.26A3E%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
References: <D0EE7923.26A3E%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk9f7BjGgJ8ixdu1MK20+eoQNFQV0mFkQj-B72S+7UOPA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I got this from Rob, as follow-up for NCPH meeting. I am not sure if it
answers Kathy question

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
Date: 2015-01-29 5:39 GMT+09:00
Subject: FW: Intersessional Question Regarding 3rd Party PIC Complaints
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>


Dear Rafik,

Fadi asked that I communicate back the answer to an NCSG question he
promised to follow-up on during the recent NCPH Intersessional meeting in
Washington, D.C.

See below. I don't recall if you personally asked the question, but perhaps
you can pass the information back to your NCSG delegation.

I think if there is any follow-up about complaints regarding PIC
infringement, the best person to contact would likely be Allen Grogan at
allen.grogan at icann.org.

Best,

Rob

From: Allen Grogan
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 4:40 PM
To: Fadi Chehade
Subject: Re: 3rd party

Yes, anyone can submit a complaint to ICANN contractual compliance about an
alleged failure to comply with a PIC, and ICANN contractual compliance will
investigate the complaint.

Complaints may be submitted to compliance at icann.org.


Regards,

Allen R. Grogan
Chief Contract Compliance Officer
direct:  + 1 310 578-8932
mobile: +1 310 795-8206
allen.grogan at icann.org

12025 Waterfront Drive
Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
United States of America


From: Fadi Chehade
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 4:32 PM
To: Allen Grogan
Subject: 3rd party

Allen,
I need to get back to a community member with this question:

?can an NGO or a 3rd party file a complaint about a PIC infringement? If
yes, how?"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150130/ea077c98/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5048 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150130/ea077c98/attachment.p7s>