[PC-NCSG] Open Projects

[Amr Elsadr]

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>