From rafik.dammak Wed Jul 1 14:55:05 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 20:55:05 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment Message-ID: Hi everyone, we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within next days before that date . https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Jul 1 14:59:58 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 20:59:58 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. Best, Rafik 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi everyone, > > we got this comment initiated by James > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing > and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . > the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. > > so please review, comments and help with edits. > > Best, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Jul 1 16:05:56 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 15:05:56 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> Hi, Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. Thanks. Amr On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi everyone, > > we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. > > so please review, comments and help with edits. > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From lanfran Wed Jul 1 18:31:15 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:31:15 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <559407C3.6000005@yorku.ca> I endorse it but with the hope that someone gets it in shape and some of the questions raised by Avri are resolved by relative consensus here. I am still working in Buenos Aires and tied up to the time of the submission deadline with meetings, lectures and writing. Sam L. On 2015-07-01 10:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. > > I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> Hi everyone, >> >> we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >> >> so please review, comments and help with edits. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- *--------------------------------------------* "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ---------------------------------------------- Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 From lanfran Wed Jul 1 18:48:55 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:48:55 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55940BE7.2010601@yorku.ca> Rafik, /How does the individual signatories process work here? Do we go to the document or sign on here?/// I have a small amount of concern around arguing for no right of appeal BUT having seen how such processes can be abused, even without a right to appeal, and the greater scope for the big to hit the small if there are appeal rights, I endorse the wording as it stands. Sam On 2015-07-01 8:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services > Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to > get individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within > next days before that date . > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and > Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to > raise the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- *--------------------------------------------* "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ---------------------------------------------- Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran Wed Jul 1 20:22:03 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:22:03 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] .cat, .pro In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559421BB.6030105@yorku.ca> The Policy and Executive Committees of NPOC endorse this submission, with wording adjusted to refer to .cat and .pro rather than .travel. Sam L., NPOC Policy Cttee On 2015-06-26 3:31 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ed, > > thanks for the reminder. it makes sense, we can just check if there is > any other point we would like to raise or add that we didn't make > previously. > it is good to get comments in record. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2015-06-26 13:04 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris >: > > Hi everyone, > > The public comment period for .cat and .pro closes on July 7th. > Both of these legacy tld's have the same problem we faced with > .travel: a staff attempt to create de facto consensus policy > outside the pdp via contract. > > We submitted a public comment on .travel: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-travel-renewal-12may15/msg00013.html. > As the issues are identical I'd like to submit the exact same > public comment, save for changes to the domain name involved, for > .cat and .pro. It might be a bit boring for staff to read and > analyze but I think it's important that the NCSG weigh in each > time and in each instance that staff is usurping the proper policy > making process. > > Thanks for considering, > > Ed > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- *--------------------------------------------* "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ---------------------------------------------- Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Wed Jul 1 20:45:49 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:45:49 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms. That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support it. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. > > I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> Hi everyone, >> >> we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >> >> so please review, comments and help with edits. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From egmorris1 Wed Jul 1 20:46:33 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:46:33 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0AF94EBE-11A5-4276-A527-282F842E2247@toast.net> Thanks for all of the hard work guys. Happy to endorse. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within next days before that date . > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Jul 2 00:57:54 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:57:54 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55946262.20103@mail.utoronto.ca> I apologize to all, I was delegated to do a final cleanup edit and I have just done that. I am doing a last re-check of the document to make sure we did not miss anything. Kudos to Kathy and James for doing the heavy lifting on this set of comments. I have made two rather substantive recommendations....I do not think we should even think of compromising on the issue of commercial/non-commercial, we are winning that battle with the petitions so no need to concede any ground. We need to be ready for a battle royal when we get back in committee, as the IPC are still complaining about astro-turfing.....and are likely doing some of their own by now. cheers Stephanie PS comments on the website now up to 10680, but the last 20 or so appear to be bogus....can we figure out who is doing what?? I would hate to have a really good campaign tarnished by some kind of trolls... On 2015-07-01 7:55, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services > Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to > get individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within > next days before that date . > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and > Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to > raise the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Thu Jul 2 01:26:29 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 00:26:29 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> Message-ID: <97034A47-046E-4464-BE9A-A05CF1AF7AFA@egyptig.org> Hi again, I?ve reordered the three operational reviews in the draft to be: 1. CCT2 ?> 2. SSR2 ?> 3. WHOIS2 I?ve also added a paragraph with the rationale on why the WHOIS2 review should not begin this year. I apologise for making this change so late, but had expressed this view both here and on NCSG-DISCUSS recently. As is, I?m ready to endorse this comment as an NCSG submission. If you haven?t looked at this yet, please do. The draft comment is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?pli=1# The public comment period details are here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-2015-05-15-en We only have another 24 hours to submit this comment, so would be great to hear from as many PC members as possible. Thanks. Amr On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms. > > That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support it. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >> >> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >>> >>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Thu Jul 2 04:54:26 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:54:26 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <97034A47-046E-4464-BE9A-A05CF1AF7AFA@egyptig.org> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <97034A47-046E-4464-BE9A-A05CF1AF7AFA@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <559499D2.9040104@acm.org> Hi, As long as it continues to: a. have the atrt3 priority b. the importance of any changes to AOC reviews being approved by NTIA i will endorse. is this one due tomorrow? 2-July? avri On 01-Jul-15 18:26, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi again, > > I?ve reordered the three operational reviews in the draft to be: > > 1. CCT2 ?> 2. SSR2 ?> 3. WHOIS2 > > I?ve also added a paragraph with the rationale on why the WHOIS2 review should not begin this year. I apologise for making this change so late, but had expressed this view both here and on NCSG-DISCUSS recently. > > As is, I?m ready to endorse this comment as an NCSG submission. > > If you haven?t looked at this yet, please do. The draft comment is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?pli=1# > > The public comment period details are here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-2015-05-15-en > > We only have another 24 hours to submit this comment, so would be great to hear from as many PC members as possible. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > >> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms. >> >> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support it. >> >> Ed >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >>> >>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >>>> >>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From rafik.dammak Thu Jul 2 05:05:52 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 11:05:52 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: <55940BE7.2010601@yorku.ca> References: <55940BE7.2010601@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi Sam, I think just asking to be added as signatory is fine and the document will be updated with the full list before submission. it is also possible to add the name directly in the document. Best, Rafik 2015-07-02 0:48 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco : > Rafik, > > *How does the individual signatories process work here? Do we go to the > document or sign on here?* > > I have a small amount of concern around arguing for no right of appeal BUT > having seen how such processes can be abused, even without a right to > appeal, and the greater scope for the big to hit the small if there are > appeal rights, I endorse the wording as it stands. > > Sam > > > On 2015-07-01 8:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services > Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get > individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within next > days before that date . > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and > Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise > the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -- > > *--------------------------------------------* > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured > in an unjust state" -Confucius > ---------------------------------------------- > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) > Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 > YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco > blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Jul 2 06:33:12 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:33:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <55940BE7.2010601@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <5594B0F8.9070308@acm.org> hi, Just did a read through and can support this as an NCSG position. Made some minor relatively insignificant edit suggestions Would add my name to this as well. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From aelsadr Thu Jul 2 14:44:44 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 13:44:44 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> Message-ID: <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed? Thanks again. Amr On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms. > > That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support it. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >> >> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >>> >>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Thu Jul 2 14:49:58 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 13:49:58 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <559499D2.9040104@acm.org> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <97034A47-046E-4464-BE9A-A05CF1AF7AFA@egyptig.org> <559499D2.9040104@acm.org> Message-ID: <87875EDF-F630-435A-A6D5-1415E33F8971@egyptig.org> Hi, On Jul 2, 2015, at 3:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > As long as it continues to: > > a. have the atrt3 priority > b. the importance of any changes to AOC reviews being approved by NTIA > > i will endorse. Those are still in there, and I agree that they should remain. > > is this one due tomorrow? 2-July? Today, now. If nobody on the NCSG-PC expresses any objections within the next few hours, I will ask Rafik to go ahead and submit the statement on behalf of the NCSG. Thanks. Amr From egmorris1 Thu Jul 2 14:48:14 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 12:48:14 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> Hi Amr. I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about the impact of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these groups could be very different creatures depending upon the form accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? If so, charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, created. Will there be accountability requirements imposed upon the groups? If so, we may be reviewing an organization much different than what it is to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in that case. Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the ATRT reviews as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and stressed the importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to reconsider. If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large should go first because it arguably has the most to reform and is larger than the other two. I'm happy to support a statement with views different than my own because there are a number of reasonable positions on this matter. There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I agree with than not - my own views were submitted in a personal comment so will be represented in the staff report - so do support submission in whatever way you deem appropriate. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed? > > Thanks again. > > Amr > >> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> >> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms. >> >> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support it. >> >> Ed >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >>> >>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >>>> >>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From aelsadr Thu Jul 2 15:20:47 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 14:20:47 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> Message-ID: <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of your rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. I would personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out your views. The only issues I have a strong opinion on here are probably the ATRT and WHOIS review. I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of ATRTs are delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, they?ll never get done. Thanks again. Amr On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi Amr. > > I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about the impact of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these groups could be very different creatures depending upon the form accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? If so, charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, created. Will there be accountability requirements imposed upon the groups? If so, we may be reviewing an organization much different than what it is to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in that case. > > Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the ATRT reviews as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and stressed the importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to reconsider. > > If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large should go first because it arguably has the most to reform and is larger than the other two. > > I'm happy to support a statement with views different than my own because there are a number of reasonable positions on this matter. There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I agree with than not - my own views were submitted in a personal comment so will be represented in the staff report - so do support submission in whatever way you deem appropriate. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed? >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >>> >>> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms. >>> >>> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support it. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >>>> >>>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >>>>> >>>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> From stephanie.perrin Thu Jul 2 17:12:54 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 10:12:54 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> I put some comments/edits in the document, there is one para that several of us have queried that is still awkward (I cannot figure out quite what we are trying to say) so would suggest the author take another look at it to try to simplify it....review on review after review etc. Thanks for the opportunity and kudos to the authors, especially James for initiating! So much to do at the moment..... Stephanie On 2015-07-02 8:20, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of your rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. I would personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out your views. The only issues I have a strong opinion on here are probably the ATRT and WHOIS review. > > I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of ATRTs are delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, they?ll never get done. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > >> Hi Amr. >> >> I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about the impact of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these groups could be very different creatures depending upon the form accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? If so, charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, created. Will there be accountability requirements imposed upon the groups? If so, we may be reviewing an organization much different than what it is to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in that case. >> >> Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the ATRT reviews as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and stressed the importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to reconsider. >> >> If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large should go first because it arguably has the most to reform and is larger than the other two. >> >> I'm happy to support a statement with views different than my own because there are a number of reasonable positions on this matter. There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I agree with than not - my own views were submitted in a personal comment so will be represented in the staff report - so do support submission in whatever way you deem appropriate. >> >> Ed >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed? >>> >>> Thanks again. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>> >>>> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms. >>>> >>>> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support it. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >>>>> >>>>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >>>>>> >>>>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Thu Jul 2 17:38:33 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 10:38:33 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] three questions Message-ID: <55954CE9.6010101@mail.utoronto.ca> 1. I see a lot of volunteers for workstream 3. If members need reinforcements you need to tell us, otherwise I plan to duck and save my strength for the privacy work. 2. Ed when is Ombuds working group starting? 3. I just filled out the ICANN survey. What is this preoccupation with comms feeds that is going on, did they hire a new VP comms? Anybody who is actually doing any heavy lifting at ICANN relies on Skype, google docs, and email (not listed). I feel an urge to poke a stick in there before they spend more money on useless PR.....ideas welcome. cheers Steph AKA Curmudgeon in Canada From rafik.dammak Thu Jul 2 17:45:21 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 23:45:21 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, thanks for the edits. I went through the document to resolve edits/comments and format it. it sounds ready now, except for that question made by Stephanie. The document is ready for submission. I am waiting for next hours to see if there is any objection and I will send it just before the deadline and that will be in 9 hours (it is almost midnight here, so if you make substantial changes or edits, I will need time to resolve that. Best, Rafik 2015-07-02 23:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > I put some comments/edits in the document, there is one para that several > of us have queried that is still awkward (I cannot figure out quite what we > are trying to say) so would suggest the author take another look at it to > try to simplify it....review on review after review etc. > Thanks for the opportunity and kudos to the authors, especially James for > initiating! So much to do at the moment..... > Stephanie > > > On 2015-07-02 8:20, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of your >> rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. I would >> personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out your views. The >> only issues I have a strong opinion on here are probably the ATRT and WHOIS >> review. >> >> I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of ATRTs are >> delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, they?ll never get >> done. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> >> On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> >> Hi Amr. >>> >>> I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about the impact of >>> the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these groups could be very >>> different creatures depending upon the form accountability will take. Will >>> they become legal persons? If so, charters will need to be redone and, in >>> some cases, created. Will there be accountability requirements imposed upon >>> the groups? If so, we may be reviewing an organization much different than >>> what it is to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in that >>> case. >>> >>> Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the ATRT reviews as >>> well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was always going on >>> in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and stressed the importance of the >>> Accountability reviews caused me to reconsider. >>> >>> If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large should go >>> first because it arguably has the most to reform and is larger than the >>> other two. >>> >>> I'm happy to support a statement with views different than my own >>> because there are a number of reasonable positions on this matter. There is >>> a lot more in the proposed submission that I agree with than not - my own >>> views were submitted in a personal comment so will be represented in the >>> staff report - so do support submission in whatever way you deem >>> appropriate. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? Can >>>> I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought you wanted >>>> (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed? >>>> >>>> Thanks again. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically >>>>> halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but >>>>> proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. >>>>> If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at >>>>> large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms. >>>>> >>>>> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there >>>>> is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support >>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start >>>>>> getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before >>>>>> July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. >>>>>> The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the >>>>>> post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform >>>>>> a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how >>>>>> many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team >>>>>> while the post-EWG PDP is going on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we got this comment initiated by James >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . >>>>>>> the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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: From wjdrake Thu Jul 2 19:06:58 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 11:06:58 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: So are we doing individual endorsements as well? Not redundant? If so feel free to add me? BD > On Jul 2, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks for the edits. I went through the document to resolve edits/comments and format it. it sounds ready now, except for that question made by Stephanie. > The document is ready for submission. I am waiting for next hours to see if there is any objection and I will send it just before the deadline and that will be in 9 hours (it is almost midnight here, so if you make substantial changes or edits, I will need time to resolve that. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-02 23:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >: > I put some comments/edits in the document, there is one para that several of us have queried that is still awkward (I cannot figure out quite what we are trying to say) so would suggest the author take another look at it to try to simplify it....review on review after review etc. > Thanks for the opportunity and kudos to the authors, especially James for initiating! So much to do at the moment..... > Stephanie > > > On 2015-07-02 8:20, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of your rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. I would personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out your views. The only issues I have a strong opinion on here are probably the ATRT and WHOIS review. > > I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of ATRTs are delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, they?ll never get done. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris > wrote: > > Hi Amr. > > I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about the impact of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these groups could be very different creatures depending upon the form accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? If so, charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, created. Will there be accountability requirements imposed upon the groups? If so, we may be reviewing an organization much different than what it is to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in that case. > > Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the ATRT reviews as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and stressed the importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to reconsider. > > If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large should go first because it arguably has the most to reform and is larger than the other two. > > I'm happy to support a statement with views different than my own because there are a number of reasonable positions on this matter. There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I agree with than not - my own views were submitted in a personal comment so will be represented in the staff report - so do support submission in whatever way you deem appropriate. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr > wrote: > > Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed? > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris > wrote: > > My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms. > > That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support it. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr > wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. > > I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi, > > this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > Hi everyone, > > we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. > > so please review, comments and help with edits. > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From robin Thu Jul 2 19:49:52 2015 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:49:52 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] three questions In-Reply-To: <55954CE9.6010101@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55954CE9.6010101@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: We need to get human rights into WS3. There were many calls for this in the public comment, but they have been ignored thus far. So I will request that human rights be included in WS3, but there will be lots of opposition and we will need people in CCWG to support the claim or it will go no where, as has happened every other time I've suggested Free Speech, Human Rights, etc. in CCWG so far. Thanks, Robin On Jul 2, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > 1. I see a lot of volunteers for workstream 3. If members need reinforcements you need to tell us, otherwise I plan to duck and save my strength for the privacy work. > 2. Ed when is Ombuds working group starting? > 3. I just filled out the ICANN survey. What is this preoccupation with comms feeds that is going on, did they hire a new VP comms? Anybody who is actually doing any heavy lifting at ICANN relies on Skype, google docs, and email (not listed). I feel an urge to poke a stick in there before they spend more money on useless PR.....ideas welcome. > cheers Steph > AKA Curmudgeon in Canada > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Jul 2 20:02:35 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 13:02:35 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] three questions In-Reply-To: References: <55954CE9.6010101@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <55956EAB.6000504@mail.utoronto.ca> ok I will volunteer but I suspect I will not be active until you poke me....I have been following the threads but not the calls so far.... cheers steph On 2015-07-02 12:49, Robin Gross wrote: > We need to get human rights into WS3. There were many calls for this in the public comment, but they have been ignored thus far. So I will request that human rights be included in WS3, but there will be lots of opposition and we will need people in CCWG to support the claim or it will go no where, as has happened every other time I've suggested Free Speech, Human Rights, etc. in CCWG so far. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Jul 2, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> 1. I see a lot of volunteers for workstream 3. If members need reinforcements you need to tell us, otherwise I plan to duck and save my strength for the privacy work. >> 2. Ed when is Ombuds working group starting? >> 3. I just filled out the ICANN survey. What is this preoccupation with comms feeds that is going on, did they hire a new VP comms? Anybody who is actually doing any heavy lifting at ICANN relies on Skype, google docs, and email (not listed). I feel an urge to poke a stick in there before they spend more money on useless PR.....ideas welcome. >> cheers Steph >> AKA Curmudgeon in Canada >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Jul 2 20:17:18 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 13:17:18 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Wiki, Doodle Poll and Public Session in Buenos Aires In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5595721E.9000601@mail.utoronto.ca> Just letting everybody know this is ongoing. Input gratefully received. I have not started drafting my next round of comments yet, but regardless of the output of this exercise, I shall do that again this time. cheers SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Wiki, Doodle Poll and Public Session in Buenos Aires Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 17:12:30 +0000 From: Charla Shambley To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org CC: richard at westlakegovernance.com , Colin Jackson (colin at westlakegovernance.com) , Vaughan Renner Dear GNSO Review Working Party: I hope this email finds you well after ICANN53! Following up to Larisa?s email which summarized your work in Buenos Aires and next steps, I wanted to point out a few items: ?Staff has set up several wiki pages to capture comments from the Working Party and Staff on the feasibility and usefulness of the 36 recommendations. See Initial Assessment of Recommendations . We have organized the recommendations by theme to coincide with the structure of the Draft Report. Each recommendation has its own page (see Recommendation 1 for example). Please add your comments in the ?Working Party? section (you must be logged in to the wiki in order to do so) and include your name or initials to your comments. ?A doodle poll has been set up to schedule a Working Party call on 28, 29 or 30 July to consider community comments and prioritize draft recommendations. Please click on the link to provide your availability: Doodle Poll . I will close the poll by 8 July and send out an invitation for your calendar. ?Relevant discussion for implementation planning ? please see the summary of comments and responses from the 24 June public session ?AoC and Organizational Reviews: Supporting ICANN Accountability ?. Please let me know if you have any questions. Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Thu Jul 2 21:01:13 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 19:01:13 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] three questions In-Reply-To: References: <55954CE9.6010101@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <9503FA22-2340-4983-8793-9235369E6C44@toast.net> That's a great idea Robin! I just hope it is WP3 for inclusion in WS2. I live in fear of a work stream 3. I refuse to be doing this when I reach the age of 100! :) I really like your concept of naming specific rights. The term 'human rights' is a loaded one with this group but the specific rights you suggest pushing should get decent resonance. Might I suggest leading with due process: that is something I know is a concern of many pushing for the membership type model and we might be able to get a hook into them that way. Thanks again for bringing this up. It's really important and certainly needs to be part of the potpourri of things we quickly consider in this new group. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:49 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > We need to get human rights into WS3. There were many calls for this in the public comment, but they have been ignored thus far. So I will request that human rights be included in WS3, but there will be lots of opposition and we will need people in CCWG to support the claim or it will go no where, as has happened every other time I've suggested Free Speech, Human Rights, etc. in CCWG so far. > > Thanks, > Robin > > >> On Jul 2, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> 1. I see a lot of volunteers for workstream 3. If members need reinforcements you need to tell us, otherwise I plan to duck and save my strength for the privacy work. >> 2. Ed when is Ombuds working group starting? >> 3. I just filled out the ICANN survey. What is this preoccupation with comms feeds that is going on, did they hire a new VP comms? Anybody who is actually doing any heavy lifting at ICANN relies on Skype, google docs, and email (not listed). I feel an urge to poke a stick in there before they spend more money on useless PR.....ideas welcome. >> cheers Steph >> AKA Curmudgeon in Canada >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From egmorris1 Thu Jul 2 21:11:10 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 19:11:10 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] three questions In-Reply-To: <55954CE9.6010101@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55954CE9.6010101@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <8DADE6DA-C721-42AE-AAA2-65A131D36F90@toast.net> Hi Stephanie, > 2. Ed when is Ombuds working group starting? Thanks for asking! I'm waiting for Alice to add three new members - including Arun and David - before sending out the relaunch message. We've basically doubled the size of the group the past few week with special attention being paid to recruiting those not overly active on WS1 as WS2 issues are not a priority for them at the moment. I had a brief meeting with Chris on Tuesday in Buenos Aires and he tells me he is ready to make a substantial contribution once we get going. Initially I want to produce a scoping document in response to the 7 questions we're starting with as a way of starting the conversation. If the names have been added I'd suggest your inbox will have an Ombuddy message by the end of the weekend, the exact date dependent upon whether I have wifi on my Miami - London flight. Look forward to your thoughts and participation! From avri Thu Jul 2 21:36:12 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 14:36:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5595849C.4040606@acm.org> Hi, I just made some changes to that papra. hope it makes sense now. avri On 02-Jul-15 10:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I put some comments/edits in the document, there is one para that > several of us have queried that is still awkward (I cannot figure out > quite what we are trying to say) so would suggest the author take > another look at it to try to simplify it....review on review after > review etc. > Thanks for the opportunity and kudos to the authors, especially James > for initiating! So much to do at the moment..... > Stephanie > > On 2015-07-02 8:20, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of your >> rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. I would >> personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out your views. >> The only issues I have a strong opinion on here are probably the ATRT >> and WHOIS review. >> >> I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of ATRTs are >> delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, they?ll >> never get done. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> >> On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> >>> Hi Amr. >>> >>> I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about the impact >>> of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these groups >>> could be very different creatures depending upon the form >>> accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? If so, >>> charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, created. Will >>> there be accountability requirements imposed upon the groups? If so, >>> we may be reviewing an organization much different than what it is >>> to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in that case. >>> >>> Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the ATRT reviews >>> as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was >>> always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and stressed the >>> importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to reconsider. >>> >>> If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large >>> should go first because it arguably has the most to reform and is >>> larger than the other two. >>> >>> I'm happy to support a statement with views different than my own >>> because there are a number of reasonable positions on this matter. >>> There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I agree with >>> than not - my own views were submitted in a personal comment so will >>> be represented in the staff report - so do support submission in >>> whatever way you deem appropriate. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? >>>> Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought >>>> you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed? >>>> >>>> Thanks again. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically >>>>> halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done >>>>> but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more >>>>> relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward >>>>> I would prioritize the at large review given the relative >>>>> importance of the group to proposed reforms. >>>>> >>>>> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and >>>>> there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if >>>>> others support it. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start >>>>>> getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it >>>>>> before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some >>>>>> concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at >>>>>> this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make >>>>>> much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may >>>>>> change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would >>>>>> want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the >>>>>> post-EWG PDP is going on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we got this comment initiated by James >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can >>>>>>> endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From rafik.dammak Fri Jul 3 00:37:18 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 06:37:18 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <5595849C.4040606@acm.org> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> <5595849C.4040606@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, It sounds that the public comment period was extended to 8th july https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-02-en Rafik On Jul 3, 2015 3:36 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > Hi, > > I just made some changes to that papra. > > hope it makes sense now. > > avri > > > On 02-Jul-15 10:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I put some comments/edits in the document, there is one para that > > several of us have queried that is still awkward (I cannot figure out > > quite what we are trying to say) so would suggest the author take > > another look at it to try to simplify it....review on review after > > review etc. > > Thanks for the opportunity and kudos to the authors, especially James > > for initiating! So much to do at the moment..... > > Stephanie > > > > On 2015-07-02 8:20, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of your > >> rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. I would > >> personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out your views. > >> The only issues I have a strong opinion on here are probably the ATRT > >> and WHOIS review. > >> > >> I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of ATRTs are > >> delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, they?ll > >> never get done. > >> > >> Thanks again. > >> > >> Amr > >> > >> On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Amr. > >>> > >>> I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about the impact > >>> of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these groups > >>> could be very different creatures depending upon the form > >>> accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? If so, > >>> charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, created. Will > >>> there be accountability requirements imposed upon the groups? If so, > >>> we may be reviewing an organization much different than what it is > >>> to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in that case. > >>> > >>> Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the ATRT reviews > >>> as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was > >>> always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and stressed the > >>> importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to reconsider. > >>> > >>> If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large > >>> should go first because it arguably has the most to reform and is > >>> larger than the other two. > >>> > >>> I'm happy to support a statement with views different than my own > >>> because there are a number of reasonable positions on this matter. > >>> There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I agree with > >>> than not - my own views were submitted in a personal comment so will > >>> be represented in the staff report - so do support submission in > >>> whatever way you deem appropriate. > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? > >>>> Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought > >>>> you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks again. > >>>> > >>>> Amr > >>>> > >>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically > >>>>> halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done > >>>>> but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more > >>>>> relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward > >>>>> I would prioritize the at large review given the relative > >>>>> importance of the group to proposed reforms. > >>>>> > >>>>> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and > >>>>> there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if > >>>>> others support it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ed > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start > >>>>>> getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it > >>>>>> before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some > >>>>>> concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at > >>>>>> this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make > >>>>>> much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may > >>>>>> change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would > >>>>>> want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the > >>>>>> post-EWG PDP is going on. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Amr > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> we got this comment initiated by James > >>>>>>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>> and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can > >>>>>>> endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sun Jul 5 16:21:09 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 14:21:09 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: <55946262.20103@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55946262.20103@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, I'm sorry for getting to this late, appreciate all of the hard work put into the document, but I have trouble endorsing a statement that "strongly supports" a requirement that places registrants in a position of having, without a court order, to chose between surrendering their free speech rights (domain name) or their personal data. I hardly think we should be an enthusiastic about a position that could, for example, force a domestic violence victim to lose his or her domain name linked to a page about abuse rather than reveal his or her name to his or her abuser, or force someone who supports LGBT rights from losing his or her domain name linked to LGBT rights, or anything else for that matter, rather than reveal his or her identity and location. If I've misstated the situation please correct me. I recognise that this might be better than the alternative but I don't think it is something we should "strongly support". As someone with an active restraining order against an ex I would hate to be placed in a situation where I would have to lose my domain name rather than reveal my personal data to a third party. One does not go through a process of being issued a new government identity numbers, getting court orders restricting release of drivers license and passport information to LEA, changing portions of ones name, to then be forced to chose between safety and speech. Although it may be better than the alternative under this completely reckless attempt by LEA to shred online privacy, it still is a choice I don't believe we should endorse. If I'm wrong please tell me why - I stand ready to be educated. Thanks, Ed On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > I apologize to all, I was delegated to do a final cleanup edit and I have > just done that. I am doing a last re-check of the document to make sure we > did not miss anything. Kudos to Kathy and James for doing the heavy > lifting on this set of comments. I have made two rather substantive > recommendations....I do not think we should even think of compromising on > the issue of commercial/non-commercial, we are winning that battle with the > petitions so no need to concede any ground. We need to be ready for a > battle royal when we get back in committee, as the IPC are still > complaining about astro-turfing.....and are likely doing some of their own > by now. > cheers Stephanie > PS comments on the website now up to 10680, but the last 20 or so appear > to be bogus....can we figure out who is doing what?? I would hate to have > a really good campaign tarnished by some kind of trolls... > > On 2015-07-01 7:55, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services > Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get > individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within next > days before that date . > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and > Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise > the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sun Jul 5 16:36:35 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 14:36:35 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Kathy Kleinman Message-ID: Hi all, I would like to propose under section 2.5.6 of the NCSG Charter that we allow Kathy Kleinman the right to participate in the NCSG PC discussions as an expert observer. This status would extend to Kathy, per article 2.5.6, "full participation rights" except those involving consensus processes and votes. We all know that Kathy is one of our most prolific public comment writers and one of our resident experts on things WHOIS and privacy. She also is a treasure trove of information on all things historic at ICANN. I think we all would benefit from her continuous engagement. She often, as today, is copied on PC posts as they relate to her area of subject expertise. With the forthcoming ATRT WHOIS efforts and EWG work I'd suggest it's best to automate her involvement in the PC lest we inadvertently lose her insight on these important issues by her exclusion from the list. Thank you for considering. Best, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sun Jul 5 16:41:47 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 14:41:47 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Correction: Kleinman Message-ID: Hi, My apologies. I just caught a typo in my last post. It is is article 2.5.1, not article 2.5.6, that allows the PC to invite individuals to participate in the PC as Observers. Article 2.5.6 delineates the rights of Observers. Sorry for the initial error. My bad. Best, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sun Jul 5 17:14:15 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:14:15 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] .CAT, .PRO, public comment endorsement request Message-ID: HI everybody, The deadline for submission of public comments on the .cat and .pro renewal agreements is this Tuesday, two days from now. I've looked over both agreements and they are virtually identical to the .travel agreement. Attached please find two draft public comments for which I ask the endorsement of the PC. They are identical to that which we submitted on 21 June ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-travel-renewal-12may15/msg00013.html) with the exception of changed dates and, of course, changed TLD names. Although repetitive I do believe we should take the opportunity to respond to each instance of staff's blatant attempt to bypass the PDP process by creating de facto consensus policy through contract. This is simply unacceptable. Best, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSGCAT.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 134144 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSGPRO.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 134183 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake Sun Jul 5 17:23:58 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 09:23:58 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Correction: Kleinman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C60A4F5-4CB2-4B72-A8A5-9B038CC06694@gmail.com> Somehow I?d thought she was already subscribed, but I see not http://mailman.ipjustice.org/roster/pc-ncsg I would support adding her. Bill > On Jul 5, 2015, at 8:41 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > > Hi, > > My apologies. I just caught a typo in my last post. > > It is is article 2.5.1, not article 2.5.6, that allows the PC to invite individuals to participate in the PC as Observers. Article 2.5.6 delineates the rights of Observers. > > Sorry for the initial error. My bad. > > Best, > > Ed > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Sun Jul 5 17:24:37 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 09:24:37 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] .CAT, .PRO, public comment endorsement request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sounds right > On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > > Although repetitive I do believe we should take the opportunity to respond to each instance of staff's blatant attempt to bypass the PDP process by creating de facto consensus policy through contract. This is simply unacceptable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sun Jul 5 20:26:46 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 18:26:46 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: <55995A31.8090004@kathykleiman.com> References: <55946262.20103@mail.utoronto.ca> <55995A31.8090004@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Kathy, I'll post your comment to the list and, as it addresses a question I had, respond as well. I'll also note that earlier today I had asked the PC for endorsement of a proposal to add you to the PC list as an Observer. It just makes sense. Thanks for addressing my concerns. I'm not a big fan of "take down or else" but I do acknowledge that everything in ICANN is a balance and that there is a lot more good than bad in both our comment and the proposal. Thanks everyone for your hard work. Now that I understand the compromises that were made I'm happy to endorse with the proviso that as the process gores forward on all things WHOIS we really need to do outreach and involve domestic violence groups worldwide in the process. Starting with Dublin. No one should be endangered by a WHOIS listing or forced to give up free expression rights in order to maintain their safety. Thanks for educating me on the proposal Kathy. Much appreciated! Best, Ed On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Could someone please post the following email to the PC-NCSG (since I am > not currently on the list)? BTW, could someone please add me to the > PC-NCSG? After 15 years of writing comments, we should be able to hold > these conversations directly :-). > > Fortunately, that's not what it says, Ed. That's what the IP guys wanted; > that's not what they got. What the proposed rule says is that the IP guys > get to make their best case to the Proxy/Privacy Providers, and then the > Providers reach out to their Customers (the real or "beneficial" > Registrants). The Customer can respond that their website is using a > trademark to critique or criticize - certainly a fair use in the US and > many other places -- or that they are using an overlapping term as a > regular dictionary word for purposes totally unrelated to the trademark > owner (e.g., the word fox, or time, or people as Fox Broadcasting or Time > Warner would not use them). > > Further, even if the Customer does not get a chance to respond (e.g, on > vacation or the notification email went into spam), the Provider still > looks at the allegations of the IP guys and the use of the domain name and > on their own authority evaluates the allegations. (You'll never guess who > added that provision, and who supported it.) So this means that the > Providers will be looking for those battered women's shelters, political > dissidents, LGBT sites, etc. > > We also push always and all the time for the option of allowing the "take > down" of a domain name rather than the "reveal" of its data -- an option > being preserved in the writing of the PPSAI WG's proposal for any Provider > to offer. We call it the "Wendy Seltzer" rule. > > We've fought for many protections in the draft - hundreds if not thousands > of hours have gone into it. It is the best balance we could strike for > cheap, accessible, available proxy/privacy services -- and we were up > against an army of IP attorneys. > > Best, > Kathy > p.s. in Stockholm with documentary screenings so on and offline. > > > : > > Hi, > > I'm sorry for getting to this late, appreciate all of the hard work put > into the document, but I have trouble endorsing a statement that "strongly > supports" a requirement that places registrants in a position of having, > without a court order, to chose between surrendering their free speech > rights (domain name) or their personal data. I hardly think we should be an > enthusiastic about a position that could, for example, force a domestic > violence victim to lose his or her domain name linked to a page about > abuse rather than reveal his or her name to his or her abuser, or force > someone who supports LGBT rights from losing his or her domain name linked > to LGBT rights, or anything else for that matter, rather than reveal his or > her identity and location. > > If I've misstated the situation please correct me. I recognise that this > might be better than the alternative but I don't think it is something we > should "strongly support". As someone with an active restraining order > against an ex I would hate to be placed in a situation where I would have > to lose my domain name rather than reveal my personal data to a third > party. One does not go through a process of being issued a new government > identity numbers, getting court orders restricting release of drivers > license and passport information to LEA, changing portions of ones name, > to then be forced to chose between safety and speech. Although it may be > better than the alternative under this completely reckless attempt by LEA > to shred online privacy, it still is a choice I don't believe we should > endorse. If I'm wrong please tell me why - I stand ready to be educated. > > Thanks, > > Ed > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> I apologize to all, I was delegated to do a final cleanup edit and I >> have just done that. I am doing a last re-check of the document to make >> sure we did not miss anything. Kudos to Kathy and James for doing the >> heavy lifting on this set of comments. I have made two rather substantive >> recommendations....I do not think we should even think of compromising on >> the issue of commercial/non-commercial, we are winning that battle with the >> petitions so no need to concede any ground. We need to be ready for a >> battle royal when we get back in committee, as the IPC are still >> complaining about astro-turfing.....and are likely doing some of their own >> by now. >> cheers Stephanie >> PS comments on the website now up to 10680, but the last 20 or so appear >> to be bogus....can we figure out who is doing what?? I would hate to have >> a really good campaign tarnished by some kind of trolls... >> >> On 2015-07-01 7:55, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services >> Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get >> individual signatories to give it more wieght. >> the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within >> next days before that date . >> >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and >> Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise >> the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sun Jul 5 20:41:35 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 18:41:35 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] DIDP Message-ID: Hi everyone, Attached please find a personal DIDP I filed today attempting to get details of ICANN's contract with Westlake Governance and assorted matters. I'm hoping to find a clause in the contract that would allow ICANN to force a re-do of portions of the study that were found to be unacceptable in terms of professional standards. I've been told by someone on ICANN staff that such a clause exists; whether ICANN will release the information is a whole different matter. Best, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sun Jul 5 21:18:02 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 14:18:02 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: <55995A31.8090004@kathykleiman.com> References: <55946262.20103@mail.utoronto.ca> <55995A31.8090004@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <559974DA.2020402@mail.utoronto.ca> I would add to Kathy's excellent explanation, that people who are already aware they are at risk are welladvised to use permanant proxy folks to register for them....such as a lawyer. If they get dragged to a UDRP, all is exposed anyway. And it feels like thousands of hours...but I guess is only hundreds. And I second the motion to put Kathy on the list, I keep adding her on items where she has written the material but sometimes I forget and this is just stupid, she should be on the policy cttee list. cheers Steph On 2015-07-05 12:24, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Could someone please post the following email to the PC-NCSG (since I > am not currently on the list)? BTW, could someone please add me to the > PC-NCSG? After 15 years of writing comments, we should be able to hold > these conversations directly :-). > > Fortunately, that's not what it says, Ed. That's what the IP guys > wanted; that's not what they got. What the proposed rule says is that > the IP guys get to make their best case to the Proxy/Privacy > Providers, and then the Providers reach out to their Customers (the > real or "beneficial" Registrants). The Customer can respond that their > website is using a trademark to critique or criticize - certainly a > fair use in the US and many other places -- or that they are using an > overlapping term as a regular dictionary word for purposes totally > unrelated to the trademark owner (e.g., the word fox, or time, or > people as Fox Broadcasting or Time Warner would not use them). > > Further, even if the Customer does not get a chance to respond (e.g, > on vacation or the notification email went into spam), the Provider > still looks at the allegations of the IP guys and the use of the > domain name and on their own authority evaluates the allegations. > (You'll never guess who added that provision, and who supported it.) > So this means that the Providers will be looking for those battered > women's shelters, political dissidents, LGBT sites, etc. > > We also push always and all the time for the option of allowing the > "take down" of a domain name rather than the "reveal" of its data -- > an option being preserved in the writing of the PPSAI WG's proposal > for any Provider to offer. We call it the "Wendy Seltzer" rule. > > We've fought for many protections in the draft - hundreds if not > thousands of hours have gone into it. It is the best balance we could > strike for cheap, accessible, available proxy/privacy services -- and > we were up against an army of IP attorneys. > > Best, > Kathy > p.s. in Stockholm with documentary screenings so on and offline. > > > : >> Hi, >> >> I'm sorry for getting to this late, appreciate all of the hard work >> put into the document, but I have trouble endorsing a statement that >> "strongly supports" a requirement that places registrants in a >> position of having, without a court order, to chose between >> surrendering their free speech rights (domain name) or their personal >> data. I hardly think we should be an enthusiastic about a position >> that could, for example, force a domestic violence victim to lose his >> or her domain name linked to a page about abuse rather than reveal >> his or her name to his or her abuser, or force someone who supports >> LGBT rights from losing his or her domain name linked to LGBT rights, >> or anything else for that matter, rather than reveal his or her >> identity and location. >> >> If I've misstated the situation please correct me. I recognise that >> this might be better than the alternative but I don't think it is >> something we should "strongly support". As someone with an active >> restraining order against an ex I would hate to be placed in a >> situation where I would have to lose my domain name rather than >> reveal my personal data to a third party. One does not go through a >> process of being issued a new government identity numbers, getting >> court orders restricting release of drivers license and passport >> information to LEA, changing portions of ones name, to then be >> forced to chose between safety and speech. Although it may be better >> than the alternative under this completely reckless attempt by LEA to >> shred online privacy, it still is a choice I don't believe we should >> endorse. If I'm wrong please tell me why - I stand ready to be educated. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Stephanie Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >> I apologize to all, I was delegated to do a final cleanup edit >> and I have just done that. I am doing a last re-check of the >> document to make sure we did not miss anything. Kudos to Kathy >> and James for doing the heavy lifting on this set of comments. I >> have made two rather substantive recommendations....I do not >> think we should even think of compromising on the issue of >> commercial/non-commercial, we are winning that battle with the >> petitions so no need to concede any ground. We need to be ready >> for a battle royal when we get back in committee, as the IPC are >> still complaining about astro-turfing.....and are likely doing >> some of their own by now. >> cheers Stephanie >> PS comments on the website now up to 10680, but the last 20 or so >> appear to be bogus....can we figure out who is doing what?? I >> would hate to have a really good campaign tarnished by some kind >> of trolls... >> >> On 2015-07-01 7:55, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services >>> Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also >>> ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. >>> the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it >>> within next days before that date . >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy >>> and Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their >>> efforts to raise the concerns and awareness about the report >>> outcome. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sun Jul 5 23:30:42 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 05:30:42 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] .CAT, .PRO, public comment endorsement request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ed, thanks for the work. I think there was already an agreement in BA meeting to submit the adapted comments for .cat and .pro , which are similar to .travel comment. if there is no objections by Monday, I would assume that the comments are endorsed by NCSG PC and I will submit them by the deadline. Best, Rafik 2015-07-05 23:14 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > HI everybody, > > > The deadline for submission of public comments on the .cat and .pro > renewal agreements is this Tuesday, two days from now. I've looked over > both agreements and they are virtually identical to the .travel agreement. > > Attached please find two draft public comments for which I ask the > endorsement of the PC. They are identical to that which we submitted on 21 > June ( > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-travel-renewal-12may15/msg00013.html) > with the exception of changed dates and, of course, changed TLD names. > > Although repetitive I do believe we should take the opportunity to respond > to each instance of staff's blatant attempt to bypass the PDP process by > creating de facto consensus policy through contract. This is simply > unacceptable. > > Best, > > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sun Jul 5 23:36:46 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 05:36:46 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call Message-ID: Hi everyone, The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't see any objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was answered. it is time to have a last call on this and get it endorsed before the deadline in Tuesday . James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. Best Regards, Rafik 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services > Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get > individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within next > days before that date . > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and > Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise > the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Mon Jul 6 00:19:32 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 17:19:32 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55999F64.50008@mail.utoronto.ca> Fabulous, just so you are not surprised, I am going to submit my own reflections on the draft, in the context of my work on the EWG. I want to point out, in a more high level comment, that 1. ICANN has no remit to look at purpose of registration (commercial vs non) 2. That the PP service has sprung up because data protection law is not being enforced (out of scope, I know) 3. That it can be priced out of existence by any of a number of issues mentioned in the report 4. That as the article in Domain incite points out, evidence of a need for /the usefulness of the push for more accurate data is not there 5. THat since the EWG report relied on the continued existence of pp services to protect privacy, this is a critically important PDP 6. That the inter-relatedness of the various WHOIS-related exercises makes it difficult to manage policy, and change it to reflect a changing Internet. Risks change over time, and the risk to individual users is going up, demanding change in policy. 7. I think I would like to echo the words of the guy in the Domain incite article....put it on hold until the whois RDS exercise is done, otherwise we risk paving the cowpath. cheers SP On 2015-07-05 16:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't see > any objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was answered. it is > time to have a last call on this and get it endorsed before the > deadline in Tuesday . > James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services > Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also > ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it > within next days before that date . > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and > Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts > to raise the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Jul 6 00:20:52 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:20:52 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> <5595849C.4040606@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, while we got the extension to 8th july, I assume there was no changes in the latest version. I will submit the comment today to close this task. Best, Rafik 2015-07-03 6:37 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi, > It sounds that the public comment period was extended to 8th july > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-02-en > > Rafik > On Jul 3, 2015 3:36 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I just made some changes to that papra. >> >> hope it makes sense now. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 02-Jul-15 10:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> > I put some comments/edits in the document, there is one para that >> > several of us have queried that is still awkward (I cannot figure out >> > quite what we are trying to say) so would suggest the author take >> > another look at it to try to simplify it....review on review after >> > review etc. >> > Thanks for the opportunity and kudos to the authors, especially James >> > for initiating! So much to do at the moment..... >> > Stephanie >> > >> > On 2015-07-02 8:20, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of your >> >> rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. I would >> >> personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out your views. >> >> The only issues I have a strong opinion on here are probably the ATRT >> >> and WHOIS review. >> >> >> >> I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of ATRTs are >> >> delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, they?ll >> >> never get done. >> >> >> >> Thanks again. >> >> >> >> Amr >> >> >> >> On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Amr. >> >>> >> >>> I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about the impact >> >>> of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these groups >> >>> could be very different creatures depending upon the form >> >>> accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? If so, >> >>> charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, created. Will >> >>> there be accountability requirements imposed upon the groups? If so, >> >>> we may be reviewing an organization much different than what it is >> >>> to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in that case. >> >>> >> >>> Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the ATRT reviews >> >>> as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was >> >>> always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and stressed the >> >>> importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to reconsider. >> >>> >> >>> If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large >> >>> should go first because it arguably has the most to reform and is >> >>> larger than the other two. >> >>> >> >>> I'm happy to support a statement with views different than my own >> >>> because there are a number of reasonable positions on this matter. >> >>> There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I agree with >> >>> than not - my own views were submitted in a personal comment so will >> >>> be represented in the staff report - so do support submission in >> >>> whatever way you deem appropriate. >> >>> >> >>> Ed >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> >> >>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? >> >>>> Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought >> >>>> you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed? >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks again. >> >>>> >> >>>> Amr >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically >> >>>>> halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done >> >>>>> but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more >> >>>>> relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward >> >>>>> I would prioritize the at large review given the relative >> >>>>> importance of the group to proposed reforms. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and >> >>>>> there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if >> >>>>> others support it. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Ed >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr >> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start >> >>>>>> getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it >> >>>>>> before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some >> >>>>>> concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at >> >>>>>> this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make >> >>>>>> much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may >> >>>>>> change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would >> >>>>>> want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the >> >>>>>> post-EWG PDP is going on. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Amr >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Rafik >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> we got this comment initiated by James >> >>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing >> >>>>>>> and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can >> >>>>>>> endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Rafik >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Jul 6 00:23:05 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:23:05 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call In-Reply-To: <55999F64.50008@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55999F64.50008@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, Thanks, can you be more clear here: are you suggesting to add now those points in the draft comment? Best, Rafik 2015-07-06 6:19 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > Fabulous, just so you are not surprised, I am going to submit my own > reflections on the draft, in the context of my work on the EWG. I want to > point out, in a more high level comment, that > 1. ICANN has no remit to look at purpose of registration (commercial vs > non) > 2. That the PP service has sprung up because data protection law is not > being enforced (out of scope, I know) > 3. That it can be priced out of existence by any of a number of issues > mentioned in the report > 4. That as the article in Domain incite points out, evidence of a need > for /the usefulness of the push for more accurate data is not there > 5. THat since the EWG report relied on the continued existence of pp > services to protect privacy, this is a critically important PDP > 6. That the inter-relatedness of the various WHOIS-related exercises > makes it difficult to manage policy, and change it to reflect a changing > Internet. Risks change over time, and the risk to individual users is > going up, demanding change in policy. > 7. I think I would like to echo the words of the guy in the Domain incite > article....put it on hold until the whois RDS exercise is done, otherwise > we risk paving the cowpath. > cheers SP > > > On 2015-07-05 16:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't see > any objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was answered. it is time > to have a last call on this and get it endorsed before the deadline in > Tuesday . > James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi everyone, >> >> we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services >> Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get >> individual signatories to give it more wieght. >> the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within >> next days before that date . >> >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and >> Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise >> the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Mon Jul 6 00:23:25 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:23:25 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call In-Reply-To: <55999F64.50008@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55999F64.50008@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5599A04D.1020607@acm.org> sounds good. avri On 05-Jul-15 17:19, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Fabulous, just so you are not surprised, I am going to submit my own > reflections on the draft, in the context of my work on the EWG. I > want to point out, in a more high level comment, that > 1. ICANN has no remit to look at purpose of registration (commercial > vs non) > 2. That the PP service has sprung up because data protection law is > not being enforced (out of scope, I know) > 3. That it can be priced out of existence by any of a number of > issues mentioned in the report > 4. That as the article in Domain incite points out, evidence of a > need for /the usefulness of the push for more accurate data is not there > 5. THat since the EWG report relied on the continued existence of pp > services to protect privacy, this is a critically important PDP > 6. That the inter-relatedness of the various WHOIS-related exercises > makes it difficult to manage policy, and change it to reflect a > changing Internet. Risks change over time, and the risk to individual > users is going up, demanding change in policy. > 7. I think I would like to echo the words of the guy in the Domain > incite article....put it on hold until the whois RDS exercise is done, > otherwise we risk paving the cowpath. > cheers SP > > On 2015-07-05 16:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't see >> any objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was answered. it >> is time to have a last call on this and get it endorsed before the >> deadline in Tuesday . >> James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services >> Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also >> ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. >> the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it >> within next days before that date . >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and >> Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their >> efforts to raise the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri Mon Jul 6 00:23:53 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:23:53 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> <5595849C.4040606@acm.org> Message-ID: <5599A069.2020900@acm.org> good idea avri On 05-Jul-15 17:20, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > while we got the extension to 8th july, I assume there was no changes > in the latest version. I will submit the comment today to close this task. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2015-07-03 6:37 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi, > It sounds that the public comment period was extended to 8th july > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-02-en > > Rafik > > On Jul 3, 2015 3:36 AM, "Avri Doria" > wrote: > > Hi, > > I just made some changes to that papra. > > hope it makes sense now. > > avri > > > On 02-Jul-15 10:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I put some comments/edits in the document, there is one para > that > > several of us have queried that is still awkward (I cannot > figure out > > quite what we are trying to say) so would suggest the author > take > > another look at it to try to simplify it....review on review > after > > review etc. > > Thanks for the opportunity and kudos to the authors, > especially James > > for initiating! So much to do at the moment..... > > Stephanie > > > > On 2015-07-02 8:20, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of > your > >> rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. > I would > >> personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out > your views. > >> The only issues I have a strong opinion on here are > probably the ATRT > >> and WHOIS review. > >> > >> I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of > ATRTs are > >> delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, > they?ll > >> never get done. > >> > >> Thanks again. > >> > >> Amr > >> > >> On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris > > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Amr. > >>> > >>> I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about > the impact > >>> of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these > groups > >>> could be very different creatures depending upon the form > >>> accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? > If so, > >>> charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, > created. Will > >>> there be accountability requirements imposed upon the > groups? If so, > >>> we may be reviewing an organization much different than > what it is > >>> to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in > that case. > >>> > >>> Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the > ATRT reviews > >>> as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was > >>> always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and > stressed the > >>> importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to > reconsider. > >>> > >>> If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large > >>> should go first because it arguably has the most to reform > and is > >>> larger than the other two. > >>> > >>> I'm happy to support a statement with views different than > my own > >>> because there are a number of reasonable positions on this > matter. > >>> There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I > agree with > >>> than not - my own views were submitted in a personal > comment so will > >>> be represented in the staff report - so do support > submission in > >>> whatever way you deem appropriate. > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference > in views? > >>>> Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I > thought > >>>> you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be > delayed? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks again. > >>>> > >>>> Amr > >>>> > >>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris > > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> My views are a bit different than those in the document: > basically > >>>>> halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws > changes are done > >>>>> but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more > >>>>> relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to > go forward > >>>>> I would prioritize the at large review given the relative > >>>>> importance of the group to proposed reforms. > >>>>> > >>>>> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as > is and > >>>>> there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go > forward if > >>>>> others support it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ed > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr > > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good > time to start > >>>>>> getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to > submit it > >>>>>> before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some > >>>>>> concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS > review at > >>>>>> this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It > doesn?t make > >>>>>> much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the > WHOIS may > >>>>>> change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers > would > >>>>>> want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the > >>>>>> post-EWG PDP is going on. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Amr > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak > >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted > by NCSG. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: > >>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> we got this comment initiated by James > >>>>>>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>> and which received some edits. please review it so > NCSG PC can > >>>>>>> endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus > software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri Mon Jul 6 00:24:48 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:24:48 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5599A0A0.5060203@acm.org> Hi, Checking to add APC to the list. avri On 05-Jul-15 16:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't see > any objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was answered. it is > time to have a last call on this and get it endorsed before the > deadline in Tuesday . > James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services > Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also > ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it > within next days before that date . > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and > Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts > to raise the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From stephanie.perrin Mon Jul 6 00:39:19 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 17:39:19 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call In-Reply-To: References: <55999F64.50008@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5599A407.5050806@mail.utoronto.ca> I am sorry, I meant I will send in my own separate set of comments, as an ex ewg member. I want to call them out on some stuff that is buried in the EWG report, that stands to be changed in this one. Remember I was the victim of an ambush when they put those privacy proxy things in there, knowing full well a PDP would be starting soon..... cheers SP On 2015-07-05 17:23, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > Thanks, can you be more clear here: are you suggesting to add now > those points in the draft comment? > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-06 6:19 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin > >: > > Fabulous, just so you are not surprised, I am going to submit my > own reflections on the draft, in the context of my work on the > EWG. I want to point out, in a more high level comment, that > 1. ICANN has no remit to look at purpose of registration > (commercial vs non) > 2. That the PP service has sprung up because data protection law > is not being enforced (out of scope, I know) > 3. That it can be priced out of existence by any of a number of > issues mentioned in the report > 4. That as the article in Domain incite points out, evidence of a > need for /the usefulness of the push for more accurate data is > not there > 5. THat since the EWG report relied on the continued existence of > pp services to protect privacy, this is a critically important PDP > 6. That the inter-relatedness of the various WHOIS-related > exercises makes it difficult to manage policy, and change it to > reflect a changing Internet. Risks change over time, and the risk > to individual users is going up, demanding change in policy. > 7. I think I would like to echo the words of the guy in the > Domain incite article....put it on hold until the whois RDS > exercise is done, otherwise we risk paving the cowpath. > cheers SP > > > On 2015-07-05 16:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't >> see any objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was >> answered. it is time to have a last call on this and get it >> endorsed before the deadline in Tuesday . >> James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services >> Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also >> ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. >> the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review >> it within next days before that date . >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy >> and Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all >> their efforts to raise the concerns and awareness about the >> report outcome. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Mon Jul 6 04:22:42 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 02:22:42 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: DIDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ( Second attempt: This time with the attachment, I hope!) Hi everyone, Attached please find a personal DIDP I filed today attempting to get details of ICANN's contract with Westlake Governance and assorted matters. I'm hoping to find a clause in the contract that would allow ICANN to force a re-do of portions of the study that were found to be unacceptable in terms of professional standards. I've been told by someone on ICANN staff that such a clause exists; whether ICANN will release the information is a whole different matter. Best, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DIDPREQUEST.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 127824 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joy Mon Jul 6 14:16:05 2015 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 23:16:05 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Kathy Kleinman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <787111FE-4A90-4093-A763-D80E57FAA251@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Hi Ed, a great suggestion which I am happy to support. Joy Liddicoat Sent from my phone > On 6/07/2015, at 1:36, Edward Morris wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would like to propose under section 2.5.6 of the NCSG Charter that we allow Kathy Kleinman the right to participate in the NCSG PC discussions as an expert observer. This status would extend to Kathy, per article 2.5.6, "full participation rights" except those involving consensus processes and votes. > > We all know that Kathy is one of our most prolific public comment writers and one of our resident experts on things WHOIS and privacy. She also is a treasure trove of information on all things historic at ICANN. I think we all would benefit from her continuous engagement. She often, as today, is copied on PC posts as they relate to her area of subject expertise. With the forthcoming ATRT WHOIS efforts and EWG work I'd suggest it's best to automate her involvement in the PC lest we inadvertently lose her insight on these important issues by her exclusion from the list. > > Thank you for considering. > > Best, > > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Mon Jul 6 15:41:52 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:41:52 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Kathy Kleinman In-Reply-To: <787111FE-4A90-4093-A763-D80E57FAA251@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> References: <787111FE-4A90-4093-A763-D80E57FAA251@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Message-ID: <06DD3243-2F15-4B69-A345-F1A2B1821264@egyptig.org> Hi, On Jul 6, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: > Hi Ed, a great suggestion which I am happy to support. > +1 from me. Kathy would undoubtedly bring a great deal of experience and knowledge to this list. When I first began working on WHOIS stuff, Kathy spent a great deal of time helping me get started. I've sought her opinion on almost anything WHOIS-related since ? most recently on the NCSG comment regarding the scheduling of the WHOIS review. I will also add that Kathy?s experience in WHOIS isn?t limited to substantive knowledge of the topic policies. She?s also pretty familiar with the players. She?s been swashbuckling with them for quite some time now. Great suggestion, Ed. Thanks for making it. Having said that though?, I would voice another personal opinion (which has no bearing on adding Kathy here). I do wish we would hold as many policy-related discussions on the NCSG-DISCUSS list as possible, instead of here on the PC list. Like I said, that?s just a personal preference. It seems to me that those who are actively engaged in different working groups or discussions should share thoughts as widely among our membership as possible. NCSG-DISCUSS is a much better place to do that than this list. Thanks again. Amr From aelsadr Mon Jul 6 15:44:09 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:44:09 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment In-Reply-To: <5599A069.2020900@acm.org> References: <81258BD8-ED53-4038-8440-DD3ECF2E6437@egyptig.org> <4D5F1010-FF5E-456A-AF72-0798665B7C3D@toast.net> <4ED3BADB-172A-4C13-8A7F-AF14B9780DA8@egyptig.org> <07F63BD9-AFE9-4E21-A23F-A15868BBFD46@toast.net> <5F7DD95B-2704-43D1-9040-3671C1DAC535@egyptig.org> <559546E6.50508@mail.utoronto.ca> <5595849C.4040606@acm.org> <5599A069.2020900@acm.org> Message-ID: <90D72706-26E6-4CED-A729-F1B84F1715AF@egyptig.org> I think so too. Thanks. Amr On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > good idea > > avri > > On 05-Jul-15 17:20, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> while we got the extension to 8th july, I assume there was no changes >> in the latest version. I will submit the comment today to close this task. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2015-07-03 6:37 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi, >> It sounds that the public comment period was extended to 8th july >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-02-en >> >> Rafik >> >> On Jul 3, 2015 3:36 AM, "Avri Doria" > > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I just made some changes to that papra. >> >> hope it makes sense now. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 02-Jul-15 10:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> I put some comments/edits in the document, there is one para >> that >>> several of us have queried that is still awkward (I cannot >> figure out >>> quite what we are trying to say) so would suggest the author >> take >>> another look at it to try to simplify it....review on review >> after >>> review etc. >>> Thanks for the opportunity and kudos to the authors, >> especially James >>> for initiating! So much to do at the moment..... >>> Stephanie >>> >>> On 2015-07-02 8:20, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of >> your >>>> rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. >> I would >>>> personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out >> your views. >>>> The only issues I have a strong opinion on here are >> probably the ATRT >>>> and WHOIS review. >>>> >>>> I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of >> ATRTs are >>>> delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, >> they?ll >>>> never get done. >>>> >>>> Thanks again. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris >> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Amr. >>>>> >>>>> I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about >> the impact >>>>> of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these >> groups >>>>> could be very different creatures depending upon the form >>>>> accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? >> If so, >>>>> charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, >> created. Will >>>>> there be accountability requirements imposed upon the >> groups? If so, >>>>> we may be reviewing an organization much different than >> what it is >>>>> to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in >> that case. >>>>> >>>>> Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the >> ATRT reviews >>>>> as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was >>>>> always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and >> stressed the >>>>> importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to >> reconsider. >>>>> >>>>> If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large >>>>> should go first because it arguably has the most to reform >> and is >>>>> larger than the other two. >>>>> >>>>> I'm happy to support a statement with views different than >> my own >>>>> because there are a number of reasonable positions on this >> matter. >>>>> There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I >> agree with >>>>> than not - my own views were submitted in a personal >> comment so will >>>>> be represented in the staff report - so do support >> submission in >>>>> whatever way you deem appropriate. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr >> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference >> in views? >>>>>> Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I >> thought >>>>>> you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be >> delayed? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris >> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My views are a bit different than those in the document: >> basically >>>>>>> halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws >> changes are done >>>>>>> but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more >>>>>>> relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to >> go forward >>>>>>> I would prioritize the at large review given the relative >>>>>>> importance of the group to proposed reforms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as >> is and >>>>>>> there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go >> forward if >>>>>>> others support it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr >> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good >> time to start >>>>>>>> getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to >> submit it >>>>>>>> before July 2nd, UTC 23:59. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some >>>>>>>> concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS >> review at >>>>>>>> this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It >> doesn?t make >>>>>>>> much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the >> WHOIS may >>>>>>>> change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers >> would >>>>>>>> want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the >>>>>>>> post-EWG PDP is going on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>>> > > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted >> by NCSG. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >: >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> we got this comment initiated by James >>>>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>> and which received some edits. please review it so >> NCSG PC can >>>>>>>>> endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so please review, comments and help with edits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >> software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Mon Jul 6 16:12:38 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:12:38 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: <559974DA.2020402@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55946262.20103@mail.utoronto.ca> <55995A31.8090004@kathykleiman.com> <559974DA.2020402@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, On Jul 5, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: [SNIP] > If they get dragged to a UDRP, all is exposed anyway. This is one of the key factors, IMHO. If I am not mistaken, in the past when UDRPs were filed, p/p providers would reveal the registrant WHOIS data or risk becoming the liable party in the dispute. The PPSAI WG is now differentiating between two types of disclosure, one being revealing directly to a third party, or removing the p/p service altogether to publish the data in the public WHOIS database. In either case, I support giving registrants the choice to take down a domain name registration instead of moving ahead with the data being revealed/published. Thanks. Amr From aelsadr Mon Jul 6 16:13:22 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:13:22 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] .CAT, .PRO, public comment endorsement request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7DC063F3-F51A-45FB-8146-3C187B33C5F7@egyptig.org> That was my understanding as well. Thanks. Amr On Jul 5, 2015, at 10:30 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ed, > > thanks for the work. I think there was already an agreement in BA meeting to submit the adapted comments for .cat and .pro , which are similar to .travel comment. if there is no objections by Monday, I would assume that the comments are endorsed by NCSG PC and I will submit them by the deadline. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-05 23:14 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > HI everybody, > > > The deadline for submission of public comments on the .cat and .pro renewal agreements is this Tuesday, two days from now. I've looked over both agreements and they are virtually identical to the .travel agreement. > > Attached please find two draft public comments for which I ask the endorsement of the PC. They are identical to that which we submitted on 21 June ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-travel-renewal-12may15/msg00013.html) with the exception of changed dates and, of course, changed TLD names. > > Although repetitive I do believe we should take the opportunity to respond to each instance of staff's blatant attempt to bypass the PDP process by creating de facto consensus policy through contract. This is simply unacceptable. > > Best, > > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Mon Jul 6 16:16:27 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:16:27 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <769A9006-44E0-4FDD-B8DB-4D43C081FA87@egyptig.org> I support the NCSG endorsing this comment. One of the finer ones drafted on a very complex issue. Although the public comment period is closing, I still think it would be worthwhile holding a webinar on this topic. It?s an important one to a longstanding policy struggle the NCSG has been involved in. Bringing folks up-to-speed might be a good idea, if one of the active NCSG participants in the WG are willing to present it. Maybe between the publication of the final report, and the GNSO Council voting on adopting its recommendations? Thanks. Amr On Jul 5, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't see any objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was answered. it is time to have a last call on this and get it endorsed before the deadline in Tuesday . > James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within next days before that date . > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Mon Jul 6 16:32:54 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:32:54 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <55946262.20103@mail.utoronto.ca> <55995A31.8090004@kathykleiman.com> <559974DA.2020402@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <559A8386.4020802@mail.utoronto.ca> Yes, I agree...but we will have to fight this out again in the UDRP review, is that correct? Nothing we decide in the PPSAI will change what happens in the UDRP process... cheers SP On 2015-07-06 9:12, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > On Jul 5, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > [SNIP] > >> If they get dragged to a UDRP, all is exposed anyway. > This is one of the key factors, IMHO. If I am not mistaken, in the past when UDRPs were filed, p/p providers would reveal the registrant WHOIS data or risk becoming the liable party in the dispute. The PPSAI WG is now differentiating between two types of disclosure, one being revealing directly to a third party, or removing the p/p service altogether to publish the data in the public WHOIS database. In either case, I support giving registrants the choice to take down a domain name registration instead of moving ahead with the data being revealed/published. > > Thanks. > > Amr From stephanie.perrin Mon Jul 6 16:35:23 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:35:23 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call In-Reply-To: <769A9006-44E0-4FDD-B8DB-4D43C081FA87@egyptig.org> References: <769A9006-44E0-4FDD-B8DB-4D43C081FA87@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <559A841B.5070804@mail.utoronto.ca> Suppose we wait until Kathy gets back from Sweden, she is definitely a powerful authority on such a webinar. We could even, if we wanted to be inclusive, invite Holly and Carlton to participate. They invite us to their meetings. cheers steph On 2015-07-06 9:16, Amr Elsadr wrote: > I support the NCSG endorsing this comment. One of the finer ones drafted on a very complex issue. > > Although the public comment period is closing, I still think it would be worthwhile holding a webinar on this topic. It?s an important one to a longstanding policy struggle the NCSG has been involved in. Bringing folks up-to-speed might be a good idea, if one of the active NCSG participants in the WG are willing to present it. Maybe between the publication of the final report, and the GNSO Council voting on adopting its recommendations? > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 5, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't see any objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was answered. it is time to have a last call on this and get it endorsed before the deadline in Tuesday . >> James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> Hi everyone, >> >> we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. >> the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within next days before that date . >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Mon Jul 6 18:01:03 2015 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 08:01:03 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] DIDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks very much for doing this, Ed. I had also considered filing an ombudsman complaint on the matter. But I'll wait until after the DIDP is denied by ICANN before doing that. Thanks again, Robin On Jul 5, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > ( Second attempt: This time with the attachment, I hope!) > > > > Hi everyone, > > > Attached please find a personal DIDP I filed today attempting to get details of ICANN's contract with Westlake Governance and assorted matters. I'm hoping to find a clause in the contract that would allow ICANN to force a re-do of portions of the study that were found to be unacceptable in terms of professional standards. I've been told by someone on ICANN staff that such a clause exists; whether ICANN will release the information is a whole different matter. > > Best, > > Ed > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From egmorris1 Mon Jul 6 21:07:24 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 19:07:24 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] DIDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Robin, Thanks for waiting for the DIDP denial. I think your idea regarding the Ombudsman is a good place to go with this as his remit focuses on fairness and that is a big part of what is involved here. If TM50 is any indication the Ombudsman will never issue an opinion but it's always nice to pretend he will. :) I hope everyone notices I filed the DIDP as a GNSO Counsellor rather than asking for NCSG endorsement. I did this to bolster my case in the reconsideration that will follow the DIDP denial. My contention is that I need these documents to do my job as a Councillor. My Council position is specifically mentioned in the ICANN bylaws so, I shall argue, denial of the DIDP effectively is a Bylaws violation. In making that claim I will argue my belief that the entire Westlake report should be discarded due to faulty methodology. In that way we will get our principle argument before some members of the Board (the BGC) in a roundabout way. Of course, perhaps they give me the documents I've asked for. There is always a first for everything. Best, Ed On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Thanks very much for doing this, Ed. I had also considered filing an > ombudsman complaint on the matter. But I'll wait until after the DIDP is > denied by ICANN before doing that. > > Thanks again, > Robin > > > On Jul 5, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > > ( Second attempt: This time with the attachment, I hope!) > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > Attached please find a personal DIDP I filed today attempting to get > details of ICANN's contract with Westlake Governance and assorted matters. > I'm hoping to find a clause in the contract that would allow ICANN to force > a re-do of portions of the study that were found to be unacceptable in > terms of professional standards. I've been told by someone on ICANN staff > that such a clause exists; whether ICANN will release the information is a > whole different matter. > > > > Best, > > > > Ed > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Jul 7 18:52:37 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 00:52:37 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, I think that the comment is endorsed and ready to be submitted. I will do so . Thanks to the drafters and contributors for the work done in the statememt. Best. Rafik On Jul 6, 2015 5:36 AM, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't see any > objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was answered. it is time to > have a last call on this and get it endorsed before the deadline in Tuesday > . > James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi everyone, >> >> we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services >> Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get >> individual signatories to give it more wieght. >> the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within >> next days before that date . >> >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and >> Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise >> the concerns and awareness about the report outcome. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Jul 7 20:11:16 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 13:11:16 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment last call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559C0834.8030006@mail.utoronto.ca> great, thanks Rafik! SP On 2015-07-07 11:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I think that the comment is endorsed and ready to be submitted. I will > do so . > > Thanks to the drafters and contributors for the work done in the > statememt. > > Best. > > Rafik > > On Jul 6, 2015 5:36 AM, "Rafik Dammak" > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > The comment has been edited and reviewed these last days. I don't > see any objection and I think the concern raised by Ed was > answered. it is time to have a last call on this and get it > endorsed before the deadline in Tuesday . > James is getting the signatures and will add them to the document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-01 20:55 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi everyone, > > we got the comment for Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services > Issues report ready for review and endorsement, it is also > ready to get individual signatories to give it more wieght. > the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it > within next days before that date . > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing > > > this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy > and Stephanie. thanks for their leadership here and all their > efforts to raise the concerns and awareness about the report > outcome. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Jul 7 21:14:22 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:14:22 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Perrin comments on PPSAI Message-ID: <559C16FE.5090201@mail.utoronto.ca> I am sending in the attached comments under my own name. ANy comments would be welcome. I pulled my punches on the eWG.....not much point complaining about enticement down garden paths, etc..... Steph -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PPSP.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38912 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Jul 7 21:25:48 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:25:48 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Perrin comments on PPSAI In-Reply-To: <559C16FE.5090201@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <559C16FE.5090201@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <559C19AC.5030300@mail.utoronto.ca> Revised section 2, thanks to a suggest from James.....comments gratefully received On 2015-07-07 14:14, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I am sending in the attached comments under my own name. ANy comments > would be welcome. I pulled my punches on the eWG.....not much point > complaining about enticement down garden paths, etc..... > Steph > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PPSP.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Jul 8 05:52:27 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:52:27 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Priorities / Public comments Message-ID: Hi everyone, while we delivered some comments lately (thanks again for the work done), we may have to respond to those 2 in coming weeks: - GNSO review report: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en the deadline is 20th July - GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration 10th Aug for the former, we need group of volunteers to draft comment asap (anyone want to take the lead?). while for the latter, we should weight if is really necessary to comment or not. on term of priorities we should looking too, and based on Matt suggestion regarding a wrap-up of BA meeting: - NCSG position on PICs: we spent sometimes during our meeting with board and ALAC about the topic. what we should do concretely to move forward after we already expressed our concerns about process. - Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon. there was the public session and DT own meeting in BA. it will be helpful to get the update from our representatives and see how we should proceed e.g. setting an ad-hoc list like for IANA. also preparing for appointments to several AoC review teams planned in September. it is kind of planning exercise and everyone should participate here so we can do our work for the coming months and able to respond. any other items we should add to the list? Best Regards, Rafik ps for Dublin meeting, I will add a wrap-up session to our NCSG schedule -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran Wed Jul 8 08:01:09 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 01:01:09 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> On 07/07/2015 10:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote (among other things): > Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon. I have interests in this at two levels, first respect to the resulting process for handling auction proceeds (without expanding ICANN staff :-( ), and second as a development economist. I am willing to be pressed into whatever hard labour is needed here. I hear the business community suggesting, in effect, "It is our money and we would like it back". My presumption is that if there is business consensus on that position they would resort to a private auction, and if it is an ICANN auction, broader public interest objectives should apply. Sam L. From dave Wed Jul 8 10:26:06 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:26:06 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> > On 8 Jul 2015, at 1:01 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > On 07/07/2015 10:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote (among other things): >> Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon. > > I have interests in this at two levels, first respect to the resulting process for handling auction proceeds (without expanding ICANN staff :-( ), and second as a development economist. I am willing to be pressed into whatever hard labour is needed here. > > I hear the business community suggesting, in effect, "It is our money and we would like it back". My presumption is that if there is business consensus on that position they would resort to a private auction, and if it is an ICANN auction, broader public interest objectives should apply. I agree with this position. The private auction path has been there all along, it has been obvious that in some respects it is a better deal for the businesses involved, and revisiting that choice now is inappropriate. Of course, this is just the drafting team - hopefully more of us will get involved with this discussion once it leaves the terms of reference stage. David -------------- 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: From rafik.dammak Thu Jul 9 05:26:36 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 11:26:36 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board Message-ID: Hi everyone, we received this request for input about the joint session we had with the board in BA meeting. We had also the opportunity to talk about when we met Bruce and Markus, getting some reactions about the meeting, the topics and how we may improve things. I think there was agreement that we should work out better our questions/topics to avoid looking controversial (not sure how we can assess that), and trying to liaise with Markus first to hash out the topics and/or having pre-meeting confcall to prepare for the session. that means more work for us but it can also mean having a better outcome and being more action-oriented. we can comment about the format and the changes. my initial comment was that the board self-defeated the purpose of getting earlier the topics when it didn't respond till on month after receiving them and few days before the meeting. please share you thoughts and input that you think we should send to board. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Megan Bishop Date: 2015-07-09 4:54 GMT+09:00 Subject: ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback To: Rafik Dammak , "william.drake at uzh.ch" < william.drake at uzh.ch>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" Cc: David Olive Dear All, Following on from the roundtable experiment at Constituency Day in Buenos Aires, the ICANN Board is interested to hear feedback from you and your groups on how the changes were received, and what areas can be improved upon. Another element we?d like feedback on is the rotating schedule of informal cocktail receptions. Please let us hear your feedback on that as well. I will collect all comments/suggestions received and send them on to the Board in preparation for ICANN 54 in Dublin. Kind regards, Megan Megan Bishop Board Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 Direct: +1-310-301-5808 *One World. One Internet.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Jul 9 21:06:13 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:06:13 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] possible motion to the GNSO re the WHOIS conflicts with law procedure? Message-ID: <559EB815.7090405@mail.utoronto.ca> Hi folks, I believe you have heard me rant about the ridiculous nature of the discussions we are having in the WHOIS conflicts with law procedure group (IAG volunteers) https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/WHOIS+and+national+law+conflicts+IAG+Home Jamie Headland has circulated a draft report (attached), which he would like us to agree on at the next meeting on Monday. Chris Wilkinson is objecting, claiming the policy should be revised/thrown out. James G has sent the helpful proposal listed in the thread below, but unfortunately this does not help to resolve the problem with the underlying policy. In my view, it would be timely and appropriate for one of us to table a motion at the GNSO to revisit the policy, even though I have just sent the following to the list: Personally, I would agree with the recent Circle ID post by Mark Jeftovic, http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150703_confessions_of_an_ex_opponent_of_whois_privacy/. His recommendations seem to be useful in this discussion: 1. Any Whois Privacy Policy revisions should be tabled until the entire Whois database is re-engineered as the next generation RDS. 2. That a guiding principle of any future Next Gen Whois / RDS Working Groups should incorporate *legal due process* and *end-user, (that is Registrant) control over their own data records*, complete with automated mechanisms to alert Registrants when inquiries are made into their records, what the purpose of those inquiries are and allowing Registrants the ability to withhold disclosure (except in cases of overt net abuse or where a law enforcement agency is pursuing a legitimate investigation subject to a valid warrant). What does this group think of raising the matter to the GNSO? They are likely to say wait for the WHOIS issues report, but in the meantime we are papering over a large crack in the wall/foundation, and I hold out no hope of seeing the WHOIS issues report settled anytime soon, nor the appropriate PDPs struck and staffed in time to fix this issue. Ideas welcome.... Steph. .......Thread....... All, As someone who fundamentally disagrees with much of the current WHOIS policy I still have to say that Jamie is correct here, the IAG has a mandate, that mandate is to review the trigger procedure. Our mandate is not to initiate policy development or review. We have 3 forks in the road at this point: * We come to consensus on an updated trigger mechanism and issue a final report that reflects that * We do not come to consensus on an updates trigger mechanism and issue a split final report that reflects that * We agree amongst the members of the IAG that due to fundamental disagreements that the IAG is unable to progress further and recommend that we disband our efforts. I would much prefer for us to work constructively, within our mandate, to achieve either option 1 or 2 as determined by us, the community. At a fundamental level I think we need to go back and assess our current situation with our respective communities and return to Mondays call with a position on the continuation of the valuable work that I think the IAG is able to achieve. We need to decide if we are going to move forward on the topic at hand, and if the answer is yes then we need to have agreement from everyone involved that we will work on the issue at hand for the IAG, regardless of our issues with the underlying policy which many of us feel needs serious modernisation. -James Gannon On 9 Jul 2015, at 18:07, Jamie Hedlund > wrote: Thanks, Christopher. I invite you to review the scope and mission of this IAG, available at https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/WHOIS+and+national+law+conflicts+IAG+Home. From what I can discern from your comments, you would like this group to tackle issues that are or could be the subject of policy development. As you know, there is the ongoing work of the EWG to develop a replacement for WHOIS. The GNSO could decide to initiate a PDP to address the policy underlying the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure. Regarding your desire to restructure the GNSO, the GNSO is subject to regular reviews. All of this is to say that you and the community have multiple opportunities to provide input into all of the subjects that are of interest. But the purpose of this IAG is fairly narrow. It is limited by the policy itself which calls for annual reviews of the Procedure. It does not call for a review of the Procedure?s underlying policy, WHOIS, or the GNSO. Those happen in other community fora. We hope you will actively participate in those as well. Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund at icann.org From: Christopher Wilkinson > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 12:50 To: Jamie Hedlund > Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org " >, Steve Crocker >, Fadi Chehade >, Cherine Chalaby >, Alan Greenberg >, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >, John Jeffrey > Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report Dear Jamie:Allow me, for a moment, to abstract totally from all subject matter and any opinions in this regard, including my own. Nevertheless, if ICANN staff consider that they are authorised to ignore qualified public input simply on the grounds that it is "out of scope" (determined by who?), then you are well on the way to driving a large wedge between the organisation and the community. in other proximate and recent discussions the matter of accountability and mutual confidence has been raised. I do not need to go into details. But if your response is an example of the general attitude of ICANN staff, then we - indeed - do have a problem. The resolution of which could very well turn out to be far less favourable to the organisation than that which would otherwise be necessary. I invite you and your colleagues to give this issue your serious consideration, soon. Regards Christopher On 09 Jul 2015, at 17:47, Jamie Hedlund > wrote: > Christopher, > > Thank you for your comments. As has been repeatedly discussed within > the IAG, the scope of the work is limited to consideration of > potential improvements to the existing WHOIS Conflicts Procedure. The > existing WHOIS policy, the Procedure?s underlying Policy, adoption of > globally, international best privacy practices, and the work of the > EWG are all outside the scope of the IAG?s mandate. On our call on > Monday it would be appropriate to discuss your point 1 below. As the > remainder of your points are out of scope, I would recommend that they > not be included in the agenda. > > Best, > Jamie > > Jamie Hedlund > VP, Strategic Programs > Global Domains Division > ICANN > +1.202.374.3969 (m) > +1.202.570.7125 (d) > jamie.hedlund at icann.org > > From: Christopher Wilkinson > > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:21 > To: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org > " > > > Cc: Jamie Hedlund > > Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report > > Good afternoon: > > I would be glad to thank the ICANN staff for their efforts in > producing this draft report, were it not that a large part of the > IAG-Whois discussion has been totally ignored. > I think it is clear from the record that I could not possibly accept > this draft as a basis for further discussion in future IAG conference > calls. > > 1.On the basis of the discussion that I have heard in the conference > calls and on the mailing list, I suggest that this is at most a > minority report. > Before proceeding any further, I would request a formal, nominative, > poll of all the Members of the IAG (paragraph 4.2) as to whether this > draft is or is not a minority report. > > 2.I request that the basic arguments that have been repeatedly > expressed in the group as to why the present whois policy is not > acceptable in large parts of the world, > be recorded in detail for the benefit of the GNSO and the ICANN Board. > > 3.The report should clarify that what is still blithely described as > the "underlying policy" (paragraph 1.1) is inconsistent with privacy > law in large parts of the world. > > 4.With regard to the "stability and uniformity of the WHOIS system" > (Paragraph 1.1) may I recall that I have proposed that either the > burden of proof be reversed to the effect that ICANN must if necessary > take the initiative to 'trigger' the procedure, or that ICANN should > implement globally, international best practice privacy policy, > world-wide. Until these options have been thoroughly discussed, I do > not see on what basis ICANN staff can issue a draft report on the > interim outcome of the IAG. > > 5.In this context, may I also request that the IAG - and our readers > in the ICANN community - be informed, in our report, as to the > procedure and schedule for the implementation of the recommendations > of the EWG: > > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ewg-recommends-a-replacement-for-whois > > As I understand it the system proposed by the EWG is aimed at: > > * Providing appropriate access to *accurate, reliable, and > uniform* registration data. > * Protecting the privacy of personal information. > * *Enabling a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and > maintaining* the ability to contact Registrants in order to > guarantee *accountability*. > * Supporting a framework to address issues involving Registrants > including, but not limited to, consumer protection, investigation > of cybercrime and intellectual property protection. > * Providing an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement > needs. > > > Best regards to you all > > Christopher Wilkinson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IAG Draft Report v2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 238380 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lanfran Thu Jul 9 22:50:05 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:50:05 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> We have been discussing this in NPOC and my position on this is that the alcohol fueled receptions (large or small) are inferior to roundtable discussions face-to-face with two or three Board Members. As for the whole board session, that has the look and feel of a dog-and-pony show where everything is pro forma and there is no real dialogue, no matter how good is the question or comment. I would prefer the 2-3 Board member face-to-face meetings, and reserve a cocktail party for the end-of-meetings ramp down. Sam On 2015-07-08 7:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > we received this request for input about the joint session we had with > the board in BA meeting. > > We had also the opportunity to talk about when we met Bruce and > Markus, getting some reactions about the meeting, the topics and how > we may improve things. > > I think there was agreement that we should work out better our > questions/topics to avoid looking controversial (not sure how we can > assess that), and trying to liaise with Markus first to hash out the > topics and/or having pre-meeting confcall to prepare for the session. > that means more work for us but it can also mean having a better > outcome and being more action-oriented. > > we can comment about the format and the changes. my initial comment > was that the board self-defeated the purpose of getting earlier the > topics when it didn't respond till on month after receiving them and > few days before the meeting. > > please share you thoughts and input that you think we should send to > board. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Megan Bishop* > > Date: 2015-07-09 4:54 GMT+09:00 > Subject: ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback > To: Rafik Dammak >, "william.drake at uzh.ch > " >, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be > " > > Cc: David Olive > > > > Dear All, > > Following on from the roundtable experiment at Constituency Day in > Buenos Aires, the ICANN Board is interested to hear feedback from you > and your groups on how the changes were received, and what areas can > be improved upon. Another element we?d like feedback on is the > rotating schedule of informal cocktail receptions. Please let us hear > your feedback on that as well. > > I will collect all comments/suggestions received and send them on to > the Board in preparation for ICANN 54 in Dublin. > > Kind regards, > Megan > > Megan Bishop > Board Support Coordinator > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 > Direct: +1-310-301-5808 > > /One World. One Internet./ > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- *--------------------------------------------* "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ---------------------------------------------- Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Jul 10 04:00:13 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:00:13 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board In-Reply-To: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> References: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi Sam, thanks for the comments. we have usually the meeting in ICANN meeting Thursday with the GNSO elected board members and that is really productive. shall we have another breakfast or another kind of meeting with few board members instead of the cocktail ( which happens by rotation anyway). @Others please share your input, same for the thread about prioritisation. Best, Rafik 2015-07-10 4:50 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco : > We have been discussing this in NPOC and my position on this is that the > alcohol fueled receptions (large or small) are inferior to roundtable > discussions face-to-face with two or three Board Members. As for the whole > board session, that has the look and feel of a dog-and-pony show where > everything is pro forma and there is no real dialogue, no matter how good > is the question or comment. > > I would prefer the 2-3 Board member face-to-face meetings, and reserve a > cocktail party for the end-of-meetings ramp down. > > Sam > > > On 2015-07-08 7:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > we received this request for input about the joint session we had with > the board in BA meeting. > > We had also the opportunity to talk about when we met Bruce and Markus, > getting some reactions about the meeting, the topics and how we may improve > things. > > I think there was agreement that we should work out better our > questions/topics to avoid looking controversial (not sure how we can assess > that), and trying to liaise with Markus first to hash out the topics and/or > having pre-meeting confcall to prepare for the session. that means more > work for us but it can also mean having a better outcome and being more > action-oriented. > > we can comment about the format and the changes. my initial comment was > that the board self-defeated the purpose of getting earlier the topics when > it didn't respond till on month after receiving them and few days before > the meeting. > > please share you thoughts and input that you think we should send to > board. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Megan Bishop > Date: 2015-07-09 4:54 GMT+09:00 > Subject: ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback > To: Rafik Dammak , "william.drake at uzh.ch" < > william.drake at uzh.ch>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" > Cc: David Olive > > > Dear All, > > Following on from the roundtable experiment at Constituency Day in > Buenos Aires, the ICANN Board is interested to hear feedback from you and > your groups on how the changes were received, and what areas can be > improved upon. Another element we?d like feedback on is the rotating > schedule of informal cocktail receptions. Please let us hear your feedback > on that as well. > > I will collect all comments/suggestions received and send them on to the > Board in preparation for ICANN 54 in Dublin. > > Kind regards, > Megan > > Megan Bishop > Board Support Coordinator > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 > Direct: +1-310-301-5808 > > *One World. One Internet.* > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -- > > *--------------------------------------------* > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured > in an unjust state" -Confucius > ---------------------------------------------- > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) > Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 > YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco > blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Fri Jul 10 12:03:58 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:03:58 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board In-Reply-To: References: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <8B6756C3-E2CB-47C4-AE6A-1B6C4CE712FE@gmail.com> It would be good to send our draft questions to Markus, Wolfgang and maybe one or two other friendlies in advance of finalizing to get a sense how they?d be received etc. Having a follow up breakfast on the Sunday or Monday might also be useful. Somehow we have to change the dynamic, the seating wasn?t sufficient. At the same time, we don?t want to exclude important questions just because someone might get their feathers ruffled for varying unpredictable reasons, but at least we could go into this more cluefully. Bill > On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > thanks for the comments. > we have usually the meeting in ICANN meeting Thursday with the GNSO elected board members and that is really productive. shall we have another breakfast or another kind of meeting with few board members instead of the cocktail ( which happens by rotation anyway). > > @Others please share your input, same for the thread about prioritisation. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-10 4:50 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco >: > We have been discussing this in NPOC and my position on this is that the alcohol fueled receptions (large or small) are inferior to roundtable discussions face-to-face with two or three Board Members. As for the whole board session, that has the look and feel of a dog-and-pony show where everything is pro forma and there is no real dialogue, no matter how good is the question or comment. > > I would prefer the 2-3 Board member face-to-face meetings, and reserve a cocktail party for the end-of-meetings ramp down. > > Sam > > > On 2015-07-08 7:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> we received this request for input about the joint session we had with the board in BA meeting. >> >> We had also the opportunity to talk about when we met Bruce and Markus, getting some reactions about the meeting, the topics and how we may improve things. >> >> I think there was agreement that we should work out better our questions/topics to avoid looking controversial (not sure how we can assess that), and trying to liaise with Markus first to hash out the topics and/or having pre-meeting confcall to prepare for the session. that means more work for us but it can also mean having a better outcome and being more action-oriented. >> >> we can comment about the format and the changes. my initial comment was that the board self-defeated the purpose of getting earlier the topics when it didn't respond till on month after receiving them and few days before the meeting. >> >> please share you thoughts and input that you think we should send to board. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Megan Bishop > >> Date: 2015-07-09 4:54 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback >> To: Rafik Dammak >, "william.drake at uzh.ch " >, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be " > >> Cc: David Olive > >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Following on from the roundtable experiment at Constituency Day in Buenos Aires, the ICANN Board is interested to hear feedback from you and your groups on how the changes were received, and what areas can be improved upon. Another element we?d like feedback on is the rotating schedule of informal cocktail receptions. Please let us hear your feedback on that as well. >> >> I will collect all comments/suggestions received and send them on to the Board in preparation for ICANN 54 in Dublin. >> >> Kind regards, >> Megan >> >> Megan Bishop >> Board Support Coordinator >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 >> Los Angeles, CA 90094 >> Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 >> Direct: +1-310-301-5808 >> >> One World. One Internet. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- > > *--------------------------------------------* > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured > in an unjust state" -Confucius > ---------------------------------------------- > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) > Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 > YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco > blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Fri Jul 10 12:42:36 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:42:36 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board In-Reply-To: <8B6756C3-E2CB-47C4-AE6A-1B6C4CE712FE@gmail.com> References: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> <8B6756C3-E2CB-47C4-AE6A-1B6C4CE712FE@gmail.com> Message-ID: I actually think we may be spending too much time with "friendlies" and not enough time with the others. I had reasonably long conversations with Kuo-Wei and Asha and they don't know a heck of a lot about us. I also question whether some of our friendlies correctly interpret things: for example, the idea the Board would be open to a restructuring that would consolidate NC interests in one unit is so far from reality that I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably believe that. Strategically I also would prioritize members of the BGC: they are more important to us than other members on structural matters. We did not take full advantage of the new structure. The Board was looking more for a conversation and we were playing, according to more than one of them, gotcha. I've been told the other groups warmed to the new structure and we did not. It doesn't matter whether this is true is not, that's the perception of some and in this case perception is a reality we need to deal with. At the PC meeting Bill proposed new faces for our leads, something that really did not happen. I think that was a good idea. I also think we should use the opportunity less to tell the Board what to think and more to listen to what and why they think what they do. Conceive of it as a first date. Those usually go better when you listen to the other person and give her (or he, as the case may be) the chance to speak and explain instead of spending the time telling the person how great you are and what to think. Both sides need more humility and a desire to listen to the other. How you do that with folks like Chris on the Board and some of our strong voices on stage I do not know. In terms of structure I think we may want to break the session down to three sortable parts with different people. Let's give the Board a chance to see the diversity of the NCSG rather than just telling them we are diverse. Question 1 have 4 of us at the table, short break, question 2 a different 4 and so on. Physically change the people in the hope of rekindling the interest of Board members. It's a long day and we're at the end of it. The CSG did something like this and I'm told it worked well. We also should make the seating more Board - NCSG - Board, instead of having some of us sitting together. And leave the PC's off...we can live without chat or email for an hour. This should be a strict rule for both sides. Just some thoughts... Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:03 AM, William Drake wrote: > > It would be good to send our draft questions to Markus, Wolfgang and maybe one or two other friendlies in advance of finalizing to get a sense how they?d be received etc. Having a follow up breakfast on the Sunday or Monday might also be useful. Somehow we have to change the dynamic, the seating wasn?t sufficient. At the same time, we don?t want to exclude important questions just because someone might get their feathers ruffled for varying unpredictable reasons, but at least we could go into this more cluefully. > > Bill > >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Sam, >> >> thanks for the comments. >> we have usually the meeting in ICANN meeting Thursday with the GNSO elected board members and that is really productive. shall we have another breakfast or another kind of meeting with few board members instead of the cocktail ( which happens by rotation anyway). >> >> @Others please share your input, same for the thread about prioritisation. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2015-07-10 4:50 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco : >>> We have been discussing this in NPOC and my position on this is that the alcohol fueled receptions (large or small) are inferior to roundtable discussions face-to-face with two or three Board Members. As for the whole board session, that has the look and feel of a dog-and-pony show where everything is pro forma and there is no real dialogue, no matter how good is the question or comment. >>> >>> I would prefer the 2-3 Board member face-to-face meetings, and reserve a cocktail party for the end-of-meetings ramp down. >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> >>>> On 2015-07-08 7:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> we received this request for input about the joint session we had with the board in BA meeting. >>>> >>>> We had also the opportunity to talk about when we met Bruce and Markus, getting some reactions about the meeting, the topics and how we may improve things. >>>> >>>> I think there was agreement that we should work out better our questions/topics to avoid looking controversial (not sure how we can assess that), and trying to liaise with Markus first to hash out the topics and/or having pre-meeting confcall to prepare for the session. that means more work for us but it can also mean having a better outcome and being more action-oriented. >>>> >>>> we can comment about the format and the changes. my initial comment was that the board self-defeated the purpose of getting earlier the topics when it didn't respond till on month after receiving them and few days before the meeting. >>>> >>>> please share you thoughts and input that you think we should send to board. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Megan Bishop >>>> Date: 2015-07-09 4:54 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback >>>> To: Rafik Dammak , "william.drake at uzh.ch" , "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" >>>> Cc: David Olive >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Following on from the roundtable experiment at Constituency Day in Buenos Aires, the ICANN Board is interested to hear feedback from you and your groups on how the changes were received, and what areas can be improved upon. Another element we?d like feedback on is the rotating schedule of informal cocktail receptions. Please let us hear your feedback on that as well. >>>> >>>> I will collect all comments/suggestions received and send them on to the Board in preparation for ICANN 54 in Dublin. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Megan >>>> >>>> Megan Bishop >>>> Board Support Coordinator >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 >>>> Los Angeles, CA 90094 >>>> Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 >>>> Direct: +1-310-301-5808 >>>> >>>> One World. One Internet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *--------------------------------------------* >>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured >>> in an unjust state" -Confucius >>> ---------------------------------------------- >>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) >>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 >>> YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco >>> blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >>> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears Fri Jul 10 16:58:12 2015 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:58:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board In-Reply-To: References: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> <8B6756C3-E2CB-47C4-AE6A-1B6C4CE712FE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <559FCF74.4040801@cdt.org> Ed, good suggestions. Happy to take a role in the Board discussion in Dublin assuming adequate time to deliberate the issue we would want to discuss. Matthew On 7/10/2015 5:42 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > I actually think we may be spending too much time with "friendlies" > and not enough time with the others. I had reasonably long > conversations with Kuo-Wei and Asha and they don't know a heck of a > lot about us. I also question whether some of our friendlies correctly > interpret things: for example, the idea the Board would be open to a > restructuring that would consolidate NC interests in one unit is so > far from reality that I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably believe > that. Strategically I also would prioritize members of the BGC: they > are more important to us than other members on structural matters. > > We did not take full advantage of the new structure. The Board was > looking more for a conversation and we were playing, according to more > than one of them, gotcha. I've been told the other groups warmed to > the new structure and we did not. It doesn't matter whether this is > true is not, that's the perception of some and in this case perception > is a reality we need to deal with. > > At the PC meeting Bill proposed new faces for our leads, something > that really did not happen. I think that was a good idea. I also think > we should use the opportunity less to tell the Board what to think and > more to listen to what and why they think what they do. Conceive of it > as a first date. Those usually go better when you listen to the other > person and give her (or he, as the case may be) the chance to speak > and explain instead of spending the time telling the person how great > you are and what to think. Both sides need more humility and a desire > to listen to the other. How you do that with folks like Chris on the > Board and some of our strong voices on stage I do not know. > > In terms of structure I think we may want to break the session down to > three sortable parts with different people. Let's give the Board a > chance to see the diversity of the NCSG rather than just telling them > we are diverse. Question 1 have 4 of us at the table, short break, > question 2 a different 4 and so on. Physically change the people in > the hope of rekindling the interest of Board members. It's a long day > and we're at the end of it. The CSG did something like this and I'm > told it worked well. We also should make the seating more Board - NCSG > - Board, instead of having some of us sitting together. And leave the > PC's off...we can live without chat or email for an hour. This should > be a strict rule for both sides. > > Just some thoughts... > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:03 AM, William Drake > wrote: > >> It would be good to send our draft questions to Markus, Wolfgang and >> maybe one or two other friendlies in advance of finalizing to get a >> sense how they?d be received etc. Having a follow up breakfast on >> the Sunday or Monday might also be useful. Somehow we have to change >> the dynamic, the seating wasn?t sufficient. At the same time, we >> don?t want to exclude important questions just because someone might >> get their feathers ruffled for varying unpredictable reasons, but at >> least we could go into this more cluefully. >> >> Bill >> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sam, >>> >>> thanks for the comments. >>> we have usually the meeting in ICANN meeting Thursday with the GNSO >>> elected board members and that is really productive. shall we have >>> another breakfast or another kind of meeting with few board members >>> instead of the cocktail ( which happens by rotation anyway). >>> >>> @Others please share your input, same for the thread about >>> prioritisation. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2015-07-10 4:50 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco >> >: >>> >>> We have been discussing this in NPOC and my position on this is >>> that the alcohol fueled receptions (large or small) are inferior >>> to roundtable discussions face-to-face with two or three Board >>> Members. As for the whole board session, that has the look and >>> feel of a dog-and-pony show where everything is pro forma and >>> there is no real dialogue, no matter how good is the question or >>> comment. >>> >>> I would prefer the 2-3 Board member face-to-face meetings, and >>> reserve a cocktail party for the end-of-meetings ramp down. >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> >>> On 2015-07-08 7:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> we received this request for input about the joint session we >>>> had with the board in BA meeting. >>>> >>>> We had also the opportunity to talk about when we met Bruce and >>>> Markus, getting some reactions about the meeting, the topics >>>> and how we may improve things. >>>> >>>> I think there was agreement that we should work out better our >>>> questions/topics to avoid looking controversial (not sure how >>>> we can assess that), and trying to liaise with Markus first to >>>> hash out the topics and/or having pre-meeting confcall to >>>> prepare for the session. that means more work for us but it can >>>> also mean having a better outcome and being more action-oriented. >>>> >>>> we can comment about the format and the changes. my initial >>>> comment was that the board self-defeated the purpose of getting >>>> earlier the topics when it didn't respond till on month after >>>> receiving them and few days before the meeting. >>>> >>>> please share you thoughts and input that you think we should >>>> send to board. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: *Megan Bishop* >>> > >>>> Date: 2015-07-09 4:54 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback >>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>> >, "william.drake at uzh.ch >>>> " >>> >, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be >>>> " >>> > >>>> Cc: David Olive >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Following on from the roundtable experiment at Constituency Day >>>> in Buenos Aires, the ICANN Board is interested to hear feedback >>>> from you and your groups on how the changes were received, and >>>> what areas can be improved upon. Another element we?d like >>>> feedback on is the rotating schedule of informal cocktail >>>> receptions. Please let us hear your feedback on that as well. >>>> >>>> I will collect all comments/suggestions received and send them >>>> on to the Board in preparation for ICANN 54 in Dublin. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Megan >>>> >>>> Megan Bishop >>>> Board Support Coordinator >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 >>>> Los Angeles, CA 90094 >>>> Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 >>>> Direct: +1-310-301-5808 >>>> >>>> /One World. One Internet./ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *--------------------------------------------* >>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured >>> in an unjust state" -Confucius >>> ---------------------------------------------- >>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) >>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 >>> YorkU email:Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco >>> blog:http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >>> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Fri Jul 10 17:57:38 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:57:38 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board In-Reply-To: References: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> <8B6756C3-E2CB-47C4-AE6A-1B6C4CE712FE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi > On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > > for example, the idea the Board would be open to a restructuring that would consolidate NC interests in one unit is so far from reality that I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably believe that. Ok, but there are people on the board who believe that, at least with regard to the SG. Cheers BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lanfran Fri Jul 10 17:58:13 2015 From: Lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:58:13 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board In-Reply-To: <559FCF74.4040801@cdt.org> References: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> <8B6756C3-E2CB-47C4-AE6A-1B6C4CE712FE@gmail.com> <559FCF74.4040801@cdt.org> Message-ID: <1436540293.559fdd856619d@oldmymail.yorku.ca> I would like to follow up on the core of what Matthew and Edward are pointing to here. We need a clear (in our minds) NCSG strategy as to what we want to be the outcomes of our Board engagement. We need to work through, in the open, an NCSG Board Engagement Strategy. The encounters with small groups of Board members work well but (as suggested) NCSG should focus on those Board members who do not know us. The goals should be to find commonalities and understand differences. As for the open meetings with the whole Board, I am at a loss as to know what to suggest, the appear to be (and are) mainly a pro forma ritual in which presenters present and select Board responders respond. Most of us could write the transcript before the engagement. It may have symbolic importance but it has no measurable output, either in terms of decision making of knowledge sharing. Sam L. Quoting Matthew Shears : > Ed, good suggestions. > > Happy to take a role in the Board discussion in Dublin assuming > adequate > time to deliberate the issue we would want to discuss. > > Matthew > > On 7/10/2015 5:42 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > > I actually think we may be spending too much time with > "friendlies" > > and not enough time with the others. I had reasonably long > > conversations with Kuo-Wei and Asha and they don't know a heck of > a > > lot about us. I also question whether some of our friendlies > correctly > > interpret things: for example, the idea the Board would be open > to a > > restructuring that would consolidate NC interests in one unit is > so > > far from reality that I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably > believe > > that. Strategically I also would prioritize members of the BGC: > they > > are more important to us than other members on structural > matters. > > > > We did not take full advantage of the new structure. The Board > was > > looking more for a conversation and we were playing, according to > more > > than one of them, gotcha. I've been told the other groups warmed > to > > the new structure and we did not. It doesn't matter whether this > is > > true is not, that's the perception of some and in this case > perception > > is a reality we need to deal with. > > > > At the PC meeting Bill proposed new faces for our leads, > something > > that really did not happen. I think that was a good idea. I also > think > > we should use the opportunity less to tell the Board what to > think and > > more to listen to what and why they think what they do. Conceive > of it > > as a first date. Those usually go better when you listen to the > other > > person and give her (or he, as the case may be) the chance to > speak > > and explain instead of spending the time telling the person how > great > > you are and what to think. Both sides need more humility and a > desire > > to listen to the other. How you do that with folks like Chris on > the > > Board and some of our strong voices on stage I do not know. > > > > In terms of structure I think we may want to break the session > down to > > three sortable parts with different people. Let's give the Board > a > > chance to see the diversity of the NCSG rather than just telling > them > > we are diverse. Question 1 have 4 of us at the table, short > break, > > question 2 a different 4 and so on. Physically change the people > in > > the hope of rekindling the interest of Board members. It's a long > day > > and we're at the end of it. The CSG did something like this and > I'm > > told it worked well. We also should make the seating more Board - > NCSG > > - Board, instead of having some of us sitting together. And leave > the > > PC's off...we can live without chat or email for an hour. This > should > > be a strict rule for both sides. > > > > Just some thoughts... > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:03 AM, William Drake From stephanie.perrin Fri Jul 10 18:03:23 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:03:23 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board In-Reply-To: <1436540293.559fdd856619d@oldmymail.yorku.ca> References: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> <8B6756C3-E2CB-47C4-AE6A-1B6C4CE712FE@gmail.com> <559FCF74.4040801@cdt.org> <1436540293.559fdd856619d@oldmymail.yorku.ca> Message-ID: <559FDEBB.5050904@mail.utoronto.ca> I agree. I am thinking about what to suggest and will reply soon....but it has indeed become an unfortunate pro forma ritual. As Ed suggested, we have an opportunity to influence new members more positively, and get out of the old paradigm....operative question is how. more later... cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-10 10:58, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > I would like to follow up on the core of what Matthew and Edward are > pointing to here. We need a clear (in our minds) NCSG strategy as to > what we want to be the outcomes of our Board engagement. We need to > work through, in the open, an NCSG Board Engagement Strategy. The > encounters with small groups of Board members work well but (as > suggested) NCSG should focus on those Board members who do not know > us. > > The goals should be to find commonalities and understand differences. > As for the open meetings with the whole Board, I am at a loss as to > know what to suggest, the appear to be (and are) mainly a pro forma > ritual in which presenters present and select Board responders > respond. Most of us could write the transcript before the engagement. > It may have symbolic importance but it has no measurable output, > either in terms of decision making of knowledge sharing. > > Sam L. > > Quoting Matthew Shears : > >> Ed, good suggestions. >> >> Happy to take a role in the Board discussion in Dublin assuming >> adequate >> time to deliberate the issue we would want to discuss. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 7/10/2015 5:42 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >>> I actually think we may be spending too much time with >> "friendlies" >>> and not enough time with the others. I had reasonably long >>> conversations with Kuo-Wei and Asha and they don't know a heck of >> a >>> lot about us. I also question whether some of our friendlies >> correctly >>> interpret things: for example, the idea the Board would be open >> to a >>> restructuring that would consolidate NC interests in one unit is >> so >>> far from reality that I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably >> believe >>> that. Strategically I also would prioritize members of the BGC: >> they >>> are more important to us than other members on structural >> matters. >>> We did not take full advantage of the new structure. The Board >> was >>> looking more for a conversation and we were playing, according to >> more >>> than one of them, gotcha. I've been told the other groups warmed >> to >>> the new structure and we did not. It doesn't matter whether this >> is >>> true is not, that's the perception of some and in this case >> perception >>> is a reality we need to deal with. >>> >>> At the PC meeting Bill proposed new faces for our leads, >> something >>> that really did not happen. I think that was a good idea. I also >> think >>> we should use the opportunity less to tell the Board what to >> think and >>> more to listen to what and why they think what they do. Conceive >> of it >>> as a first date. Those usually go better when you listen to the >> other >>> person and give her (or he, as the case may be) the chance to >> speak >>> and explain instead of spending the time telling the person how >> great >>> you are and what to think. Both sides need more humility and a >> desire >>> to listen to the other. How you do that with folks like Chris on >> the >>> Board and some of our strong voices on stage I do not know. >>> >>> In terms of structure I think we may want to break the session >> down to >>> three sortable parts with different people. Let's give the Board >> a >>> chance to see the diversity of the NCSG rather than just telling >> them >>> we are diverse. Question 1 have 4 of us at the table, short >> break, >>> question 2 a different 4 and so on. Physically change the people >> in >>> the hope of rekindling the interest of Board members. It's a long >> day >>> and we're at the end of it. The CSG did something like this and >> I'm >>> told it worked well. We also should make the seating more Board - >> NCSG >>> - Board, instead of having some of us sitting together. And leave >> the >>> PC's off...we can live without chat or email for an hour. This >> should >>> be a strict rule for both sides. >>> >>> Just some thoughts... >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:03 AM, William Drake > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From egmorris1 Fri Jul 10 18:29:57 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:29:57 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board In-Reply-To: References: <559ED06D.90707@yorku.ca> <8B6756C3-E2CB-47C4-AE6A-1B6C4CE712FE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1b5402ecc11648f0a8ee20876dc68f04@toast.net> I hope they are right. The ones I talk to seem to be headed in the other direction. Then, again, I know of one Board member who believes the GNSO Council should be abolished and replaced with a General Assembly. When I asked him about minor things like weighted voting he demurs from answering. It must be nice being a philosopher with power who doesn't bother thinking about the details. We clearly have a lot of work to do. ---------------------------------------- From: "William Drake" Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:56 AM To: "Edward Morris" Cc: "Rafik Dammak" , "NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy" Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board Hi On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Edward Morris wrote: for example, the idea the Board would be open to a restructuring that would consolidate NC interests in one unit is so far from reality that I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably believe that. Ok, but there are people on the board who believe that, at least with regard to the SG. Cheers BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue Jul 14 16:16:05 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:16:05 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> Hi, While I agree with this sentiment as well?, I would prefer that we avoid ?public interest objectives? as a rationale. More specific reasons why biz shouldn?t get their money back will be more constructive. For what it?s worth, the GNSO Council is scheduled to get an update on this from Jonathan and Marika during the next council meeting. I was previously in favour of a CCWG taking this on, but now regret taking that position. Wish I had argued for a GNSO working group instead. Thanks. Amr On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:26 AM, David Cake wrote: >> >> On 8 Jul 2015, at 1:01 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> On 07/07/2015 10:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote (among other things): >>> Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon. >> >> I have interests in this at two levels, first respect to the resulting process for handling auction proceeds (without expanding ICANN staff :-( ), and second as a development economist. I am willing to be pressed into whatever hard labour is needed here. >> >> I hear the business community suggesting, in effect, "It is our money and we would like it back". My presumption is that if there is business consensus on that position they would resort to a private auction, and if it is an ICANN auction, broader public interest objectives should apply. > > I agree with this position. The private auction path has been there all along, it has been obvious that in some respects it is a better deal for the businesses involved, and revisiting that choice now is inappropriate. > Of course, this is just the drafting team - hopefully more of us will get involved with this discussion once it leaves the terms of reference stage. > > David > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Tue Jul 14 16:11:33 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:11:33 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> Hi, I remain in favor of this as a CCWG activity. And I think we need to stop setting ourselves up as the foes of the global public interest. Yes, we need to explain why something is in the global public interest and need specific reasons to do that, but we should not fight against the global public interest or even against the terminology 'global public interest'. It is just that whenever someone says that something is in the GPI, we should ask why it is. avri On 14-Jul-15 09:16, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > While I agree with this sentiment as well?, I would prefer that we avoid ?public interest objectives? as a rationale. More specific reasons why biz shouldn?t get their money back will be more constructive. > > For what it?s worth, the GNSO Council is scheduled to get an update on this from Jonathan and Marika during the next council meeting. I was previously in favour of a CCWG taking this on, but now regret taking that position. Wish I had argued for a GNSO working group instead. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:26 AM, David Cake wrote: > >>> On 8 Jul 2015, at 1:01 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> >>> On 07/07/2015 10:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote (among other things): >>>> Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon. >>> I have interests in this at two levels, first respect to the resulting process for handling auction proceeds (without expanding ICANN staff :-( ), and second as a development economist. I am willing to be pressed into whatever hard labour is needed here. >>> >>> I hear the business community suggesting, in effect, "It is our money and we would like it back". My presumption is that if there is business consensus on that position they would resort to a private auction, and if it is an ICANN auction, broader public interest objectives should apply. >> I agree with this position. The private auction path has been there all along, it has been obvious that in some respects it is a better deal for the businesses involved, and revisiting that choice now is inappropriate. >> Of course, this is just the drafting team - hopefully more of us will get involved with this discussion once it leaves the terms of reference stage. >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From aelsadr Tue Jul 14 16:44:31 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:44:31 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, The point I?m trying to make isn?t why something is or isn?t in the GPI. It?s that the answer to ?WHAT is the GPI? is purely subjective (at least in my opinion, it is). A group?s appropriation of the definition of this term is not a prospect I relish. Nor do I believe that a negotiation of its definition (or framework) by different groups with conflicting ?special interests? will be necessarily constructive. So what?s the harm is just sticking to the specific reasons, as opposed to misusing the label? Regarding CCWG vs. GNSO WG?, the main advantage I see to GNSO WGs is that they are more open to ?membership? as opposed to ?participation?. I?ve never been too fond of participants in CCWGs not being a part of the formal consensus call of the group?s recommendations. Thanks. Amr On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I remain in favor of this as a CCWG activity. > > And I think we need to stop setting ourselves up as the foes of the > global public interest. Yes, we need to explain why something is in the > global public interest and need specific reasons to do that, but we > should not fight against the global public interest or even against the > terminology 'global public interest'. It is just that whenever someone > says that something is in the GPI, we should ask why it is. > > avri > > > On 14-Jul-15 09:16, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> While I agree with this sentiment as well?, I would prefer that we avoid ?public interest objectives? as a rationale. More specific reasons why biz shouldn?t get their money back will be more constructive. >> >> For what it?s worth, the GNSO Council is scheduled to get an update on this from Jonathan and Marika during the next council meeting. I was previously in favour of a CCWG taking this on, but now regret taking that position. Wish I had argued for a GNSO working group instead. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:26 AM, David Cake wrote: >> >>>> On 8 Jul 2015, at 1:01 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>> >>>> On 07/07/2015 10:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote (among other things): >>>>> Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon. >>>> I have interests in this at two levels, first respect to the resulting process for handling auction proceeds (without expanding ICANN staff :-( ), and second as a development economist. I am willing to be pressed into whatever hard labour is needed here. >>>> >>>> I hear the business community suggesting, in effect, "It is our money and we would like it back". My presumption is that if there is business consensus on that position they would resort to a private auction, and if it is an ICANN auction, broader public interest objectives should apply. >>> I agree with this position. The private auction path has been there all along, it has been obvious that in some respects it is a better deal for the businesses involved, and revisiting that choice now is inappropriate. >>> Of course, this is just the drafting team - hopefully more of us will get involved with this discussion once it leaves the terms of reference stage. >>> >>> David >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Tue Jul 14 18:03:10 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:03:10 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> Message-ID: <55A524AE.6010604@acm.org> Hi, As I have argued it is the BUMP (bottom up multistakeholder process) that allows us to discover/identify what is in the GPI that is within the ICANN's mission. So while we start out from so called subjective input (and how can public interest not be subjective - as it is about subjects), look for reasons and come to consensus on what we will treat as ICANN view on the GPI. This is not a missue of the term in my opinion, but rather us doing the work that needs to be done. It is an ICANN requirement to serve the BPI within ICANN's mission constraints. The problem with GNSO WGs, is that the GNSO can ignore and pervert the outcome. And even after we reach an outcome, we have all the rest of the community that feels left out. Just because we think we are so very open, does not mean that others accept that. and in how many GNSO WGS have we seen the none GNSO people marginalized. It happens all the time. I hear that sometimes even we are marginalized by the dominant commercial interests. I do not see trusting the use of the Auction proceeds to commercial interest ad being in any way consistent the GPI. avri On 14-Jul-15 09:44, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > The point I?m trying to make isn?t why something is or isn?t in the GPI. It?s that the answer to ?WHAT is the GPI? is purely subjective (at least in my opinion, it is). A group?s appropriation of the definition of this term is not a prospect I relish. Nor do I believe that a negotiation of its definition (or framework) by different groups with conflicting ?special interests? will be necessarily constructive. So what?s the harm is just sticking to the specific reasons, as opposed to misusing the label? > > Regarding CCWG vs. GNSO WG?, the main advantage I see to GNSO WGs is that they are more open to ?membership? as opposed to ?participation?. I?ve never been too fond of participants in CCWGs not being a part of the formal consensus call of the group?s recommendations. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I remain in favor of this as a CCWG activity. >> >> And I think we need to stop setting ourselves up as the foes of the >> global public interest. Yes, we need to explain why something is in the >> global public interest and need specific reasons to do that, but we >> should not fight against the global public interest or even against the >> terminology 'global public interest'. It is just that whenever someone >> says that something is in the GPI, we should ask why it is. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 14-Jul-15 09:16, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I agree with this sentiment as well?, I would prefer that we avoid ?public interest objectives? as a rationale. More specific reasons why biz shouldn?t get their money back will be more constructive. >>> >>> For what it?s worth, the GNSO Council is scheduled to get an update on this from Jonathan and Marika during the next council meeting. I was previously in favour of a CCWG taking this on, but now regret taking that position. Wish I had argued for a GNSO working group instead. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:26 AM, David Cake wrote: >>> >>>>> On 8 Jul 2015, at 1:01 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 07/07/2015 10:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote (among other things): >>>>>> Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon. >>>>> I have interests in this at two levels, first respect to the resulting process for handling auction proceeds (without expanding ICANN staff :-( ), and second as a development economist. I am willing to be pressed into whatever hard labour is needed here. >>>>> >>>>> I hear the business community suggesting, in effect, "It is our money and we would like it back". My presumption is that if there is business consensus on that position they would resort to a private auction, and if it is an ICANN auction, broader public interest objectives should apply. >>>> I agree with this position. The private auction path has been there all along, it has been obvious that in some respects it is a better deal for the businesses involved, and revisiting that choice now is inappropriate. >>>> Of course, this is just the drafting team - hopefully more of us will get involved with this discussion once it leaves the terms of reference stage. >>>> >>>> David >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Tue Jul 14 18:10:57 2015 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:10:57 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> <55A524AE.6010604@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A29ECD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 1+ Avri wolfgang And wow, another great acronym. Do you remember Penny McLean and Lady BUMP? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkrdmf7GzKg -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: PC-NCSG im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Di 14.07.2015 17:03 An: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... Hi, As I have argued it is the BUMP (bottom up multistakeholder process) that allows us to discover/identify what is in the GPI that is within the ICANN's mission. So while we start out from so called subjective input (and how can public interest not be subjective - as it is about subjects), look for reasons and come to consensus on what we will treat as ICANN view on the GPI. This is not a missue of the term in my opinion, but rather us doing the work that needs to be done. It is an ICANN requirement to serve the BPI within ICANN's mission constraints. The problem with GNSO WGs, is that the GNSO can ignore and pervert the outcome. And even after we reach an outcome, we have all the rest of the community that feels left out. Just because we think we are so very open, does not mean that others accept that. and in how many GNSO WGS have we seen the none GNSO people marginalized. It happens all the time. I hear that sometimes even we are marginalized by the dominant commercial interests. I do not see trusting the use of the Auction proceeds to commercial interest ad being in any way consistent the GPI. avri On 14-Jul-15 09:44, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > The point I'm trying to make isn't why something is or isn't in the GPI. It's that the answer to "WHAT is the GPI" is purely subjective (at least in my opinion, it is). A group's appropriation of the definition of this term is not a prospect I relish. Nor do I believe that a negotiation of its definition (or framework) by different groups with conflicting "special interests" will be necessarily constructive. So what's the harm is just sticking to the specific reasons, as opposed to misusing the label? > > Regarding CCWG vs. GNSO WG., the main advantage I see to GNSO WGs is that they are more open to "membership" as opposed to "participation".. I've never been too fond of participants in CCWGs not being a part of the formal consensus call of the group's recommendations. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I remain in favor of this as a CCWG activity. >> >> And I think we need to stop setting ourselves up as the foes of the >> global public interest. Yes, we need to explain why something is in the >> global public interest and need specific reasons to do that, but we >> should not fight against the global public interest or even against the >> terminology 'global public interest'. It is just that whenever someone >> says that something is in the GPI, we should ask why it is. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 14-Jul-15 09:16, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I agree with this sentiment as well., I would prefer that we avoid "public interest objectives" as a rationale. More specific reasons why biz shouldn't get their money back will be more constructive. >>> >>> For what it's worth, the GNSO Council is scheduled to get an update on this from Jonathan and Marika during the next council meeting. I was previously in favour of a CCWG taking this on, but now regret taking that position. Wish I had argued for a GNSO working group instead. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:26 AM, David Cake wrote: >>> >>>>> On 8 Jul 2015, at 1:01 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 07/07/2015 10:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote (among other things): >>>>>> Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon. >>>>> I have interests in this at two levels, first respect to the resulting process for handling auction proceeds (without expanding ICANN staff :-( ), and second as a development economist. I am willing to be pressed into whatever hard labour is needed here. >>>>> >>>>> I hear the business community suggesting, in effect, "It is our money and we would like it back". My presumption is that if there is business consensus on that position they would resort to a private auction, and if it is an ICANN auction, broader public interest objectives should apply. >>>> I agree with this position. The private auction path has been there all along, it has been obvious that in some respects it is a better deal for the businesses involved, and revisiting that choice now is inappropriate. >>>> Of course, this is just the drafting team - hopefully more of us will get involved with this discussion once it leaves the terms of reference stage. >>>> >>>> David >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wjdrake Tue Jul 14 19:07:20 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:07:20 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: <55A524AE.6010604@acm.org> References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> <55A524AE.6010604@acm.org> Message-ID: <0340DBA0-8D4F-4DDF-854B-57828D000588@gmail.com> Hi > On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > I do not see trusting the use of the Auction > proceeds to commercial interest ad being in any way consistent the GPI. Me neither, and as I said in the high interest session on this, any expectation that money bid would be refunded would completely alter the incentive structure of the auction process. Game theorists would have a field day feasting on ICANN for that one. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran Tue Jul 14 19:27:08 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:27:08 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A29ECD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> <55A524AE.6010604@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A29ECD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <55A5385C.5050700@yorku.ca> General Public Interest (GPI) is a place holder for a basket of undefined principles. Rather than argue for or against GPI it makes more sense to work up the principles we agree should underpin the use of the auction proceeds. I for one would put lesser weight on commercial or private business interests in establishing those principles. The gTLD applicants already have the option of private auctions, in which case they block the proceeds from going to ICANN in any event. Sam On 14/07/2015 11:10 AM, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" wrote: > 1+ Avri > > wolfgang > > And wow, another great acronym. Do you remember Penny McLean and Lady BUMP? > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkrdmf7GzKg > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: PC-NCSG im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Di 14.07.2015 17:03 > An: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... > > Hi, > > As I have argued it is the BUMP (bottom up multistakeholder process) > that allows us to discover/identify what is in the GPI that is within > the ICANN's mission. So while we start out from so called subjective > input (and how can public interest not be subjective - as it is about > subjects), look for reasons and come to consensus on what we will treat > as ICANN view on the GPI. > > This is not a missue of the term in my opinion, but rather us doing the > work that needs to be done. It is an ICANN requirement to serve the BPI > within ICANN's mission constraints. > > The problem with GNSO WGs, is that the GNSO can ignore and pervert the > outcome. And even after we reach an outcome, we have all the rest of > the community that feels left out. Just because we think we are so very > open, does not mean that others accept that. and in how many GNSO WGS > have we seen the none GNSO people marginalized. It happens all the > time. I hear that sometimes even we are marginalized by the dominant > commercial interests. I do not see trusting the use of the Auction > proceeds to commercial interest ad being in any way consistent the GPI. > > avri > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Jul 15 16:11:40 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:11:40 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: <55A524AE.6010604@acm.org> References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> <55A524AE.6010604@acm.org> Message-ID: <6BCEFE9D-1B3D-42CB-97EF-8B7C8BA28F30@egyptig.org> Hi, On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > As I have argued it is the BUMP (bottom up multistakeholder process) > that allows us to discover/identify what is in the GPI that is within > the ICANN's mission. So while we start out from so called subjective > input (and how can public interest not be subjective - as it is about > subjects), look for reasons and come to consensus on what we will treat > as ICANN view on the GPI. > > This is not a missue of the term in my opinion, but rather us doing the > work that needs to be done. It is an ICANN requirement to serve the BPI > within ICANN's mission constraints. That all sounds pretty good to me. But I guess where I would go with this is that ICANN, in its role in serving the GPI, provides a platform that empowers the ?BUMP? to take place and develop specifically scoped consensus policies based on special interests of the different stakeholders ? represented in the BUMP. I?m still having trouble understanding why the BUMP needs to be used to develop a framework or specific standards on what ICANN?s version of the GPI is, which could be acted upon using a top-down approach (or perhaps just restrict what the bottom-up can do). I don?t mean to appear stubborn, and would welcome being convinced that there are aspects of this that I am not considering (there very well may be). However, having gone over this again and again for quite some time now, I still fail to see the overall added value in going through with this exercise. > The problem with GNSO WGs, is that the GNSO can ignore and pervert the > outcome. I don?t recall this happening in my short time participating in GNSO WGs. In my limited experience, I believe that the GNSO council has adopted inappropriate positions such as when it was asked to advise on adding spec 13 to the RA. If that is an example of what you are referring to, then sure?, you have a point. Not sure that multiple SOs/ACs chartering a CCWG to develop the new gTLD AG way back would have changed the outcome on this, when the ICANN board asked the g-council for advice. > And even after we reach an outcome, we have all the rest of > the community that feels left out. Just because we think we are so very > open, does not mean that others accept that. That?s a good point. > and in how many GNSO WGS have we seen the none GNSO people marginalized. It happens all the time. Does it? The most consistent non-GNSO folks to participate in GNSO WGs seem to be from At-Large. Their input never seems to be marginalised as far as I can tell. I suspect that there may be instances when GNSO WG members from At-Large may be more likely to be marginalised by ALAC than by the GNSO. > I hear that sometimes even we are marginalized by the dominant > commercial interests. Again?, as relatively limited as my experience is with GNSO WGs, I have never felt marginalised. Sure?, there are times when my position might have conflicted with the majority, but even in those circumstances, I can?t in honesty say that anyone marginalised my input. It?s more likely that compromises on both sides of an argument are made, which is sometimes necessary to achieve consensus. Of course, if I am a participant in a CCWG, that may not necessarily be the case. On rare occasions, such as the translation/transliteration PDP, commercial interests are the ones who lack the dominance. This was an interesting GNSO PDP WG, which was dominated by members from NCSG, SSAC and a number of members not affiliated with any ICANN SO/AC. The IPC submitted a minority statement in this PDP WG?s final report. > I do not see trusting the use of the Auction proceeds to commercial interest ad being in any way consistent the GPI. Ha!! I completely agree!! And I value both my ability and yours to express that belief without compromise. That?s pretty much my point!! :) Thanks. Amr From egmorris1 Wed Jul 15 16:55:42 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:55:42 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> Message-ID: I agree with Amr on both points. Regarding the CCWG, I think we're getting to be a bit too sharing with our policy decisions. The action proceeds are the result of a GNSO program and decisions as to what to do with the proceeds should remain within the GNSO. If we keep outsourcing our decisions those who question why we even have a GNSO Council (ideas for a General Assembly open to all to replace it were being floated in Buenos Aires by multiple Board members) will be strengthened. I'm also concerned about Crocker's letter and the Board's seeming desire to control fund disposition. This should be a decision made through a GNSO WG. I, too, regret my decision to let this go forward as a CCWG. It would be nice if we could determine what exactly is the global public interest. Best theorists can suggest ( Rawls, Mills, Sang Ho) is it represents an increase of something ( happiness, position, relative status?) of the representative individual. So determining the global interest requires that we define the typical global individual and act in accordance with his or her interests. Who is that average person? Once we admit that the identity of the representative individual is impossible to define we're left with construing some sort of theory of social collective action that maximises societal utility. Good luck with that. Condorcet first illustrated that construction of mechanisms to aggregate preferences through voting mesn the mechanisms themselves likely determine the outcome as much as collective preferences. Arrow further demonstrated the aggregation problem as applied to more generalised social actions and postulated that regardless of mechanism a dictatorship is the inevitable outcome of any known aggregating mechanism. Bottom line: global public interest is not something that can be determined, even if we agree with the theorists( I don't ) who believe it is a desirable thing. Rather than pretend to develop policy on the basis of something that can not be determined I'd rather deal with each situation as it occurs with reference to the desirability of the proposed action and outcome for those who we represent. True bottom up multi-stakeholderism should represent compromise between competing interests with an outcome determined by procedures established in an organisations governing documents and not be reference to an abstract concept that can not be determined. ---------------------------------------- From: "Avri Doria" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:17 PM To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... Hi, I remain in favor of this as a CCWG activity. And I think we need to stop setting ourselves up as the foes of the global public interest. Yes, we need to explain why something is in the global public interest and need specific reasons to do that, but we should not fight against the global public interest or even against the terminology 'global public interest'. It is just that whenever someone says that something is in the GPI, we should ask why it is. avri On 14-Jul-15 09:16, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > While I agree with this sentiment as well., I would prefer that we avoid "public interest objectives" as a rationale. More specific reasons why biz shouldn't get their money back will be more constructive. > > For what it's worth, the GNSO Council is scheduled to get an update on this from Jonathan and Marika during the next council meeting. I was previously in favour of a CCWG taking this on, but now regret taking that position. Wish I had argued for a GNSO working group instead. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:26 AM, David Cake wrote: > >>> On 8 Jul 2015, at 1:01 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> >>> On 07/07/2015 10:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote (among other things): >>>> Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon. >>> I have interests in this at two levels, first respect to the resulting process for handling auction proceeds (without expanding ICANN staff :-( ), and second as a development economist. I am willing to be pressed into whatever hard labour is needed here. >>> >>> I hear the business community suggesting, in effect, "It is our money and we would like it back". My presumption is that if there is business consensus on that position they would resort to a private auction, and if it is an ICANN auction, broader public interest objectives should apply. >> I agree with this position. The private auction path has been there all along, it has been obvious that in some respects it is a better deal for the businesses involved, and revisiting that choice now is inappropriate. >> Of course, this is just the drafting team - hopefully more of us will get involved with this discussion once it leaves the terms of reference stage. >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran Wed Jul 15 19:29:12 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:29:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> Message-ID: <55A68A58.6070502@yorku.ca> At the risk of repeating myself (or the obvious) there are three legs to the foundations that NCSG (and GNSO) can build on here and they do not require returning to Rawls )or Sen), or going back to Mills, etc., ....and they do not require either a definition of the public interest or that black swan of the idea recipient. We decide what are the set of principles we wish to build from and we build. I propose, to focus the discussion, the following three principles: 1. When gTLD candidates do not use a private auction, the funds come to ICANN and commercial ends carry little weight in determining their use. 2. Howsoever defined, the funds go to supporting greater access to the Internet and involvement in Internet governance on the part of marginalized populations and regions. 3. As in all cases of policy, the Board does not make policy here but implements policy developed bottom up in a multistakeholder process. From an NCSG standpoint I see #1 as easy, #2 as a good focus of discussion, and #3 as a no-brainer. What would follow, of course, would be designing an implementation process that was efficient and effective, and was faithful to the decisions around #2. Sam From avri Wed Jul 15 20:15:03 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:15:03 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon.... In-Reply-To: <55A68A58.6070502@yorku.ca> References: <559CAE95.7040402@yorku.ca> <779AAF8F-2120-44BD-B36E-A5EE80642817@difference.com.au> <52B24007-A9B9-4039-AD93-38064317EDCE@egyptig.org> <55A50A85.90705@acm.org> <55A68A58.6070502@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <55A69517.2040400@acm.org> Hi, I can support this as a starting place. avri On 15-Jul-15 12:29, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > At the risk of repeating myself (or the obvious) there are three legs > to the foundations that NCSG (and GNSO) can build on here and they do > not require returning to Rawls )or Sen), or going back to Mills, etc., > ....and they do not require either a definition of the public interest > or that black swan of the idea recipient. We decide what are the set > of principles we wish to build from and we build. I propose, to focus > the discussion, the following three principles: > > 1. When gTLD candidates do not use a private auction, the funds come > to ICANN and commercial ends carry little weight in determining their > use. > 2. Howsoever defined, the funds go to supporting greater access to the > Internet and involvement in Internet governance on the part of > marginalized populations and regions. > 3. As in all cases of policy, the Board does not make policy here but > implements policy developed bottom up in a multistakeholder process. > > From an NCSG standpoint I see #1 as easy, #2 as a good focus of > discussion, and #3 as a no-brainer. What would follow, of course, > would be designing an implementation process that was efficient and > effective, and was faithful to the decisions around #2. > > Sam > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From kathy Thu Jul 16 04:16:17 2015 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 21:16:17 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Calendar Invite: Monthly NCSG Policy Open Meeting In-Reply-To: <7754f958d1974641afff2a7e271eb74c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <7754f958d1974641afff2a7e271eb74c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <55A705E1.6000008@kathykleiman.com> Hi All (NCSG-PC), I won't be able to make next week's meeting due to travel (I'll be in Zurich for several screenings and discussions of the documentary - but I've been upstaged by Amr the movie star!). To our Councilors: if there is anything coming up that I can assist on (or provide historical background on), please let me know. Best, Kathy -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Calendar Invite: Monthly NCSG Policy Open Meeting Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:11:35 +0000 From: Maryam Bakoshi Reply-To: Maryam Bakoshi To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Dear All, Please find below participation details for the monthly NCSG Policy Open Meeting on Tuesday 21st July 2015 at 15:00 UTC *Adobe Connect:* https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg / *Time Zones:* http://bit.ly/1I3aOo4 *_*Draft Discussion Agenda:*_* *I. Roll-call * *II. 23th July GNSO Meeting Preparation - *_https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+23+July+2015_ 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, ICANN accountability, Proxy and Privacy accreditation, Policy and Implementation WG, Board-GNSO group on RDS, Auctions proceeds Drafting team etc ** Open Comment Periods * See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public *IV. AOB* - Reminder about NCSG election *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 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 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 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 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 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 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.* * * Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Mobile: +44 7737 698036 Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sun Jul 19 11:37:43 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 17:37:43 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for In-Reply-To: References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment. can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC chair election is coming soon. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Metalitz, Steven Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00 Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for To: Rafik Dammak Hi Rafik, This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. We did not understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.? We think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round. With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to the next step The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution through rotation of nominations. Looking forward to your response. Steve Metalitz . *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM *To:* Metalitz, Steven *Subject:* Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for Hi Steve, thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC election. Best, Rafik 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven : Hi Rafik, I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos Aires. As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional in Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair slot. The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive one. Thanks! Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee *From:* gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org [mailto: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM *To:* gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for Hi, Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple procedure for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just stalled. So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair. While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go, here it is to beat on. < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing > The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest changes. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Sun Jul 19 13:17:17 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:17:17 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for In-Reply-To: References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org> Message-ID: <73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com> Fine by me. BD > On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment. > can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC chair election is coming soon. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Metalitz, Steven > > Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00 > Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for > To: Rafik Dammak > > > > Hi Rafik, > > > > This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. We did not understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.? We think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round. > > > > With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to the next step > > > > The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution through rotation of nominations. > > > > Looking forward to your response. > > > > Steve Metalitz > > > > . > > From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM > To: Metalitz, Steven > Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC election. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >: > > Hi Rafik, > > > > I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos Aires. > > > > As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional in Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair slot. The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive one. Thanks! > > > > Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee > > From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM > To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org > Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for > > > > Hi, > > Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple procedure > for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David > was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just > stalled. > > So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair. > While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go, > here it is to beat on. > > > > > The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the > URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more > than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what > email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the > ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except > of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do > not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend > that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest changes. > > avri > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list > Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg ********************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q ********************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Sun Jul 19 16:21:46 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:21:46 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for In-Reply-To: <73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com> References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org> <73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It may (or may not) come in handy at some point. Thanks. Amr On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake wrote: > Fine by me. > > BD > >> On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment. >> can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC chair election is coming soon. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Metalitz, Steven >> Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for >> To: Rafik Dammak >> >> >> Hi Rafik, >> >> >> >> This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. We did not understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.? We think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round. >> >> >> >> With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to the next step >> >> >> >> The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution through rotation of nominations. >> >> >> >> Looking forward to your response. >> >> >> >> Steve Metalitz >> >> >> >> . >> >> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM >> To: Metalitz, Steven >> Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for >> >> >> >> Hi Steve, >> >> >> >> thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC election. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven : >> >> Hi Rafik, >> >> >> >> I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos Aires. >> >> >> >> As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional in Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair slot. The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive one. Thanks! >> >> >> >> Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee >> >> From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM >> To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org >> Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple procedure >> for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David >> was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just >> stalled. >> >> So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair. >> While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go, >> here it is to beat on. >> >> >> >> The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the >> URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more >> than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what >> email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the >> ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except >> of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do >> not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend >> that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest changes. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list >> Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > ********************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q > ********************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Sun Jul 19 16:55:36 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:55:36 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for In-Reply-To: References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org> <73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca> sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently exercise on this issue. cheers SP On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It may (or may not) come in handy at some point. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Fine by me. >> >> BD >> >>> On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment. >>> can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC chair election is coming soon. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Metalitz, Steven >>> Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for >>> To: Rafik Dammak >>> >>> >>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>> >>> >>> This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. We did not understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.? We think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round. >>> >>> >>> >>> With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to the next step >>> >>> >>> >>> The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution through rotation of nominations. >>> >>> >>> >>> Looking forward to your response. >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Metalitz >>> >>> >>> >>> . >>> >>> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM >>> To: Metalitz, Steven >>> Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> >>> >>> thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC election. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven : >>> >>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos Aires. >>> >>> >>> >>> As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional in Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair slot. The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive one. Thanks! >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee >>> >>> From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM >>> To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org >>> Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple procedure >>> for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David >>> was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just >>> stalled. >>> >>> So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair. >>> While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go, >>> here it is to beat on. >>> >>> >>> >>> The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the >>> URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more >>> than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what >>> email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the >>> ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except >>> of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do >>> not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend >>> that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest changes. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list >>> Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> ********************************************************* >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q >> ********************************************************* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From dave Wed Jul 22 05:38:07 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:38:07 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] For your action: GNSO appointees to the new IDN Guidelines Working Group References: Message-ID: <720AFD72-52A7-446A-BA2B-204A2C212A8D@difference.com.au> Do we have any suggestions for an expert appointee to the IDN Guidelines WG? David > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Mary Wong > Subject: [council] For your action: GNSO appointees to the new IDN Guidelines Working Group > Date: 22 July 2015 10:11:07 am AWST > To: "council at gnso.icann.org" > Cc: Sarmad Hussain > > Hello everyone, > > Following from the discussion with Sarmad Hussein at the Buenos Aires meeting, please be informed that the IDN project team has now issued a Call for Experts to join the new Working Group to review the IDN Guidelines: see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en . They are asking for three GNSO members to the WG, which must be endorsed by their respective SO/ACs ? and ideally applications should be sent in by 3 August. > > I?d be happy to bring this up during AOB on the Council call this week, but in the meantime it would be good if you and your respective SG/Cs could think about who the GNSO could appoint. As I explained in Buenos Aires, this WG was supposed to build on a list of issues identified by the GNSO and the ccNSO; unfortunately, although a small group of community volunteers was formed in February, there has been no discussion or input provided by that group (which has been dormant). > > Nevertheless, one possibility is of course to endorse those volunteers from that small group should they indicate interest. Given the importance of this issue, we hope that the Council will give the matter due and timely consideration. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > Email: mary.wong at icann.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: From stephanie.perrin Wed Jul 22 20:14:22 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:14:22 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Westlake review Message-ID: <55AFCF6E.7090008@mail.utoronto.ca> We seem to have zero input so far on the google doc I opened. IS there a problem? Since I never work in Google docs, I could easily have done something foolish and locked you all out. Let me know, one day left....I am working on it right now. cheers STephanie https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxXbcVnRrjppVK3bkN-RNgwzJm3SuXZsIeDOI_CsdLU/edit From rafik.dammak Wed Jul 22 20:28:33 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:28:33 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55AFCF6E.7090008@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55AFCF6E.7090008@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, it is shared in view-mode only, so nobody can edit there Rafik 2015-07-23 2:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > We seem to have zero input so far on the google doc I opened. IS there a > problem? Since I never work in Google docs, I could easily have done > something foolish and locked you all out. > Let me know, one day left....I am working on it right now. > cheers STephanie > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxXbcVnRrjppVK3bkN-RNgwzJm3SuXZsIeDOI_CsdLU/edit > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Jul 22 20:35:19 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:35:19 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Westlake review In-Reply-To: References: <55AFCF6E.7090008@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <55AFD457.1060101@mail.utoronto.ca> ok, how do I fix that? I did ask the other day.... cheers sp non google-geek extraordinaire.... On 2015-07-22 13:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > it is shared in view-mode only, so nobody can edit there > > Rafik > > 2015-07-23 2:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin > >: > > We seem to have zero input so far on the google doc I opened. IS > there a problem? Since I never work in Google docs, I could > easily have done something foolish and locked you all out. > Let me know, one day left....I am working on it right now. > cheers STephanie > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxXbcVnRrjppVK3bkN-RNgwzJm3SuXZsIeDOI_CsdLU/edit > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Jul 22 21:14:11 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:14:11 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55AFD457.1060101@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55AFCF6E.7090008@mail.utoronto.ca> <55AFD457.1060101@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <55AFDD73.6070004@mail.utoronto.ca> So the google doc should be open to edits. Thanks Rafik! Now my next technological challenge is getting the review template pasted in there....here it is attached, half completed. Steph >> 2015-07-23 2:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >> > >: >> >> We seem to have zero input so far on the google doc I opened. IS >> there a problem? Since I never work in Google docs, I could >> easily have done something foolish and locked you all out. >> Let me know, one day left....I am working on it right now. >> cheers STephanie >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxXbcVnRrjppVK3bkN-RNgwzJm3SuXZsIeDOI_CsdLU/edit >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gnso-review-draft-input-template-01jun15-en.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 69615 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake Thu Jul 23 09:43:25 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:43:25 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55AFD457.1060101@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55AFCF6E.7090008@mail.utoronto.ca> <55AFD457.1060101@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I?m rushing out of town but will just note that we?ve been provided a template to fill out responding to the individual recommendations https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-draft-input-template-01jun15-en.pdf . This is what ALAC has done https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777887 It is a hell of a lot easier than crafting a letter from scratch and would allow us to make the same sorts of points anyway. Why not just follow the format? Bill > On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > ok, how do I fix that? I did ask the other day.... > cheers sp > non google-geek extraordinaire.... > > On 2015-07-22 13:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> it is shared in view-mode only, so nobody can edit there >> >> Rafik >> >> 2015-07-23 2:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >: >> We seem to have zero input so far on the google doc I opened. IS there a problem? Since I never work in Google docs, I could easily have done something foolish and locked you all out. >> Let me know, one day left....I am working on it right now. >> cheers STephanie >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxXbcVnRrjppVK3bkN-RNgwzJm3SuXZsIeDOI_CsdLU/edit >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg ********************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q ********************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Thu Jul 23 09:53:29 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:53:29 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Westlake review In-Reply-To: References: <55AFCF6E.7090008@mail.utoronto.ca> <55AFD457.1060101@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <3DE54A5A-4A3C-44E3-AE38-08EC50B9AEA5@gmail.com> somehow my mailer doesn?t show this as sent so I?m resending > On Jul 23, 2015, at 8:43 AM, William Drake wrote: > > I?m rushing out of town but will just note that we?ve been provided a template to fill out responding to the individual recommendations https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-draft-input-template-01jun15-en.pdf . This is what ALAC has done https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777887 It is a hell of a lot easier than crafting a letter from scratch and would allow us to make the same sorts of points anyway. Why not just follow the format? > > Bill > > >> On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: >> >> ok, how do I fix that? I did ask the other day.... >> cheers sp >> non google-geek extraordinaire.... >> >> On 2015-07-22 13:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> it is shared in view-mode only, so nobody can edit there >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2015-07-23 2:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >: >>> We seem to have zero input so far on the google doc I opened. IS there a problem? Since I never work in Google docs, I could easily have done something foolish and locked you all out. >>> Let me know, one day left....I am working on it right now. >>> cheers STephanie >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxXbcVnRrjppVK3bkN-RNgwzJm3SuXZsIeDOI_CsdLU/edit >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Jul 23 09:56:23 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:56:23 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Westlake review In-Reply-To: <3DE54A5A-4A3C-44E3-AE38-08EC50B9AEA5@gmail.com> References: <55AFCF6E.7090008@mail.utoronto.ca> <55AFD457.1060101@mail.utoronto.ca> <3DE54A5A-4A3C-44E3-AE38-08EC50B9AEA5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B09017.3010801@mail.utoronto.ca> I sent the template half filled out, did you not get it Bill? Attached again.... Steph On 2015-07-23 2:53, William Drake wrote: > somehow my mailer doesn?t show this as sent so I?m resending > >> On Jul 23, 2015, at 8:43 AM, William Drake > > wrote: >> >> I?m rushing out of town but will just note that we?ve been provided a >> template to fill out responding to the individual recommendations >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-draft-input-template-01jun15-en.pdf. >> This is what ALAC has done >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53777887 It >> is a hell of a lot easier than crafting a letter from scratch and >> would allow us to make the same sorts of points anyway. Why not just >> follow the format? >> >> Bill >> >> >>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> ok, how do I fix that? I did ask the other day.... >>> cheers sp >>> non google-geek extraordinaire.... >>> >>> On 2015-07-22 13:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>> >>>> it is shared in view-mode only, so nobody can edit there >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2015-07-23 2:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>>> >>> >: >>>> >>>> We seem to have zero input so far on the google doc I opened. >>>> IS there a problem? Since I never work in Google docs, I could >>>> easily have done something foolish and locked you all out. >>>> Let me know, one day left....I am working on it right now. >>>> cheers STephanie >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxXbcVnRrjppVK3bkN-RNgwzJm3SuXZsIeDOI_CsdLU/edit >>>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gnso-review-draft-input-template-01jun15-en.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 69615 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Jul 23 11:40:42 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:40:42 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait till the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our input. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint G?ry Date: 2015-07-23 2:42 GMT+09:00 Subject: New gTLD Auction Proceeds To: Rafik Dammak Cc: Maryam Bakoshi , "jrobinson at afilias.info" < jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings , " gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" Dear Rafik, On behalf of Jonathan Robinson, please find the attached letter and please distribute to your groups. This letter has also been posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence and can directly be viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-crocker-et-al-22jul15-en.pdf Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat *gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org * *http://gnso.icann.org * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: New gTLD Auction Proceeds.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 146790 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Jul 23 11:52:25 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:52:25 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] For your action: GNSO appointees to the new IDN Guidelines Working Group In-Reply-To: <720AFD72-52A7-446A-BA2B-204A2C212A8D@difference.com.au> References: <720AFD72-52A7-446A-BA2B-204A2C212A8D@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Hi, for IDN, Avri and me were in the JIG and IRD working groups. I think Chris Dillon is one of NCSG members who has strong interests in linguistics and had been quite active in Translation/Transliteration registration data WG. Best, Rafik 2015-07-22 11:38 GMT+09:00 David Cake : > Do we have any suggestions for an expert appointee to the IDN Guidelines > WG? > > David > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Mary Wong > *Subject: **[council] For your action: GNSO appointees to the new IDN > Guidelines Working Group* > *Date: *22 July 2015 10:11:07 am AWST > *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" > *Cc: *Sarmad Hussain > > Hello everyone, > > Following from the discussion with Sarmad Hussein at the Buenos Aires > meeting, please be informed that the IDN project team has now issued a Call > for Experts to join the new Working Group to review the IDN Guidelines: see > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en. *They are asking > for three GNSO members to the WG, which must be endorsed by their > respective SO/ACs ? and ideally applications should be sent in by 3 August.* > > I?d be happy to bring this up during AOB on the Council call this week, > but in the meantime it would be good if you and your respective SG/Cs could > think about who the GNSO could appoint. As I explained in Buenos Aires, > this WG was supposed to build on a list of issues identified by the GNSO > and the ccNSO; unfortunately, although a small group of community > volunteers was formed in February, there has been no discussion or input > provided by that group (which has been dormant). > > Nevertheless, one possibility is of course to endorse those volunteers > from that small group should they indicate interest. Given the importance > of this issue, we hope that the Council will give the matter due and timely > consideration. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > Email: mary.wong at icann.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran Thu Jul 23 13:21:06 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:21:06 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> So we just sit on our hands until the GNSO policy staff produce the suggested Discussion Paper? Any expected delivery date? Sam On 2015-07-23 1:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait > till the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our > input. > > Best, > > Rafik From rafik.dammak Thu Jul 23 13:41:08 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:41:08 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> References: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi Sam, All available details are included the letter. for the timeline, councillors can ask in today call about it and get more clarification about the plan. the draft team itself has to wait for that input. anyway I don't think we "are sitting on our hands" since there are ongoing stuff that we have to work on ... Best, Rafik 2015-07-23 19:21 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco : > So we just sit on our hands until the GNSO policy staff produce the > suggested Discussion Paper? Any expected delivery date? > > Sam > > > On 2015-07-23 1:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait till >> the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our input. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Jul 23 13:48:15 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:48:15 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for In-Reply-To: <55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org> <73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com> <55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for candidates for previous elections. @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond soon , Best, Rafik 2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently exercise on > this issue. > cheers SP > > On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview the >> candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David prior to >> agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It may (or may not) >> come in handy at some point. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Fine by me. >>> >>> BD >>> >>> On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal >>>> regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment. >>>> can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC >>>> chair election is coming soon. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Metalitz, Steven >>>> Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just >>>> what we all have time for >>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Rafik, >>>> >>>> >>>> This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we are >>>> prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. We did not >>>> understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round, >>>> i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would >>>> like to see least in the role.? We think the same objective could be >>>> achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in >>>> case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round. >>>> >>>> >>>> With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for >>>> the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and >>>> scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this >>>> relatively minor change so we can move to the next step >>>> >>>> >>>> The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are >>>> prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last >>>> January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution >>>> through rotation of nominations. >>>> >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your response. >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Metalitz >>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM >>>> To: Metalitz, Steven >>>> Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just >>>> what we all have time for >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Steve, >>>> >>>> >>>> thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal to >>>> be discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC >>>> election. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven : >>>> >>>> Hi Rafik, >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos >>>> Aires. >>>> >>>> >>>> As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional >>>> in Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the >>>> Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward >>>> for the vice chair slot. The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check >>>> with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the >>>> counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive >>>> one. Thanks! >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee >>>> >>>> From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org [mailto: >>>> gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM >>>> To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org >>>> Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we >>>> all have time for >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple procedure >>>> for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David >>>> was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just >>>> stalled. >>>> >>>> So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair. >>>> While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go, >>>> here it is to beat on. >>>> >>>> < >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing >>>> > >>>> >>>> The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the >>>> URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more >>>> than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what >>>> email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the >>>> ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except >>>> of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do >>>> not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend >>>> that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest >>>> changes. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list >>>> Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> ********************************************************* >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q >>> ********************************************************* >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Thu Jul 23 15:21:22 2015 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:21:22 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for In-Reply-To: References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org> <73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com> <55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Also agree. Mar?lia On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for candidates for > previous elections. > > @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond soon , > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > >> sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently exercise on >> this issue. >> cheers SP >> >> On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview the >>> candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David prior to >>> agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It may (or may not) >>> come in handy at some point. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> Fine by me. >>>> >>>> BD >>>> >>>> On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal >>>>> regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment. >>>>> can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC >>>>> chair election is coming soon. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Metalitz, Steven >>>>> Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00 >>>>> Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just >>>>> what we all have time for >>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we >>>>> are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. We did not >>>>> understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round, >>>>> i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would >>>>> like to see least in the role.? We think the same objective could be >>>>> achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in >>>>> case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for >>>>> the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and >>>>> scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this >>>>> relatively minor change so we can move to the next step >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are >>>>> prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last >>>>> January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution >>>>> through rotation of nominations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to your response. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Metalitz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM >>>>> To: Metalitz, Steven >>>>> Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just >>>>> what we all have time for >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal >>>>> to be discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC >>>>> election. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven : >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos >>>>> Aires. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional >>>>> in Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the >>>>> Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward >>>>> for the vice chair slot. The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check >>>>> with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the >>>>> counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive >>>>> one. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee >>>>> >>>>> From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org [mailto: >>>>> gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM >>>>> To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org >>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we >>>>> all have time for >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple >>>>> procedure >>>>> for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David >>>>> was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just >>>>> stalled. >>>>> >>>>> So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair. >>>>> While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go, >>>>> here it is to beat on. >>>>> >>>>> < >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpkznZGutvze0hI4BLePoaZWoqLWhioq-tjwVKCiyqs/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the >>>>> URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more >>>>> than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what >>>>> email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the >>>>> ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except >>>>> of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do >>>>> not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend >>>>> that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest >>>>> changes. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list >>>>> Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>> ********************************************************* >>>> William J. Drake >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q >>>> ********************************************************* >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Fri Jul 24 14:48:07 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:48:07 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] For your action: GNSO appointees to the new IDN Guidelines Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <720AFD72-52A7-446A-BA2B-204A2C212A8D@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <395C543C-8B5E-49CC-806C-CA076E7DDF66@egyptig.org> Hi, I?ve contacted Chris to gauge his interest in this project, and he expressed enthusiasm in working on reviewing the IDN guidelines. I?ll suggest him as a candidate to the council. Thanks. Amr On Jul 23, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > for IDN, Avri and me were in the JIG and IRD working groups. I think Chris Dillon is one of NCSG members who has strong interests in linguistics and had been quite active in Translation/Transliteration registration data WG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2015-07-22 11:38 GMT+09:00 David Cake : > Do we have any suggestions for an expert appointee to the IDN Guidelines WG? > > David > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Mary Wong >> Subject: [council] For your action: GNSO appointees to the new IDN Guidelines Working Group >> Date: 22 July 2015 10:11:07 am AWST >> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" >> Cc: Sarmad Hussain >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> Following from the discussion with Sarmad Hussein at the Buenos Aires meeting, please be informed that the IDN project team has now issued a Call for Experts to join the new Working Group to review the IDN Guidelines: see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en. They are asking for three GNSO members to the WG, which must be endorsed by their respective SO/ACs ? and ideally applications should be sent in by 3 August. >> >> I?d be happy to bring this up during AOB on the Council call this week, but in the meantime it would be good if you and your respective SG/Cs could think about who the GNSO could appoint. As I explained in Buenos Aires, this WG was supposed to build on a list of issues identified by the GNSO and the ccNSO; unfortunately, although a small group of community volunteers was formed in February, there has been no discussion or input provided by that group (which has been dormant). >> >> Nevertheless, one possibility is of course to endorse those volunteers from that small group should they indicate interest. Given the importance of this issue, we hope that the Council will give the matter due and timely consideration. >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From rafik.dammak Fri Jul 24 17:15:11 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:15:11 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] For your action: GNSO appointees to the new IDN Guidelines Working Group In-Reply-To: <395C543C-8B5E-49CC-806C-CA076E7DDF66@egyptig.org> References: <720AFD72-52A7-446A-BA2B-204A2C212A8D@difference.com.au> <395C543C-8B5E-49CC-806C-CA076E7DDF66@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi, +1 to nominate Chris. Rafik On Jul 24, 2015 12:37 PM, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: > Hi, > > I?ve contacted Chris to gauge his interest in this project, and he > expressed enthusiasm in working on reviewing the IDN guidelines. I?ll > suggest him as a candidate to the council. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 23, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > for IDN, Avri and me were in the JIG and IRD working groups. I think > Chris Dillon is one of NCSG members who has strong interests in linguistics > and had been quite active in Translation/Transliteration registration data > WG. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2015-07-22 11:38 GMT+09:00 David Cake : > > Do we have any suggestions for an expert appointee to the IDN Guidelines > WG? > > > > David > > > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >> From: Mary Wong > >> Subject: [council] For your action: GNSO appointees to the new IDN > Guidelines Working Group > >> Date: 22 July 2015 10:11:07 am AWST > >> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" > >> Cc: Sarmad Hussain > >> > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> Following from the discussion with Sarmad Hussein at the Buenos Aires > meeting, please be informed that the IDN project team has now issued a Call > for Experts to join the new Working Group to review the IDN Guidelines: see > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en. They are asking > for three GNSO members to the WG, which must be endorsed by their > respective SO/ACs ? and ideally applications should be sent in by 3 August. > >> > >> I?d be happy to bring this up during AOB on the Council call this week, > but in the meantime it would be good if you and your respective SG/Cs could > think about who the GNSO could appoint. As I explained in Buenos Aires, > this WG was supposed to build on a list of issues identified by the GNSO > and the ccNSO; unfortunately, although a small group of community > volunteers was formed in February, there has been no discussion or input > provided by that group (which has been dormant). > >> > >> Nevertheless, one possibility is of course to endorse those volunteers > from that small group should they indicate interest. Given the importance > of this issue, we hope that the Council will give the matter due and timely > consideration. > >> > >> Thanks and cheers > >> Mary > >> > >> Mary Wong > >> Senior Policy Director > >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 > >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Jul 24 21:49:07 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 03:49:07 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review Message-ID: hi everyone, there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter ready to be reviewed and endorsed. please check it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxgZeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Jul 24 21:55:57 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 03:55:57 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Gannon Date: 2015-07-25 3:52 GMT+09:00 Subject: RE: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review To: Rafik Dammak , NCSG-Policy < PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> Hi all, Apologies for the late notice on this. Please note the current version of the letter has been distributed to the CSG and I have early indications will be supported. So any changes would need to be restricted to major issues only if possible. Given the diversity of the views we need it to be very neutral and nonpartisan in order to garner support from both sides of the NCPH. Thanks all, -James *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 7:49 PM *To:* NCSG-Policy; James Gannon *Subject:* NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review hi everyone, there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter ready to be reviewed and endorsed. please check it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxgZeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sat Jul 25 02:31:22 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:31:22 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b41ee2f8734b6e9ad9c7ed7320e2ff@toast.net> Hello, It's rather late here so I'll make this quick but I wanted to let everyone know that I will not be supporting any substantive response to the Westlake report. I don't want to hold everyone else back so I expect I'll abstain if an NCSG opinion is presented to the pc for approval, but I'll need to see it first. I have been unable to access the Google Docs document referenced in this email to evaluate it as I'm out of my country of registration and that seems to make Google mad. Horrid product that we need to exile from the GNSO. I will be filing an individual comment with my views (thanks for the extension) but they basically are as follows: 1. The Westlake study used methodology that is completely flawed; 2. Any conclusion derived from this deeply flawed study is invalid as the data itself is being improperly manipulated to draw conclusions for which the study has been not constructed to support; 3. Taking the study seriously by responding to substantive points gives it credibility it does not deserve. All we really have are opinions of a few New Zealanders who talked to people they were directed to speak with. Period. You do not restructure the organisation responsible for making the rules that govern much of the dns on the basis of an unscientific study which uses a huge amount of approximation and casts numerical data as window dressing so it can pretend to be a serious piece of work. The only proper response to this so called study ids to reject it on the basis of flawed methodology and demand it be redone in a proper and valid manner (which why I've filed a DIDP to try to get the terms of reference) or ignore it completely and have our own community review and restructure the GNSO, if necessary and a if consensus can be reached to do so. Hi all, Apologies for the late notice on this. Please note the current version of the letter has been distributed to the CSG and I have early indications will be supported. So any changes would need to be restricted to major issues only if possible. Given the diversity of the views we need it to be very neutral and nonpartisan in order to garner support from both sides of the NCPH. Then screw it. A public comment is not the place to compromise. You do that on Council. You do that in Working Groups. You "compromise" in public comments when your views are aggregated by staff and compared and contrasted with other groups. Having a watered down version of our own views submitted hurts our position during the aggregation process, it does not help it. Judging from the comments already received we have severe differences with the constituent members of the CSG regarding many of the flawed substantive conclusions of the New Zealand consultancy. The proper way to deal with this is not to compromise and submit a "neutral and nonpartisan" document. It is for all groups to submit their views and for the aggregation process to summarise, compare and contrast the comments. I don't need to be arguing about some of this in Council deliberations in a few months time and have a CSG member throw back a position in my face that we signed off on as a compromise in the public comment. I presume folks know how the staff processes public comments. If not, here goes: If there are a decent number of comments the staff takes anywhere from 3-5 of the more substantive comments and use them as the basis for categorising comments. It's a big advantage to be one of the base comments. Mine was used as one of the reference doc's from the original accountability public comment period (before the group was formed) and it was obvious to me the oversized impact that comment had in the way the staff structured the response. It was sort of neat. :) I would prefer not to have the possibility of a "neutral and nonpartisan" document being used as a reference base and effectively knocking down some of our positions the others disagree with. It's a real risk. Let me be clear: I am not opposed to working and finding common cause with other groups. The written public comment period is just not generally the place to do it. If anything, during this period we should be encouraging individual comments from members in addition to the group comment. The public comment period is a time to expand the diversity of opinion, not to narrow it. Appreciate your hard work on this, James, and I'm happy to take a look at it but as a general rule I am not in favour of any compromise of our positions at this stage of policy development. Whether the comment comes from Ed Morris, the CSG or the NCSG or the NCPH really doesn't matter at this stage. In fact, during aggregation common positions are actually more powerful if presented in separate documents than if presented in a unitary one. A watered down version of our positions to obtain harmony with the CSG IMHO will tend to do more harm than good. Best, Ed Thanks all, -James From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:49 PM To: NCSG-Policy; James Gannon Subject: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review hi everyone, there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter ready to be reviewed and endorsed. please check it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxg Zeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sat Jul 25 04:25:07 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:25:07 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: HI everyone, I have just been able to obtain access to the Google document. Thanks James for what has obviously been a lot of hard work. I regret to say that I do not support the substantive content of this document. Namely: --- We also note that a structural review of the GNSO has not been performed since the introduction of the new bicameral GNSO structure in 2009. Having been in existence for 6 years, we feel that in order for the NCPH to assess the current effectiveness of its structure a comprehensive review of the structure of the GNSO is required under the ICANN Bylaws, as per Article IV, Section 4 below; "These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board. Each five-year cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the final report of the relevant review Working Group." The Non-Contracted Parties House requests that a full review of the current GNSO structure is now undertaken as part of the current GNSO review and that until such structural review is complete that the GNSO review cannot be considered finalised. -- I have two reasons for my objection: 1. I do not believe it is in the interest of the noncommercial community to push for a GNSO structural review any sooner than is absolutely necessary. In fact, I'd be happy if one never took place. The current House structure ensures that noncommercial voices are heard and listened to. It forces compromise at the Council level that might not ordinarily take place and empowers us in doing so. The upcoming election for Council Chair is one such example. Two of our Council members must support the candidate for Chair or he or she will be unsuccessful. Eliminate the Houses and the next Chair of the Council would likely be someone from the IPC. We can stop that from happening if we so chose. I recognise that there are folks in our community who have had conversations with Board members who have told them to push for restructuring, that their goals would be met by such action. I need to tell you that my conversations with Board members and senior staff responsible for policy have led me to a very different conclusion. I submit that a General Assembly or the elimination of Stakeholder Groups are a far more likely outcome of a restructuring than an empowerment of the same. I will note that the Board members who are telling us to restructure are either on the periphery of the Board or new to the Board. The folks I've been speaking to are a bit more senior and I perceive to be a bit more influential. I admit we really do not know who is right or who is wrong, I would just advise being cautious in accepting their advice as gospel. In the absence of any pressing need for reform, a reform whose result is unknown, I would suggest it is not in the interest of the NCSG to push for a structural review at this time. That we appear to be willing to do so I'm sure makes our commercial colleagues very happy. It should. 2. Even if it were in our interest to press for a structural review, this is not the time to do it. Folks, accountability has another year or two to run minimum. How about waiting tho see what ICANN the corporation looks like first before we consent to looking at a restructuring of the GNSO? I can tell you on the basis of what has been proposed we are going to have to make some major changes in the GNSO whether we like it or not. From internal voting thresholds to perhaps assuming legal personality there are many things we'll be dealing with as a result of the transition. It is not the time to be looking at restructuring the entire SO when we are in the middle of restructuring the entire corporation. I also need to ask you to consider our volunteers. Who is going to carry the water for us on this major project? The likely volunteers to lead and man/woman this effort are either devoting many of their waking hours to accountability or will soon be doing so on the WHOIS directory services projects. We have the UDRP review, the launch of the next round. Who is left to focus on a restructuring that will demand hundreds of hours of volunteer time? Our commercial colleagues largely get paid to do this. We don't. Many of us are at or past our limit and this would be a major project. Enough! In recent days a few of us have been battling our commercial colleagues in setting up voting structures. Robin and I, in particular, have learned to perk our ears up when our CSG friends mention the number 7. They love the number seven because when things are done on the basis of 7 in the GNSO they suddenly find themselves with 42.8% of the GNSO voting strength rather than the 25% they have now. Restructuring to them is a way to get the power we are so far denying them in the accountability battles. I understand some people in this SG believe restructuring will allow them to gain advantage in the silly competition between constituencies we have here. I represent both NPOC and NCUC on Council. There are people I like in both constituencies and people I don't like in both constituencies. Please understand that a restructuring at this time is not going to help either constituency. It is more likely to help the CSG. Do not take your eye off our true opponent in most policy battles. It is not NPOC, it ids not the NCUC, it is the CSG. In light of my previous post, where I wrote of my general opposition to compromises that reduce the diversity of opinions received during the public comment period and, of greater importance, my opposition to anything that encourages or requests a structural review of the GNSO at this time, I oppose submitting this letter on behalf of the NCSG. If despite my opposition the decision is made to proceed I ask that the fact that this is not a full consensus position of the NCSG PC be noted in any communication regarding the letter with our Members and that my opposition be duly noted. I will also then submit a public comment stating my opposition to a structural review at this time citing: 1) the ongoing accountability effort and 2) the demands on our volunteers of other major projects. Bad ideas like this is what causes volunteer burnout. I will open this letter for signing by any NCSG member. I know a lot of work has gone into this and I'm sorry to have to oppose it but my conscience won't allow me to go along with it. It's a bad idea at a bad time and if we go down this road of a GNSO restructuring while we are so stretched in every other area - think lambs. slaughter. Best (and good night - this was my 3 day vacation from accountability and it looks like I have 2 hours to sleep before my next flight and another full day of work; lots of our volunteers are having lives this now. We can't do restructuring right now even if it were a good idea, and it isn't. It isn't fair to our engaged volunteers. The GNSO is working, not perfectly, but it is nothing that needs to be prioritised. Unless you are a member of the CSG.), Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:56 PM To: "NCSG-Policy" , "James Gannon" Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Gannon Date: 2015-07-25 3:52 GMT+09:00 Subject: RE: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review To: Rafik Dammak , NCSG-Policy Hi all, Apologies for the late notice on this. Please note the current version of the letter has been distributed to the CSG and I have early indications will be supported. So any changes would need to be restricted to major issues only if possible. Given the diversity of the views we need it to be very neutral and nonpartisan in order to garner support from both sides of the NCPH. Thanks all, -James From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:49 PM To: NCSG-Policy; James Gannon Subject: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review hi everyone, there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter ready to be reviewed and endorsed. please check it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxgZeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sat Jul 25 08:46:02 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:46:02 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> References: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <55B3229A.5070609@acm.org> Hi, No need to sit on your hands if you do not wish to. We are always empowered to write up our own positions and put them forward. Go for it. avri On 23-Jul-15 12:21, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > So we just sit on our hands until the GNSO policy staff produce the > suggested Discussion Paper? Any expected delivery date? > > Sam > > On 2015-07-23 1:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait >> till the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our >> input. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From lanfran Sat Jul 25 14:47:27 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:47:27 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: <55B3229A.5070609@acm.org> References: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> <55B3229A.5070609@acm.org> Message-ID: <55B3774F.7070003@yorku.ca> Avri, Got it. I will take a kick at that can. At worst it gets filed in the round filing cabinet on the floor by the desk. Sam On 25/07/2015 1:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > No need to sit on your hands if you do not wish to. > > We are always empowered to write up our own positions and put them forward. > > Go for it. > > avri > > > > On 23-Jul-15 12:21, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> So we just sit on our hands until the GNSO policy staff produce the >> suggested Discussion Paper? Any expected delivery date? >> >> Sam >> >> On 2015-07-23 1:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait >>> till the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our >>> input. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik From egmorris1 Sat Jul 25 14:51:01 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:51:01 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: <55B3774F.7070003@yorku.ca> References: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> <55B3229A.5070609@acm.org> <55B3774F.7070003@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <3882243E-839F-4984-871B-B220E65660D4@toast.net> Sam, Personally I'd be very interested in your take on the matter. I'm not a big fan of the direction things appear to be heading. I really regret agreeing to empower a CCWG to handle this. Thanks for your hard work. Best, Ed Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 25, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > Avri, > > Got it. I will take a kick at that can. > At worst it gets filed in the round filing cabinet > on the floor by the desk. > > Sam > >> On 25/07/2015 1:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> No need to sit on your hands if you do not wish to. >> >> We are always empowered to write up our own positions and put them forward. >> >> Go for it. >> >> avri >> >> >> >>> On 23-Jul-15 12:21, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> So we just sit on our hands until the GNSO policy staff produce the >>> suggested Discussion Paper? Any expected delivery date? >>> >>> Sam >>> >>>> On 2015-07-23 1:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait >>>> till the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our >>>> input. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From lanfran Sat Jul 25 15:47:52 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:47:52 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: <3882243E-839F-4984-871B-B220E65660D4@toast.net> References: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> <55B3229A.5070609@acm.org> <55B3774F.7070003@yorku.ca> <3882243E-839F-4984-871B-B220E65660D4@toast.net> Message-ID: <55B38578.8010107@yorku.ca> Ed, I will present an endowment model with grant competitions, as a starting point and "strawman" (/strawwoman for gender equity here/), to focus the debate. It pivots around three pillers: ICANN's commitment to the public interest in its remit (/with a splash of fiduciary responsibility tossed in/); the notion that the gTLD private auction option mean that ICANN auction revenues do not return to the private sector; and ICANN has no more competencies in administering grants competitions than it does in administering auctions, so administration of the endowment/grants process should be handled by a competent sister organization as opposed to building structures within ICANN. ICANN community involvement would remain central to the grants focus and awards process. That both leaves lots of questions (grants for what, composition of evaluation panels, etc.) and presents lightening rods and strawpeople, to focus the starting wider discussion that follows. Where it all goes is hard to predict. What is clear here is that ICANN policy staff should play a supporting role in something led by the constituencies. The role played by the ICANN Board and staff in the current .Africa mess is a painful lesson here. Sam On 25/07/2015 7:51 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > Sam, > > Personally I'd be very interested in your take on the matter. I'm not a big fan of the direction things appear to be heading. I really regret agreeing to empower a CCWG to handle this. > > Thanks for your hard work. > > Best, > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 25, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> Avri, >> >> Got it. I will take a kick at that can. >> At worst it gets filed in the round filing cabinet >> on the floor by the desk. >> >> Sam >> >>> On 25/07/2015 1:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> No need to sit on your hands if you do not wish to. >>> >>> We are always empowered to write up our own positions and put them forward. >>> >>> Go for it. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 23-Jul-15 12:21, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>> So we just sit on our hands until the GNSO policy staff produce the >>>> suggested Discussion Paper? Any expected delivery date? >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> >>>>> On 2015-07-23 1:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait >>>>> till the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our >>>>> input. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Sat Jul 25 16:10:17 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:10:17 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: <3882243E-839F-4984-871B-B220E65660D4@toast.net> References: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> <55B3229A.5070609@acm.org> <55B3774F.7070003@yorku.ca> <3882243E-839F-4984-871B-B220E65660D4@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi, Apologies, but I did not have a chance to go through this thread until after the council meeting, or I would have asked for a timeline on when policy staff planned on drafting the discussion paper. That?s actually a good question, and I will try to follow this up on the council list. Thanks for pointing that out, Sam. I did, however, have a few questions on this when it came up on the council meeting. The purpose of this discussion paper is (probably among other things) to capture as much of the substantive input from the high interest topic session in BA, in order to assist the community and the charter drafting team when it begins its work. This includes both those who were present and heard in BA, as well as those who were not. In effect, this is comparable to the issues scoping phase of a GNSO policy development process, where a preliminary issues report is drafted by staff capturing all relevant input to the topic. This, IMHO, is not a bad thing. It also helps address the process aspect of how to tackle this topic, which the discussion in BA severely lacked. There were far too many premature opinions voiced at that meeting on what should be done with the funds, instead of discussing the process by which a CCWG along with input from the ICANN board and the wider community would work. This is the important question that needs to be answered at this point, especially considering Steve Crocker?s letter to the GNSO Council on the topic. Ideas on what to do with the money and how this should be done should be postponed until the CCWG actually convenes. My 2 cents. Thanks. Amr On Jul 25, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > Sam, > > Personally I'd be very interested in your take on the matter. I'm not a big fan of the direction things appear to be heading. I really regret agreeing to empower a CCWG to handle this. > > Thanks for your hard work. > > Best, > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 25, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> Avri, >> >> Got it. I will take a kick at that can. >> At worst it gets filed in the round filing cabinet >> on the floor by the desk. >> >> Sam >> >>> On 25/07/2015 1:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> No need to sit on your hands if you do not wish to. >>> >>> We are always empowered to write up our own positions and put them forward. >>> >>> Go for it. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 23-Jul-15 12:21, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>> So we just sit on our hands until the GNSO policy staff produce the >>>> suggested Discussion Paper? Any expected delivery date? >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> >>>>> On 2015-07-23 1:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait >>>>> till the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our >>>>> input. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From lanfran Sat Jul 25 16:15:17 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:15:17 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: References: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> <55B3229A.5070609@acm.org> <55B3774F.7070003@yorku.ca> <3882243E-839F-4984-871B-B220E65660D4@toast.net> Message-ID: <55B38BE5.5090704@yorku.ca> Amr, As you will see in my previous posting, I am going ahead with a "think piece" to highlight some of the issues and options for the auction proceeds and (as per your comments below - which I agree with), they do not address the core issues of "what to do with the money" but do present a broad context in how that might best be done. Will have that ready to chew on by Tuesday. Sam /On 25/07/2015 9:10 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:// / > /There were far too many premature opinions voiced at that meeting on > what should be done with the funds, instead of discussing the process > by which a CCWG along with input from the ICANN board and the wider > community would work. This is the important question that needs to be > answered at this point, especially considering Steve Crocker?s letter > to the GNSO Council on the topic. Ideas on what to do with the money > and how this should be done should be postponed until the CCWG > actually convenes./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sat Jul 25 16:22:38 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:22:38 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: <55B38578.8010107@yorku.ca> References: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> <55B3229A.5070609@acm.org> <55B3774F.7070003@yorku.ca> <3882243E-839F-4984-871B-B220E65660D4@toast.net> <55B38578.8010107@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <625781c8238947cd8b2ce34afa63b392@toast.net> Sam, I look forward to reading your think piece and thank you for doing it. As you consider our options, I'd like to ask you to provide some suggestions as to how 1) we select the "sister organization" you write of and 2) how we would measure the effectiveness, performance criteria if you will, of that entity. IMHO ICANN has shown itself to be rather incompetent in selecting many of it's independent contractors and service providers and even less proficient in setting performance criteria. How do we get it right this time? Thank you for considering. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Sam Lanfranco" Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 1:48 PM To: "Edward Morris" Cc: "avri at acm.org" , "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Ed, I will present an endowment model with grant competitions, as a starting point and "strawman" (strawwoman for gender equity here), to focus the debate. It pivots around three pillers: ICANN's commitment to the public interest in its remit (with a splash of fiduciary responsibility tossed in); the notion that the gTLD private auction option mean that ICANN auction revenues do not return to the private sector; and ICANN has no more competencies in administering grants competitions than it does in administering auctions, so administration of the endowment/grants process should be handled by a competent sister organization as opposed to building structures within ICANN. ICANN community involvement would remain central to the grants focus and awards process. That both leaves lots of questions (grants for what, composition of evaluation panels, etc.) and presents lightening rods and strawpeople, to focus the starting wider discussion that follows. Where it all goes is hard to predict. What is clear here is that ICANN policy staff should play a supporting role in something led by the constituencies. The role played by the ICANN Board and staff in the current .Africa mess is a painful lesson here. Sam On 25/07/2015 7:51 AM, Edward Morris wrote: Sam, Personally I'd be very interested in your take on the matter. I'm not a big fan of the direction things appear to be heading. I really regret agreeing to empower a CCWG to handle this. Thanks for your hard work. Best, Ed Sent from my iPhone On Jul 25, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: Avri, Got it. I will take a kick at that can. At worst it gets filed in the round filing cabinet on the floor by the desk. Sam On 25/07/2015 1:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, No need to sit on your hands if you do not wish to. We are always empowered to write up our own positions and put them forward. Go for it. avri On 23-Jul-15 12:21, Sam Lanfranco wrote: So we just sit on our hands until the GNSO policy staff produce the suggested Discussion Paper? Any expected delivery date? Sam On 2015-07-23 1:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi everyone, some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait till the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our input. Best, Rafik _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sat Jul 25 16:33:43 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:33:43 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] New gTLD Auction Proceeds In-Reply-To: References: <55B0C012.5030103@yorku.ca> <55B3229A.5070609@acm.org> <55B3774F.7070003@yorku.ca> <3882243E-839F-4984-871B-B220E65660D4@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Amr, yes, I am more concerned by the scope and process for now and not about the substantive parts which will evolve when the discussion starts in working group. in BA meting, many expressed their wishlist on how to use the the funds, that is why working on preventing conflict of interests is a mandatory issue to handle. there was already some idea since the work on applicant support and in JAS report about having an ICANN foundation which will include funding from auctions proceeds among others. Best, Rafik 2015-07-25 22:10 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Hi, > > Apologies, but I did not have a chance to go through this thread until > after the council meeting, or I would have asked for a timeline on when > policy staff planned on drafting the discussion paper. That?s actually a > good question, and I will try to follow this up on the council list. Thanks > for pointing that out, Sam. > > I did, however, have a few questions on this when it came up on the > council meeting. The purpose of this discussion paper is (probably among > other things) to capture as much of the substantive input from the high > interest topic session in BA, in order to assist the community and the > charter drafting team when it begins its work. This includes both those who > were present and heard in BA, as well as those who were not. > > In effect, this is comparable to the issues scoping phase of a GNSO policy > development process, where a preliminary issues report is drafted by staff > capturing all relevant input to the topic. This, IMHO, is not a bad thing. > It also helps address the process aspect of how to tackle this topic, which > the discussion in BA severely lacked. > > There were far too many premature opinions voiced at that meeting on what > should be done with the funds, instead of discussing the process by which a > CCWG along with input from the ICANN board and the wider community would > work. This is the important question that needs to be answered at this > point, especially considering Steve Crocker?s letter to the GNSO Council on > the topic. Ideas on what to do with the money and how this should be done > should be postponed until the CCWG actually convenes. > > My 2 cents. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 25, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > > Sam, > > > > Personally I'd be very interested in your take on the matter. I'm not a > big fan of the direction things appear to be heading. I really regret > agreeing to empower a CCWG to handle this. > > > > Thanks for your hard work. > > > > Best, > > > > Ed > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Jul 25, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > >> > >> Avri, > >> > >> Got it. I will take a kick at that can. > >> At worst it gets filed in the round filing cabinet > >> on the floor by the desk. > >> > >> Sam > >> > >>> On 25/07/2015 1:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> No need to sit on your hands if you do not wish to. > >>> > >>> We are always empowered to write up our own positions and put them > forward. > >>> > >>> Go for it. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 23-Jul-15 12:21, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > >>>> So we just sit on our hands until the GNSO policy staff produce the > >>>> suggested Discussion Paper? Any expected delivery date? > >>>> > >>>> Sam > >>>> > >>>>> On 2015-07-23 1:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>> > >>>>> some updates about the auctions proceeds. it seems we have to wait > >>>>> till the publication of discussion paper and then we can provide our > >>>>> input. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Rafik > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Sun Jul 26 00:10:17 2015 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:10:17 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for In-Reply-To: References: <55894603.7010708@acm.org> <73E45386-DABF-4767-8ABE-3A5A4085CED4@gmail.com> <55ABAC58.6030404@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <03e001d0c71e$4eff12b0$ecfd3810$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Hi ? I also agree Joy From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 12:21 a.m. To: Rafik Dammak Cc: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for Also agree. Mar?lia On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, it sounds a fair request, CSG conducted such interviews for candidates for previous elections. @everyone is there any objection or suggestion? we should respond soon , Best, Rafik 2015-07-19 22:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : sounds reasonable to me...but I am perhaps not suffficiently exercise on this issue. cheers SP On 2015-07-19 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, Also fine by me. Perhaps also formalise the option to interview the candidate? If I recall correctly, they held a call with David prior to agreeing to him as a VC. This is only a suggestion. It may (or may not) come in handy at some point. Thanks. Amr On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, William Drake wrote: Fine by me. BD On Jul 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi everyone, You will found below the comments from CSG to Avri counter-proposal regarding VC chair process. they will accept it and offering an amendment. can you please review so we can move forward with this issue. the VC chair election is coming soon. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Metalitz, Steven Date: 2015-07-14 7:54 GMT+09:00 Subject: RE: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for To: Rafik Dammak Hi Rafik, This was discussed by the CSG Executive Committee last week, and we are prepared to accept the counter-proposal with one change. We did not understand why the first round was structured as a ?vote against round, i.e., a voting procedure where everyone votes for the candidate they would like to see least in the role.? We think the same objective could be achieved by a conventional voting procedure, with the top two (or more in case of a tie) vote getters proceeding to the second round. With that change we are prepared to move toward setting a schedule for the vice chair election (i.e., a deadline for nominations, acceptances, and scheduling of the rounds). Please let me know if NCSG will accept this relatively minor change so we can move to the next step The CSG Executive Committee also wished to convey that while we are prepared to accept this approach for this year, our proposal form last January remains on the table in order to provide a permanent solution through rotation of nominations. Looking forward to your response. Steve Metalitz . From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:55 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Subject: Re: FW: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for Hi Steve, thanks for the email, yes it can be considered as a counter-proposal to be discussed. definitely we have to solve before the coming soon VC election. Best, Rafik 2015-07-07 2:14 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven : Hi Rafik, I hope this finds you well and fully recovered from travel to Buenos Aires. As you may recall, NCSG participants in in the January intersessional in Washington committed to providing a counter-proposal by the end of the Singapore meeting to the CSG proposal on election procedures going forward for the vice chair slot. The rest of the CSG leadership asked me to check with you on whether Avri?s text at the link below is in fact the counter-proposal from NCSG, and if not, when we could expect to receive one. Thanks! Steve Metalitz , for CSG Executive Committee From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:42 AM To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for Hi, Sometime in February, I created this first version of a simple procedure for NCPH election of a v-chair. I gave this to Rafik and David. David was unhappy with it, and then I got distracted and further work just stalled. So here we are, one meeting away from needing to elect a new v-chair. While knowing that no one but me thinks this is a possible way to go, here it is to beat on. The doc is open for comments and suggested changes by anyone with the URL. At the moment Rakif, David and I am the only editors, but more than happy to add SG/C others, all you need to do is let me know what email/login you use for editing drive docs. The editors would be the ones to accept the changes - I don't want to presume to do so - except of course for typos, which I will gladly accept. Note, however, you do not need to have edit priviledge to suggest changes, and I recommend that even those with editor priviledge use suggest mode to suggest changes. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg ********************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q ********************************************************* _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Mar?lia Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Sun Jul 26 16:32:37 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:32:37 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> Hi, I can?t say that I agree with Ed in his conclusion on limiting a response to the Westlake report to criticism of the methodology used to discredit the report in its entirety. IMHO, he certainly is correct in pointing out that the flaws in methods makes the recommendations irrelevant, and not worthy of consideration. However, regardless of the review methods and recommendations, the public comment period provides us an opportunity to put into public record some of our own positions on the topics under discussion, irrespective of how well Westlake did their job. I believe we can make our own points, while discrediting the Westlake report with sufficient clarity. On the other hand, I fully agree with Ed?s conclusions and reasoning on NCSG endorsing the NCPH joint letter about the review. Unless someone can change my mind about this, I can?t support an NCSG endorsement of this letter at this time. To add to what Ed said: For one thing, I?m not sure I see what the popular thinking is regarding the problem with the 2 house structure. From what I can tell, the 2 house structure affects the voting thresholds on the GNSO council level, which I believe to be good thresholds. The two house structure also ensures that the NCSG has a strong say in one of the two board members selected by the GNSO. Again?, a good thing. If there?s anything else that I?m missing here, please let me know. Having said that, I don?t see the 2 house structure to be the issue that would be of paramount importance as a result of submitting this letter. It seems more geared towards empowering constituencies within the GNSO, instead of revising the effectiveness of the 2 house structure. I am not at all in favour of this. For many reasons, I believe that representation of policy positions is best done at the stakeholder group level, rather than the constituencies. Although one reading this letter could reach the conclusion that this is an opportunity to open up a discussion on abolishment of constituencies altogether, I do not believe that this is a strategically good idea within the broader context of the review. As Ed has pointed out, the research methodology used in this review makes its recommendations rather pointless. To use them as a pretext to empowering constituencies is very likely, and would be greatly unfortunate. The Westlake report already recommends that constituency empowerment is desirable, and should be enhanced, but offers no reasonable logic to support these recommendations. Some of the public comments already submitted in response to the review state that Westlake?s recommendations actually do not go far enough in empowering constituencies within the GNSO: 1. NPOC submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00005.html 2. INTA submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfhc153HfbWE.pdf 3. BRG submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfCf0VNWsLqw.pdf IMHO, endorsing this letter at this time would indirectly endorse the reliability of Westlake?s recommendations. I would be happy to have this discussion, but not with this review serving as a reference for it. If we do endorse the joint letter, I believe this would conflict with some of the views in NCSG regarding the problematic methodology used by Westlake to reach its conclusions and formulate its recommendations. We should have a discussion on the role of constituencies within the GNSO, but not now. This can wait a little. Finally, I certainly can't stand in the way of NCSG endorsing this letter if the rest of the PC believes we should sign it. I do, however, wish we could hold more of these discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS instead of here. Apologies about the lengthy email. Thanks. Amr On Jul 25, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > HI everyone, > > I have just been able to obtain access to the Google document. Thanks James for what has obviously been a lot of hard work. > > I regret to say that I do not support the substantive content of this document. Namely: > > --- > > > We also note that a structural review of the GNSO has not been performed since the introduction of the new bicameral GNSO structure in 2009. Having been in existence for 6 years, we feel that in order for the NCPH to assess the current effectiveness of its structure a comprehensive review of the structure of the GNSO is required under the ICANN Bylaws, as per Article IV, Section 4 below; > > ?These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board. Each five-year cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the final report of the relevant review Working Group.? > > The Non-Contracted Parties House requests that a full review of the current GNSO structure is now undertaken as part of the current GNSO review and that until such structural review is complete that the GNSO review cannot be considered finalised. > > -- > > I have two reasons for my objection: > > > 1. I do not believe it is in the interest of the noncommercial community to push for a GNSO structural review any sooner than is absolutely necessary. In fact, I'd be happy if one never took place. The current House structure ensures that noncommercial voices are heard and listened to. It forces compromise at the Council level that might not ordinarily take place and empowers us in doing so. The upcoming election for Council Chair is one such example. Two of our Council members must support the candidate for Chair or he or she will be unsuccessful. Eliminate the Houses and the next Chair of the Council would likely be someone from the IPC. We can stop that from happening if we so chose. > > I recognise that there are folks in our community who have had conversations with Board members who have told them to push for restructuring, that their goals would be met by such action. I need to tell you that my conversations with Board members and senior staff responsible for policy have led me to a very different conclusion. I submit that a General Assembly or the elimination of Stakeholder Groups are a far more likely outcome of a restructuring than an empowerment of the same. I will note that the Board members who are telling us to restructure are either on the periphery of the Board or new to the Board. The folks I've been speaking to are a bit more senior and I perceive to be a bit more influential. I admit we really do not know who is right or who is wrong, I would just advise being cautious in accepting their advice as gospel. In the absence of any pressing need for reform, a reform whose result is unknown, I would suggest it is not in the interest of the NCSG to push for a structural review at this time. That we appear to be willing to do so I'm sure makes our commercial colleagues very happy. It should. > > > 2. Even if it were in our interest to press for a structural review, this is not the time to do it. Folks, accountability has another year or two to run minimum. How about waiting tho see what ICANN the corporation looks like first before we consent to looking at a restructuring of the GNSO? I can tell you on the basis of what has been proposed we are going to have to make some major changes in the GNSO whether we like it or not. From internal voting thresholds to perhaps assuming legal personality there are many things we'll be dealing with as a result of the transition. It is not the time to be looking at restructuring the entire SO when we are in the middle of restructuring the entire corporation. > > I also need to ask you to consider our volunteers. Who is going to carry the water for us on this major project? The likely volunteers to lead and man/woman this effort are either devoting many of their waking hours to accountability or will soon be doing so on the WHOIS directory services projects. We have the UDRP review, the launch of the next round. Who is left to focus on a restructuring that will demand hundreds of hours of volunteer time? Our commercial colleagues largely get paid to do this. We don't. Many of us are at or past our limit and this would be a major project. Enough! > > In recent days a few of us have been battling our commercial colleagues in setting up voting structures. Robin and I, in particular, have learned to perk our ears up when our CSG friends mention the number 7. They love the number seven because when things are done on the basis of 7 in the GNSO they suddenly find themselves with 42.8% of the GNSO voting strength rather than the 25% they have now. Restructuring to them is a way to get the power we are so far denying them in the accountability battles. > > I understand some people in this SG believe restructuring will allow them to gain advantage in the silly competition between constituencies we have here. I represent both NPOC and NCUC on Council. There are people I like in both constituencies and people I don't like in both constituencies. Please understand that a restructuring at this time is not going to help either constituency. It is more likely to help the CSG. Do not take your eye off our true opponent in most policy battles. It is not NPOC, it ids not the NCUC, it is the CSG. > > In light of my previous post, where I wrote of my general opposition to compromises that reduce the diversity of opinions received during the public comment period and, of greater importance, my opposition to anything that encourages or requests a structural review of the GNSO at this time, I oppose submitting this letter on behalf of the NCSG. If despite my opposition the decision is made to proceed I ask that the fact that this is not a full consensus position of the NCSG PC be noted in any communication regarding the letter with our Members and that my opposition be duly noted. I will also then submit a public comment stating my opposition to a structural review at this time citing: 1) the ongoing accountability effort and 2) the demands on our volunteers of other major projects. Bad ideas like this is what causes volunteer burnout. I will open this letter for signing by any NCSG member. > > I know a lot of work has gone into this and I'm sorry to have to oppose it but my conscience won't allow me to go along with it. It's a bad idea at a bad time and if we go down this road of a GNSO restructuring while we are so stretched in every other area - think lambs. slaughter. > > Best (and good night - this was my 3 day vacation from accountability and it looks like I have 2 hours to sleep before my next flight and another full day of work; lots of our volunteers are having lives this now. We can't do restructuring right now even if it were a good idea, and it isn't. It isn't fair to our engaged volunteers. The GNSO is working, not perfectly, but it is nothing that needs to be prioritised. Unless you are a member of the CSG.), > > Ed > > > > From: "Rafik Dammak" > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:56 PM > To: "NCSG-Policy" , "James Gannon" > Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: James Gannon > Date: 2015-07-25 3:52 GMT+09:00 > Subject: RE: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review > To: Rafik Dammak , NCSG-Policy > > > Hi all, > > Apologies for the late notice on this. Please note the current version of the letter has been distributed to the CSG and I have early indications will be supported. > > So any changes would need to be restricted to major issues only if possible. Given the diversity of the views we need it to be very neutral and nonpartisan in order to garner support from both sides of the NCPH. > > > Thanks all, > > > -James > > > From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:49 PM > To: NCSG-Policy; James Gannon > Subject: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review > > > hi everyone, > > > there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter ready to be reviewed and endorsed. > > please check it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxgZeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart. > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Sun Jul 26 18:28:08 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:28:08 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> 1. I think Ed has raised valuable points, and I dont support the letter and will vote against it for this simple reason alone: while it is probably a requirement to look at structure (and they didnt) we are, as ED points out, in the middle of an accountability game changing exercise. Not good timing, ICANN will look different in a couple of years (I hope). 2. I agree wtih AMR that signing the letter is risky, and frankly we dont have facts to go on, because the Westlake study is so deeply flawed. So let us graciously decline signing the letter....we dont know what we are getting into. Stephanie On 2015-07-26 9:32, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I can?t say that I agree with Ed in his conclusion on limiting a response to the Westlake report to criticism of the methodology used to discredit the report in its entirety. IMHO, he certainly is correct in pointing out that the flaws in methods makes the recommendations irrelevant, and not worthy of consideration. However, regardless of the review methods and recommendations, the public comment period provides us an opportunity to put into public record some of our own positions on the topics under discussion, irrespective of how well Westlake did their job. I believe we can make our own points, while discrediting the Westlake report with sufficient clarity. > > On the other hand, I fully agree with Ed?s conclusions and reasoning on NCSG endorsing the NCPH joint letter about the review. Unless someone can change my mind about this, I can?t support an NCSG endorsement of this letter at this time. To add to what Ed said: > > For one thing, I?m not sure I see what the popular thinking is regarding the problem with the 2 house structure. From what I can tell, the 2 house structure affects the voting thresholds on the GNSO council level, which I believe to be good thresholds. The two house structure also ensures that the NCSG has a strong say in one of the two board members selected by the GNSO. Again?, a good thing. If there?s anything else that I?m missing here, please let me know. > > Having said that, I don?t see the 2 house structure to be the issue that would be of paramount importance as a result of submitting this letter. It seems more geared towards empowering constituencies within the GNSO, instead of revising the effectiveness of the 2 house structure. I am not at all in favour of this. For many reasons, I believe that representation of policy positions is best done at the stakeholder group level, rather than the constituencies. Although one reading this letter could reach the conclusion that this is an opportunity to open up a discussion on abolishment of constituencies altogether, I do not believe that this is a strategically good idea within the broader context of the review. > > As Ed has pointed out, the research methodology used in this review makes its recommendations rather pointless. To use them as a pretext to empowering constituencies is very likely, and would be greatly unfortunate. The Westlake report already recommends that constituency empowerment is desirable, and should be enhanced, but offers no reasonable logic to support these recommendations. Some of the public comments already submitted in response to the review state that Westlake?s recommendations actually do not go far enough in empowering constituencies within the GNSO: > > 1. NPOC submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00005.html > > 2. INTA submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfhc153HfbWE.pdf > > 3. BRG submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfCf0VNWsLqw.pdf > > IMHO, endorsing this letter at this time would indirectly endorse the reliability of Westlake?s recommendations. I would be happy to have this discussion, but not with this review serving as a reference for it. If we do endorse the joint letter, I believe this would conflict with some of the views in NCSG regarding the problematic methodology used by Westlake to reach its conclusions and formulate its recommendations. We should have a discussion on the role of constituencies within the GNSO, but not now. This can wait a little. > > Finally, I certainly can't stand in the way of NCSG endorsing this letter if the rest of the PC believes we should sign it. I do, however, wish we could hold more of these discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS instead of here. > > Apologies about the lengthy email. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jul 25, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > >> HI everyone, >> >> I have just been able to obtain access to the Google document. Thanks James for what has obviously been a lot of hard work. >> >> I regret to say that I do not support the substantive content of this document. Namely: >> >> --- >> >> >> We also note that a structural review of the GNSO has not been performed since the introduction of the new bicameral GNSO structure in 2009. Having been in existence for 6 years, we feel that in order for the NCPH to assess the current effectiveness of its structure a comprehensive review of the structure of the GNSO is required under the ICANN Bylaws, as per Article IV, Section 4 below; >> >> ?These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board. Each five-year cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the final report of the relevant review Working Group.? >> >> The Non-Contracted Parties House requests that a full review of the current GNSO structure is now undertaken as part of the current GNSO review and that until such structural review is complete that the GNSO review cannot be considered finalised. >> >> -- >> >> I have two reasons for my objection: >> >> >> 1. I do not believe it is in the interest of the noncommercial community to push for a GNSO structural review any sooner than is absolutely necessary. In fact, I'd be happy if one never took place. The current House structure ensures that noncommercial voices are heard and listened to. It forces compromise at the Council level that might not ordinarily take place and empowers us in doing so. The upcoming election for Council Chair is one such example. Two of our Council members must support the candidate for Chair or he or she will be unsuccessful. Eliminate the Houses and the next Chair of the Council would likely be someone from the IPC. We can stop that from happening if we so chose. >> >> I recognise that there are folks in our community who have had conversations with Board members who have told them to push for restructuring, that their goals would be met by such action. I need to tell you that my conversations with Board members and senior staff responsible for policy have led me to a very different conclusion. I submit that a General Assembly or the elimination of Stakeholder Groups are a far more likely outcome of a restructuring than an empowerment of the same. I will note that the Board members who are telling us to restructure are either on the periphery of the Board or new to the Board. The folks I've been speaking to are a bit more senior and I perceive to be a bit more influential. I admit we really do not know who is right or who is wrong, I would just advise being cautious in accepting their advice as gospel. In the absence of any pressing need for reform, a reform whose result is unknown, I would suggest it is not in the interest of the NCSG to push for a structural review at this time. That we appear to be willing to do so I'm sure makes our commercial colleagues very happy. It should. >> >> >> 2. Even if it were in our interest to press for a structural review, this is not the time to do it. Folks, accountability has another year or two to run minimum. How about waiting tho see what ICANN the corporation looks like first before we consent to looking at a restructuring of the GNSO? I can tell you on the basis of what has been proposed we are going to have to make some major changes in the GNSO whether we like it or not. From internal voting thresholds to perhaps assuming legal personality there are many things we'll be dealing with as a result of the transition. It is not the time to be looking at restructuring the entire SO when we are in the middle of restructuring the entire corporation. >> >> I also need to ask you to consider our volunteers. Who is going to carry the water for us on this major project? The likely volunteers to lead and man/woman this effort are either devoting many of their waking hours to accountability or will soon be doing so on the WHOIS directory services projects. We have the UDRP review, the launch of the next round. Who is left to focus on a restructuring that will demand hundreds of hours of volunteer time? Our commercial colleagues largely get paid to do this. We don't. Many of us are at or past our limit and this would be a major project. Enough! >> >> In recent days a few of us have been battling our commercial colleagues in setting up voting structures. Robin and I, in particular, have learned to perk our ears up when our CSG friends mention the number 7. They love the number seven because when things are done on the basis of 7 in the GNSO they suddenly find themselves with 42.8% of the GNSO voting strength rather than the 25% they have now. Restructuring to them is a way to get the power we are so far denying them in the accountability battles. >> >> I understand some people in this SG believe restructuring will allow them to gain advantage in the silly competition between constituencies we have here. I represent both NPOC and NCUC on Council. There are people I like in both constituencies and people I don't like in both constituencies. Please understand that a restructuring at this time is not going to help either constituency. It is more likely to help the CSG. Do not take your eye off our true opponent in most policy battles. It is not NPOC, it ids not the NCUC, it is the CSG. >> >> In light of my previous post, where I wrote of my general opposition to compromises that reduce the diversity of opinions received during the public comment period and, of greater importance, my opposition to anything that encourages or requests a structural review of the GNSO at this time, I oppose submitting this letter on behalf of the NCSG. If despite my opposition the decision is made to proceed I ask that the fact that this is not a full consensus position of the NCSG PC be noted in any communication regarding the letter with our Members and that my opposition be duly noted. I will also then submit a public comment stating my opposition to a structural review at this time citing: 1) the ongoing accountability effort and 2) the demands on our volunteers of other major projects. Bad ideas like this is what causes volunteer burnout. I will open this letter for signing by any NCSG member. >> >> I know a lot of work has gone into this and I'm sorry to have to oppose it but my conscience won't allow me to go along with it. It's a bad idea at a bad time and if we go down this road of a GNSO restructuring while we are so stretched in every other area - think lambs. slaughter. >> >> Best (and good night - this was my 3 day vacation from accountability and it looks like I have 2 hours to sleep before my next flight and another full day of work; lots of our volunteers are having lives this now. We can't do restructuring right now even if it were a good idea, and it isn't. It isn't fair to our engaged volunteers. The GNSO is working, not perfectly, but it is nothing that needs to be prioritised. Unless you are a member of the CSG.), >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> From: "Rafik Dammak" >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:56 PM >> To: "NCSG-Policy" , "James Gannon" >> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: James Gannon >> Date: 2015-07-25 3:52 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: RE: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review >> To: Rafik Dammak , NCSG-Policy >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Apologies for the late notice on this. Please note the current version of the letter has been distributed to the CSG and I have early indications will be supported. >> >> So any changes would need to be restricted to major issues only if possible. Given the diversity of the views we need it to be very neutral and nonpartisan in order to garner support from both sides of the NCPH. >> >> >> Thanks all, >> >> >> -James >> >> >> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:49 PM >> To: NCSG-Policy; James Gannon >> Subject: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review >> >> >> hi everyone, >> >> >> there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter ready to be reviewed and endorsed. >> >> please check it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxgZeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wjdrake Sun Jul 26 19:03:50 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:03:50 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> Hi At ICANN Seoul in 2009 we were forced into a dysfunctional structure, and ever since then all the conversations I?ve had with colleagues have been to the effect that we need to review this and put forward ideas for alternatives. Not only have we had such conversations repeatly within NCUC and NCSG but we also had one in DC with the CSG at the NCPH meeting, where we all agreed a letter to the board saying, inter alia, > One issue that was discussed in Washington was the current GNSO review. There was a strong consensus opinion that the current review fundamentally failed to address the main issue of concern; the existing structure of the GNSO? > What is required is a thorough review of the current GNSO structure that takes full account of the evolution of the DNS and the interaction that is required between those players who have a major role to play in GNSO policy development. Without recognition of the need to undertake this exercise and commit to a program that is developed with the full cooperation of all impacted parties, an important part of ICANNs multi-stakeholder model will continue to be viewed as dysfunctional by many of those who remain committed to try and deliver coherent and progressive policy within the current structural architecture of the GNSO. In BA we had a breakfast meeting between NCSG and the CSG to which everyone was invited. There we talked about follow up to our DC letter, and agreed to submit a joint comment. So James drafts the letter, and now there?s opposition we?d not heard about before on grounds that are a bit disconnected from the concerns that animated all the conversations prior. Meanwhile the folks party to the prior conversations have not been heard from. Late July is not terribly good timing... So I?m a bit puzzled as to how to proceed. Obviously another conversation needs to be asap, but whether that?s logistically feasible is unclear. I?m also not clear on how endorsing a letter criticizing the Westlake report?s weak engagement with structural issues can be construed as supporting the Westlake report?s main point with respect to structural issues, but whatever. On the other hand, I am concerned that the draft letter asking that ?a full review of the current GNSO structure is now undertaken as part of the current GNSO review? could be construed as suggesting Westlake continues to work and does said review. I think their report should be deep sixed and any structural review performed by an academic institution with some expertise in institutional governance issues (Berkman, Oxford, NYU GovLab, whatever), or, failing that, at least a proper consultancy. In any event, I?m in Meissen at the IG summer school with Wolfgang, Avri et al and am utterly swamped this week, so I?m not in a position to organize something. But I?d try to join if someone else does. Bill > On Jul 26, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > 1. I think Ed has raised valuable points, and I dont support the letter and will vote against it for this simple reason alone: while it is probably a requirement to look at structure (and they didnt) we are, as ED points out, in the middle of an accountability game changing exercise. Not good timing, ICANN will look different in a couple of years (I hope). > 2. I agree wtih AMR that signing the letter is risky, and frankly we dont have facts to go on, because the Westlake study is so deeply flawed. So let us graciously decline signing the letter....we dont know what we are getting into. > Stephanie > > On 2015-07-26 9:32, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I can?t say that I agree with Ed in his conclusion on limiting a response to the Westlake report to criticism of the methodology used to discredit the report in its entirety. IMHO, he certainly is correct in pointing out that the flaws in methods makes the recommendations irrelevant, and not worthy of consideration. However, regardless of the review methods and recommendations, the public comment period provides us an opportunity to put into public record some of our own positions on the topics under discussion, irrespective of how well Westlake did their job. I believe we can make our own points, while discrediting the Westlake report with sufficient clarity. >> >> On the other hand, I fully agree with Ed?s conclusions and reasoning on NCSG endorsing the NCPH joint letter about the review. Unless someone can change my mind about this, I can?t support an NCSG endorsement of this letter at this time. To add to what Ed said: >> >> For one thing, I?m not sure I see what the popular thinking is regarding the problem with the 2 house structure. From what I can tell, the 2 house structure affects the voting thresholds on the GNSO council level, which I believe to be good thresholds. The two house structure also ensures that the NCSG has a strong say in one of the two board members selected by the GNSO. Again?, a good thing. If there?s anything else that I?m missing here, please let me know. >> >> Having said that, I don?t see the 2 house structure to be the issue that would be of paramount importance as a result of submitting this letter. It seems more geared towards empowering constituencies within the GNSO, instead of revising the effectiveness of the 2 house structure. I am not at all in favour of this. For many reasons, I believe that representation of policy positions is best done at the stakeholder group level, rather than the constituencies. Although one reading this letter could reach the conclusion that this is an opportunity to open up a discussion on abolishment of constituencies altogether, I do not believe that this is a strategically good idea within the broader context of the review. >> >> As Ed has pointed out, the research methodology used in this review makes its recommendations rather pointless. To use them as a pretext to empowering constituencies is very likely, and would be greatly unfortunate. The Westlake report already recommends that constituency empowerment is desirable, and should be enhanced, but offers no reasonable logic to support these recommendations. Some of the public comments already submitted in response to the review state that Westlake?s recommendations actually do not go far enough in empowering constituencies within the GNSO: >> >> 1. NPOC submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00005.html >> >> 2. INTA submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfhc153HfbWE.pdf >> >> 3. BRG submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfCf0VNWsLqw.pdf >> >> IMHO, endorsing this letter at this time would indirectly endorse the reliability of Westlake?s recommendations. I would be happy to have this discussion, but not with this review serving as a reference for it. If we do endorse the joint letter, I believe this would conflict with some of the views in NCSG regarding the problematic methodology used by Westlake to reach its conclusions and formulate its recommendations. We should have a discussion on the role of constituencies within the GNSO, but not now. This can wait a little. >> >> Finally, I certainly can't stand in the way of NCSG endorsing this letter if the rest of the PC believes we should sign it. I do, however, wish we could hold more of these discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS instead of here. >> >> Apologies about the lengthy email. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Jul 25, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >> >>> HI everyone, >>> I have just been able to obtain access to the Google document. Thanks James for what has obviously been a lot of hard work. >>> I regret to say that I do not support the substantive content of this document. Namely: >>> --- >>> We also note that a structural review of the GNSO has not been performed since the introduction of the new bicameral GNSO structure in 2009. Having been in existence for 6 years, we feel that in order for the NCPH to assess the current effectiveness of its structure a comprehensive review of the structure of the GNSO is required under the ICANN Bylaws, as per Article IV, Section 4 below; >>> ?These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board. Each five-year cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the final report of the relevant review Working Group.? >>> The Non-Contracted Parties House requests that a full review of the current GNSO structure is now undertaken as part of the current GNSO review and that until such structural review is complete that the GNSO review cannot be considered finalised. >>> -- >>> I have two reasons for my objection: >>> 1. I do not believe it is in the interest of the noncommercial community to push for a GNSO structural review any sooner than is absolutely necessary. In fact, I'd be happy if one never took place. The current House structure ensures that noncommercial voices are heard and listened to. It forces compromise at the Council level that might not ordinarily take place and empowers us in doing so. The upcoming election for Council Chair is one such example. Two of our Council members must support the candidate for Chair or he or she will be unsuccessful. Eliminate the Houses and the next Chair of the Council would likely be someone from the IPC. We can stop that from happening if we so chose. >>> I recognise that there are folks in our community who have had conversations with Board members who have told them to push for restructuring, that their goals would be met by such action. I need to tell you that my conversations with Board members and senior staff responsible for policy have led me to a very different conclusion. I submit that a General Assembly or the elimination of Stakeholder Groups are a far more likely outcome of a restructuring than an empowerment of the same. I will note that the Board members who are telling us to restructure are either on the periphery of the Board or new to the Board. The folks I've been speaking to are a bit more senior and I perceive to be a bit more influential. I admit we really do not know who is right or who is wrong, I would just advise being cautious in accepting their advice as gospel. In the absence of any pressing need for reform, a reform whose result is unknown, I would suggest it is not in the interest of the NCSG to push for a structural review at this time. That we appear to be willing to do so I'm sure makes our commercial colleagues very happy. It should. >>> 2. Even if it were in our interest to press for a structural review, this is not the time to do it. Folks, accountability has another year or two to run minimum. How about waiting tho see what ICANN the corporation looks like first before we consent to looking at a restructuring of the GNSO? I can tell you on the basis of what has been proposed we are going to have to make some major changes in the GNSO whether we like it or not. From internal voting thresholds to perhaps assuming legal personality there are many things we'll be dealing with as a result of the transition. It is not the time to be looking at restructuring the entire SO when we are in the middle of restructuring the entire corporation. >>> I also need to ask you to consider our volunteers. Who is going to carry the water for us on this major project? The likely volunteers to lead and man/woman this effort are either devoting many of their waking hours to accountability or will soon be doing so on the WHOIS directory services projects. We have the UDRP review, the launch of the next round. Who is left to focus on a restructuring that will demand hundreds of hours of volunteer time? Our commercial colleagues largely get paid to do this. We don't. Many of us are at or past our limit and this would be a major project. Enough! >>> In recent days a few of us have been battling our commercial colleagues in setting up voting structures. Robin and I, in particular, have learned to perk our ears up when our CSG friends mention the number 7. They love the number seven because when things are done on the basis of 7 in the GNSO they suddenly find themselves with 42.8% of the GNSO voting strength rather than the 25% they have now. Restructuring to them is a way to get the power we are so far denying them in the accountability battles. >>> I understand some people in this SG believe restructuring will allow them to gain advantage in the silly competition between constituencies we have here. I represent both NPOC and NCUC on Council. There are people I like in both constituencies and people I don't like in both constituencies. Please understand that a restructuring at this time is not going to help either constituency. It is more likely to help the CSG. Do not take your eye off our true opponent in most policy battles. It is not NPOC, it ids not the NCUC, it is the CSG. >>> In light of my previous post, where I wrote of my general opposition to compromises that reduce the diversity of opinions received during the public comment period and, of greater importance, my opposition to anything that encourages or requests a structural review of the GNSO at this time, I oppose submitting this letter on behalf of the NCSG. If despite my opposition the decision is made to proceed I ask that the fact that this is not a full consensus position of the NCSG PC be noted in any communication regarding the letter with our Members and that my opposition be duly noted. I will also then submit a public comment stating my opposition to a structural review at this time citing: 1) the ongoing accountability effort and 2) the demands on our volunteers of other major projects. Bad ideas like this is what causes volunteer burnout. I will open this letter for signing by any NCSG member. >>> I know a lot of work has gone into this and I'm sorry to have to oppose it but my conscience won't allow me to go along with it. It's a bad idea at a bad time and if we go down this road of a GNSO restructuring while we are so stretched in every other area - think lambs. slaughter. >>> Best (and good night - this was my 3 day vacation from accountability and it looks like I have 2 hours to sleep before my next flight and another full day of work; lots of our volunteers are having lives this now. We can't do restructuring right now even if it were a good idea, and it isn't. It isn't fair to our engaged volunteers. The GNSO is working, not perfectly, but it is nothing that needs to be prioritised. Unless you are a member of the CSG.), >>> Ed >>> From: "Rafik Dammak" >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:56 PM >>> To: "NCSG-Policy" , "James Gannon" >>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: James Gannon >>> Date: 2015-07-25 3:52 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: RE: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review >>> To: Rafik Dammak , NCSG-Policy >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Apologies for the late notice on this. Please note the current version of the letter has been distributed to the CSG and I have early indications will be supported. >>> >>> So any changes would need to be restricted to major issues only if possible. Given the diversity of the views we need it to be very neutral and nonpartisan in order to garner support from both sides of the NCPH. >>> >>> Thanks all, >>> >>> -James >>> >>> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:49 PM >>> To: NCSG-Policy; James Gannon >>> Subject: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review >>> >>> hi everyone, >>> >>> there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter ready to be reviewed and endorsed. >>> >>> please check it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxgZeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sun Jul 26 19:12:20 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:12:20 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B506E4.5080709@mail.utoronto.ca> I think we all converge on that point below Bill....maybe not on how to resolve it. We could of course edit the letter (I did indeed look at it with that in mind) to see if we could change it to asking for a de novo review...but I agree with Ed's point that we have NO horses to put on that task. Personally, I have shied away from getting into discussions on ICANN structure and voting, because I have not done all the research on it that would make me comfortable to give opinions. I have a high threshold there for comfort, and I will not be comfortable throwing this issue (which as you point out has been fraught with problems since 2009) to someone who is game to do it without the same level of research. And all the oldies who know where the dead bodies were thrown into the pit are overloaded. So I think we duck. Politely, reluctantly, etc. with thanks for being approached, but IANA has eaten our lives lately and we need to give this a good think...(unlike Westlake) tseph On 2015-07-26 12:03, William Drake wrote: > On the other hand, I am concerned that the draft letter asking that ?a > full review of the current GNSO structure is now undertaken *as part > of the current *GNSO review? could be construed as suggesting Westlake > continues to work and does said review. I think their report should > be deep sixed and any structural review performed by an academic > institution with some expertise in institutional governance issues > (Berkman, Oxford, NYU GovLab, whatever), or, failing that, at least a > proper consultancy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Sun Jul 26 19:44:52 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:44:52 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <55B506E4.5080709@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <55B506E4.5080709@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <38C1CD5B-1D21-476F-BDC5-41D143526461@gmail.com> Hi > On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:12 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > NO horses to put on that task. > And all the oldies who know where the dead bodies were thrown into the pit are overloaded. So I think we duck. I wouldn?t have assumed that any such review would have to commence immediately. I don?t think anyone, CSG included, would have the juice until after the accountability and transition stuff is stable, and it?s hard to see the board acting very quickly anyway. I personally would be prepared to engage in such a discussion and to write stuff in 2016, and to use the NCPH meeting to boot it up. But this year, no. If bandwidth is an issue here presumably we could specify a timeframe in the comment, no? Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Mon Jul 27 15:06:02 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:06:02 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, I wasn?t at the NCPH intercessional last January or the CSG/NCSG breakfast meeting. Had I been at the NCPH meeting in DC last January, I might have supported a structural review at the time. However, like I said, with what?s going on with Westlake?s recommendations, I do not think this is the right time to support a structural review. My understanding is that the board SIC will need to act one way or the other on the recommendations of this report. My concern is that if we (NCSG and CSG) submit a letter at this time saying that a structural review should be conducted, the Westlake recommendations may play an important factor in scoping this initiative. I would feel more comfortable if we first discredit the Westlake report and recommendations, then start a review of the GNSO structure using a clean slate. What added to my concerns were the three comments submitted by the BRG, the INTA and NPOC (which I provided links to in my previous email). More recently, Steve DelBianco submitted the BC comment, which only reinforces my concerns regarding NCSG and CSG presenting any kind of united front on this matter. (Please check: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfVbs0zXvfTm.pdf). Bill?, when you say: On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:03 PM, William Drake wrote: > So James drafts the letter, and now there?s opposition we?d not heard about before on grounds that are a bit disconnected from the concerns that animated all the conversations prior. Meanwhile the folks party to the prior conversations have not been heard from. Late July is not terribly good timing? This is precisely why I believe this discussion should not be limited to the PC list. I have already expressed my disconnect from the perceived problems with the 2-house structure. I have no idea what those are, and would like someone to explain them to me. People keep saying ?they? exist, but never say what ?they? are. Additionally, I am aware that there are those folks who were party to the prior conversations and have not been heard from now. We should hear from them before making a decision. I can, personally, only have an opinion based on the information I have access to. Anyway?, just to reaffirm my position on this; I am completely in favour of revising whether or not constituencies continue to serve any constructive purpose in the GNSO. I would argue that they do not. I?m more than certain that there are many others in the GNSO who disagree with me. I just don?t believe this is the right time to have this conversation. On the other hand, I don?t have any grievances with the way the 2-house structure is set up, and am pretty clueless why others do. Thanks. Amr From wjdrake Mon Jul 27 22:57:03 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:57:03 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Amr > On Jul 27, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > I would feel more comfortable if we first discredit the Westlake report and recommendations, then start a review of the GNSO structure using a clean slate. So where are we with the former? > > What added to my concerns were the three comments submitted by the BRG, the INTA and NPOC (which I provided links to in my previous email). More recently, Steve DelBianco submitted the BC comment, which only reinforces my concerns regarding NCSG and CSG presenting any kind of united front on this matter. I?ve read the comments. None particularly concern me or make me think we shouldn?t press our own concerns if we want. But if we no longer have concerns, then we don't. > I have already expressed my disconnect from the perceived problems with the 2-house structure. You?ve been saying you don?t get peoples? concerns with the two house structure and I?ve not heard anyone express concerns with the two house structure, so I?m also feeling a disconnect as well. > Anyway?, just to reaffirm my position on this; I am completely in favour of revising whether or not constituencies continue to serve any constructive purpose in the GNSO. I would argue that they do not. I?m more than certain that there are many others in the GNSO who disagree with me. I think the issues vary across the GNSO so the answers may not be uniform and should be locally determined. If we don?t have a conversation about it then obviously there will be no answers posed. > I just don?t believe this is the right time to have this conversation. Me neither but I don?t think it would be really soon. Anyway, a further bilateral on this serves no purpose. We are where we are. Cheers Bill From wendy Mon Jul 27 23:04:58 2015 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:04:58 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B68EEA.4020802@seltzer.com> On 07/27/2015 03:57 PM, William Drake wrote: >> > I have already expressed my disconnect from the perceived problems with the 2-house structure. > You?ve been saying you don?t get peoples? concerns with the two house structure and I?ve not heard anyone express concerns with the two house structure, so I?m also feeling a disconnect as well. > I hate the two-house structure. It blocks us from making progress where we have cross-house agreement but intra-house division. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 From aelsadr Tue Jul 28 00:01:35 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 23:01:35 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> Message-ID: <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> Hi, Apologies regarding the delay in providing a draft NCSG response to the Westlake report. I am trying to get that done as soon as I can, but am also a bit preoccupied with selling all my furniture, packing up three years worth of junk to move back to Egypt (leaving Troms? in under a week). Again?, am really sorry about being so late with this. Thanks. Amr On Jul 27, 2015, at 9:57 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Amr >> On Jul 27, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> I would feel more comfortable if we first discredit the Westlake report and recommendations, then start a review of the GNSO structure using a clean slate. > > So where are we with the former? >> >> What added to my concerns were the three comments submitted by the BRG, the INTA and NPOC (which I provided links to in my previous email). More recently, Steve DelBianco submitted the BC comment, which only reinforces my concerns regarding NCSG and CSG presenting any kind of united front on this matter. > > I?ve read the comments. None particularly concern me or make me think we shouldn?t press our own concerns if we want. But if we no longer have concerns, then we don't. > >> I have already expressed my disconnect from the perceived problems with the 2-house structure. > > You?ve been saying you don?t get peoples? concerns with the two house structure and I?ve not heard anyone express concerns with the two house structure, so I?m also feeling a disconnect as well. > >> Anyway?, just to reaffirm my position on this; I am completely in favour of revising whether or not constituencies continue to serve any constructive purpose in the GNSO. I would argue that they do not. I?m more than certain that there are many others in the GNSO who disagree with me. > > I think the issues vary across the GNSO so the answers may not be uniform and should be locally determined. If we don?t have a conversation about it then obviously there will be no answers posed. > >> I just don?t believe this is the right time to have this conversation. > > Me neither but I don?t think it would be really soon. > > Anyway, a further bilateral on this serves no purpose. We are where we are. > > Cheers > > Bill From aelsadr Tue Jul 28 00:12:23 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 23:12:23 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <55B68EEA.4020802@seltzer.com> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <55B68EEA.4020802@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <5A668180-927A-4D79-BF43-4901F6685F7C@egyptig.org> Hi Wendy, Yes?, it is true that this is a possibility. Consensus policies require a high threshold of support on the GNSO council, but that is largely limited to the imposition of new contractual obligations on contracted parties. However, intra house division in the NCPH doesn?t necessarily mean we can?t get a motion passed. NCSG along with the CPH and the NomCom Appointee (NCA) to the NCPH can pass a motion containing consensus policies. Additionally, on (very) rare occasions, one of the constituencies of the CSG could support such a motion. The one example I recall this happening was when the ISPC voted to adopt a motion along with the registries, registrars and NCSG back in November 2012 on the non-consensus recommendations of the IGO/INGO rights protection PDP. The ability to block a motion in the NCPH also gives the NCSG some measure of influence to effectively cause a motion to fail assuming the NCA votes with the NCSG against a motion. All-in-all?, I don?t think it?s a terrible setup. Thanks. Amr On Jul 27, 2015, at 10:04 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > On 07/27/2015 03:57 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> I have already expressed my disconnect from the perceived problems with the 2-house structure. >> You?ve been saying you don?t get peoples? concerns with the two house structure and I?ve not heard anyone express concerns with the two house structure, so I?m also feeling a disconnect as well. >> > > I hate the two-house structure. It blocks us from making progress where > we have cross-house agreement but intra-house division. > > --Wendy > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 From lanfran Tue Jul 28 03:15:29 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:15:29 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> I am traveling in the Canadian North (read: no Internet; no cell coverage) and in a village with Internet at the moment, so this will be short. I am told that the deadline for responses has been extended slightly and I would expect that the NPOC submission will be modified and expanded slightly compared to to comments submitted just prior to the previous deadline. There is no disagreement around the inadequate survey methods used to produce the report. There are a variety of opinions with regard to how best to respond to that issue and with regard to the best sequence of next steps. With regard to the future of GNSO, we are not in a position to have a menu of choices and decide which are selected and which are to be ignored. We are more like a cook with a list of ingredients trying to figure out what should be cooked, how it should be cooked, and who is it for. My personal view is that the Westlake report should not be allowed to used to make change decisions, but that the occasion of the Westlake report can be used to highlight issues that need be addressed, be they in the report or not. Sam On 2015-07-27 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Apologies regarding the delay in providing a draft NCSG response to the Westlake report. I am trying to get that done as soon as I can, but am also a bit preoccupied with selling all my furniture, packing up three years worth of junk to move back to Egypt (leaving Troms? in under a week). > > Again?, am really sorry about being so late with this. > > Thanks. > > Amr > From aelsadr Thu Jul 30 19:56:25 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:56:25 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> Hi, There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard from a handful of PC members. Could others weigh in with opinions on whether we should sign this statement along with the CSG? Thanks. Amr Sent from mobile > On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > I am traveling in the Canadian North (read: no Internet; no cell coverage) and in a village with Internet at the moment, so this will be short. I am told that the deadline for responses has been extended slightly and I would expect that the NPOC submission will be modified and expanded slightly compared to to comments submitted just prior to the previous deadline. There is no disagreement around the inadequate survey methods used to produce the report. There are a variety of opinions with regard to how best to respond to that issue and with regard to the best sequence of next steps. > > With regard to the future of GNSO, we are not in a position to have a menu of choices and decide which are selected and which are to be ignored. We are more like a cook with a list of ingredients trying to figure out what should be cooked, how it should be cooked, and who is it for. > > My personal view is that the Westlake report should not be allowed to used to make change decisions, but that the occasion of the Westlake report can be used to highlight issues that need be addressed, be they in the report or not. > > Sam > >> On 2015-07-27 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Apologies regarding the delay in providing a draft NCSG response to the Westlake report. I am trying to get that done as soon as I can, but am also a bit preoccupied with selling all my furniture, packing up three years worth of junk to move back to Egypt (leaving Troms? in under a week). >> >> Again?, am really sorry about being so late with this. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr > From klaus.stoll Thu Jul 30 20:09:11 2015 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:09:11 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <55BA5A37.9020606@gkpfoundation.org> Dear Amr Greetings. I submitted my personal comment and NPOC has done the same. With regard if whether the PC should sign or not the statement I stay neutral. Yours Klaus On 7/30/2015 12:56 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard from a handful of PC members. Could others weigh in with opinions on whether we should sign this statement along with the CSG? > > Thanks. > > Amr > > Sent from mobile > >> On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> I am traveling in the Canadian North (read: no Internet; no cell coverage) and in a village with Internet at the moment, so this will be short. I am told that the deadline for responses has been extended slightly and I would expect that the NPOC submission will be modified and expanded slightly compared to to comments submitted just prior to the previous deadline. There is no disagreement around the inadequate survey methods used to produce the report. There are a variety of opinions with regard to how best to respond to that issue and with regard to the best sequence of next steps. >> >> With regard to the future of GNSO, we are not in a position to have a menu of choices and decide which are selected and which are to be ignored. We are more like a cook with a list of ingredients trying to figure out what should be cooked, how it should be cooked, and who is it for. >> >> My personal view is that the Westlake report should not be allowed to used to make change decisions, but that the occasion of the Westlake report can be used to highlight issues that need be addressed, be they in the report or not. >> >> Sam >> >>> On 2015-07-27 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Apologies regarding the delay in providing a draft NCSG response to the Westlake report. I am trying to get that done as soon as I can, but am also a bit preoccupied with selling all my furniture, packing up three years worth of junk to move back to Egypt (leaving Troms? in under a week). >>> >>> Again?, am really sorry about being so late with this. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From mshears Thu Jul 30 20:16:33 2015 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:16:33 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> Apologies can you re-circulate or point me to the statement? Thanks. On 7/30/2015 5:56 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard from a handful of PC members. Could others weigh in with opinions on whether we should sign this statement along with the CSG? > > Thanks. > > Amr > > Sent from mobile > >> On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> I am traveling in the Canadian North (read: no Internet; no cell coverage) and in a village with Internet at the moment, so this will be short. I am told that the deadline for responses has been extended slightly and I would expect that the NPOC submission will be modified and expanded slightly compared to to comments submitted just prior to the previous deadline. There is no disagreement around the inadequate survey methods used to produce the report. There are a variety of opinions with regard to how best to respond to that issue and with regard to the best sequence of next steps. >> >> With regard to the future of GNSO, we are not in a position to have a menu of choices and decide which are selected and which are to be ignored. We are more like a cook with a list of ingredients trying to figure out what should be cooked, how it should be cooked, and who is it for. >> >> My personal view is that the Westlake report should not be allowed to used to make change decisions, but that the occasion of the Westlake report can be used to highlight issues that need be addressed, be they in the report or not. >> >> Sam >> >>> On 2015-07-27 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Apologies regarding the delay in providing a draft NCSG response to the Westlake report. I am trying to get that done as soon as I can, but am also a bit preoccupied with selling all my furniture, packing up three years worth of junk to move back to Egypt (leaving Troms? in under a week). >>> >>> Again?, am really sorry about being so late with this. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 From maria.farrell Thu Jul 30 20:54:36 2015 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:54:36 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> Message-ID: Hi Amr, Apologies for my silence, too. As my company was one of the original bidders for the work, I've stayed out of commenting on the work of the reviewers. Cheers, m On 30 July 2015 at 18:16, Matthew Shears wrote: > Apologies can you re-circulate or point me to the statement? > > Thanks. > > On 7/30/2015 5:56 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard from a handful >> of PC members. Could others weigh in with opinions on whether we should >> sign this statement along with the CSG? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> Sent from mobile >> >> On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> >>> I am traveling in the Canadian North (read: no Internet; no cell >>> coverage) and in a village with Internet at the moment, so this will be >>> short. I am told that the deadline for responses has been extended slightly >>> and I would expect that the NPOC submission will be modified and expanded >>> slightly compared to to comments submitted just prior to the previous >>> deadline. There is no disagreement around the inadequate survey methods >>> used to produce the report. There are a variety of opinions with regard to >>> how best to respond to that issue and with regard to the best sequence of >>> next steps. >>> >>> With regard to the future of GNSO, we are not in a position to have a >>> menu of choices and decide which are selected and which are to be ignored. >>> We are more like a cook with a list of ingredients trying to figure out >>> what should be cooked, how it should be cooked, and who is it for. >>> >>> My personal view is that the Westlake report should not be allowed to >>> used to make change decisions, but that the occasion of the Westlake report >>> can be used to highlight issues that need be addressed, be they in the >>> report or not. >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> On 2015-07-27 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Apologies regarding the delay in providing a draft NCSG response to the >>>> Westlake report. I am trying to get that done as soon as I can, but am also >>>> a bit preoccupied with selling all my furniture, packing up three years >>>> worth of junk to move back to Egypt (leaving Troms? in under a week). >>>> >>>> Again?, am really sorry about being so late with this. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > -- > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 (0)771 247 2987 > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran Thu Jul 30 22:14:08 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:14:08 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> Message-ID: <55BA7780.7060902@yorku.ca> Amr, et. al., Here are my two comments about this: * *My view*: Given the widely shared grave reservations about the methodological flaws in the GNSO review report, the GNSO constituency communities should make sure that the report is not used as a basis for actions based on unwarranted inferences drawn from the report. However, GNSO constituency members have taken the opportunity of the report to comment on issues raised, or not properly raised. These can be used as a starting point for a stakeholder dialogue around GNSO reform. * *An NCSG PC Position:* Here is the sense of what I think we should say, along with not signing the statement. None of the various constituencies within NCSG are in favor of using the report as a basis for action. All have reservations about both the process and the content of the report. In a most favorable light the report is seen as the basis for stakeholder/constituency dialogue within the GNSO community. Various constituencies, and individuals within those constituencies, have offered constructive comments on some of the issues, and ways forward, but there is not a simple consensus around endorsing a single statement, that of the CSG or any other. The community awaits the commencement of a dialogue. That is my humble position. Sam > > /On 7/30/2015 5:56 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:// > /// > > /Hi,// > //There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard > from a handful of PC members. Could others weigh in with > opinions on whether we should sign this statement along with > the CSG?// > //Thanks.// > //Amr/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Jul 30 22:48:53 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:48:53 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <55BA7780.7060902@yorku.ca> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> <55BA7780.7060902@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <55BA7FA5.1020900@mail.utoronto.ca> I think that is a great statement Sam, and sums it up well. Steph On 2015-07-30 15:14, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Amr, et. al., > > Here are my two comments about this: > > * *My view*: Given the widely shared grave reservations about the > methodological flaws in the GNSO review report, the GNSO > constituency communities should make sure that the report is not > used as a basis for actions based on unwarranted inferences drawn > from the report. However, GNSO constituency members have taken the > opportunity of the report to comment on issues raised, or not > properly raised. These can be used as a starting point for a > stakeholder dialogue around GNSO reform. > > > * *An NCSG PC Position:* Here is the sense of what I think we should > say, along with not signing the statement. None of the various > constituencies within NCSG are in favor of using the report as a > basis for action. All have reservations about both the process and > the content of the report. In a most favorable light the report is > seen as the basis for stakeholder/constituency dialogue within the > GNSO community. Various constituencies, and individuals within > those constituencies, have offered constructive comments on some > of the issues, and ways forward, but there is not a simple > consensus around endorsing a single statement, that of the CSG or > any other. The community awaits the commencement of a dialogue. > > That is my humble position. > > Sam > > >> >> /On 7/30/2015 5:56 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:// >> /// >> >> /Hi,// >> //There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard >> from a handful of PC members. Could others weigh in with >> opinions on whether we should sign this statement along with >> the CSG?// >> //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: From aelsadr Fri Jul 31 00:44:05 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:44:05 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> Message-ID: <8EC1E469-DCD5-40F6-B461-156A251F09D2@egyptig.org> Hi Matt, The link was circulated by Rafik in the first email of this thread (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxgZeo/edit?usp=sharing). I believe you will need to log in to a google account to view it, and may also need to get permission from Rafik or James to do so. Let me know if you have any trouble. Thanks. Amr > On Jul 30, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Apologies can you re-circulate or point me to the statement? > > Thanks. > > On 7/30/2015 5:56 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard from a handful of PC members. Could others weigh in with opinions on whether we should sign this statement along with the CSG? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> Sent from mobile >> >>> On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> >>> I am traveling in the Canadian North (read: no Internet; no cell coverage) and in a village with Internet at the moment, so this will be short. I am told that the deadline for responses has been extended slightly and I would expect that the NPOC submission will be modified and expanded slightly compared to to comments submitted just prior to the previous deadline. There is no disagreement around the inadequate survey methods used to produce the report. There are a variety of opinions with regard to how best to respond to that issue and with regard to the best sequence of next steps. >>> >>> With regard to the future of GNSO, we are not in a position to have a menu of choices and decide which are selected and which are to be ignored. We are more like a cook with a list of ingredients trying to figure out what should be cooked, how it should be cooked, and who is it for. >>> >>> My personal view is that the Westlake report should not be allowed to used to make change decisions, but that the occasion of the Westlake report can be used to highlight issues that need be addressed, be they in the report or not. >>> >>> Sam >>> >>>> On 2015-07-27 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Apologies regarding the delay in providing a draft NCSG response to the Westlake report. I am trying to get that done as soon as I can, but am also a bit preoccupied with selling all my furniture, packing up three years worth of junk to move back to Egypt (leaving Troms? in under a week). >>>> >>>> Again?, am really sorry about being so late with this. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 (0)771 247 2987 > From aelsadr Fri Jul 31 00:55:53 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:55:53 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <55BA7780.7060902@yorku.ca> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> <55BA7780.7060902@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi, To Sam: I?m pretty sure I agree with your position on this, but I?m still not sure what you?re proposing regarding the joint NCSG/CSG statement. Are you saying that if it could be edited to reflect these thoughts, it is worth signing now? My personal feeling is that this is something that can wait. We can always pick this up later once we?re done with dealing with the Westlake recommendations, and whatever way the board SIC decides to react to them. To all: I?m guessing Rafik really needs an answer from us to be able to communicate our decision to his CSG counterparts. There are obviously also those of us who initially wished to collaborate with the CSG on a joint statement during the NCPH intercessional (I think back in January), then followed up with a breakfast meeting in BA. So there are NCSG members who have thoughts on why we should sign this. I?m just trying to figure out where folks stand on this. I should note that this letter does not appear (as drafted) to be a response to the public comment period that will be closing in about 24 hours, but a letter addressed to Steve Crocker with a copy sent to Richard Westlake. So taking some time to bring others, not subscribed to this list, in on this conversation seems like an option to me as well. Thanks. Amr > On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:14 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > Amr, et. al., > > Here are my two comments about this: > > ? My view: Given the widely shared grave reservations about the methodological flaws in the GNSO review report, the GNSO constituency communities should make sure that the report is not used as a basis for actions based on unwarranted inferences drawn from the report. However, GNSO constituency members have taken the opportunity of the report to comment on issues raised, or not properly raised. These can be used as a starting point for a stakeholder dialogue around GNSO reform. > > ? An NCSG PC Position: Here is the sense of what I think we should say, along with not signing the statement. None of the various constituencies within NCSG are in favor of using the report as a basis for action. All have reservations about both the process and the content of the report. In a most favorable light the report is seen as the basis for stakeholder/constituency dialogue within the GNSO community. Various constituencies, and individuals within those constituencies, have offered constructive comments on some of the issues, and ways forward, but there is not a simple consensus around endorsing a single statement, that of the CSG or any other. The community awaits the commencement of a dialogue. > That is my humble position. > Sam > >> >> On 7/30/2015 5:56 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard from a handful of PC members. Could others weigh in with opinions on whether we should sign this statement along with the CSG? >> Thanks. >> Amr From lanfran Fri Jul 31 03:22:19 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:22:19 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> <55BA7780.7060902@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <55BABFBB.2060506@yorku.ca> Amr, I feel that the Board needs to signal that it understands that the report is too flawed for anything other than the start of a serious in-house discussion about the GNSO. The Board needs to know that we would object to the Board using pieces of the report as a justification for any action on the GNSO This would mean NCSG not signing on to the CSG response, while making it clear that NCSG does not oppose the CSG response. It should also be made clear that this does not prevent individuals from endorsing some or all of the CSG response in their private submissions. The common goals are (a) no rash moves by the Board, (b) a multistakeholder discussion with a start agenda based on the issues raised (or overlooked) in the Westlake report, and based on items from individual comments on the Westlake report. I see the report as a lightening rod and not a lighthouse. Sam /On 30/07/2015 5:55 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:// / > /Hi, To Sam: I?m pretty sure I agree with your position on this, but > I?m still not sure what you?re proposing regarding the joint NCSG/CSG > statement. Are you saying that if it could be edited to reflect these > thoughts, it is worth signing now? My personal feeling is that this is > something that can wait. We can always pick this up later once we?re > done with dealing with the Westlake recommendations, and whatever way > the board SIC decides to react to them. To all: I?m guessing Rafik > really needs an answer from us to be able to communicate our decision > to his CSG counterparts. There are obviously also those of us who > initially wished to collaborate with the CSG on a joint statement > during the NCPH intercessional (I think back in January), then > followed up with a breakfast meeting in BA. So there are NCSG members > who have thoughts on why we should sign this. I?m just trying to > figure out where folks stand on this. I should note that this letter > does not appear (as drafted) to be a response to the public comment > period that will be closing in about 24 hours, but a letter addressed > to Steve Crocker with a copy sent to Richard Westlake. So taking some > time to bring others, not subscribed to this list, in on this > conversation seems like an option to me as well. Thanks. Amr / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Jul 31 03:45:36 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:45:36 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <55BABFBB.2060506@yorku.ca> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> <55BA5BF1.6050004@cdt.org> <55BA7780.7060902@yorku.ca> <55BABFBB.2060506@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <55BAC530.8040709@mail.utoronto.ca> "I see the report as a lightening rod and not a lighthouse. " That is a good line for the narrative part of our comments, Sam, if you agree... Steph On 2015-07-30 20:22, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Amr, > > I feel that the Board needs to signal that it understands that the > report is too flawed for anything other than the start of a serious > in-house discussion about the GNSO. The Board needs to know that we > would object to the Board using pieces of the report as a > justification for any action on the GNSO > > This would mean NCSG not signing on to the CSG response, while making > it clear that NCSG does not oppose the CSG response. It should also be > made clear that this does not prevent individuals from endorsing some > or all of the CSG response in their private submissions. > > The common goals are (a) no rash moves by the Board, (b) a > multistakeholder discussion with a start agenda based on the issues > raised (or overlooked) in the Westlake report, and based on items from > individual comments on the Westlake report. I see the report as a > lightening rod and not a lighthouse. > > Sam > > /On 30/07/2015 5:55 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:// > / >> /Hi, >> >> To Sam: >> >> I?m pretty sure I agree with your position on this, but I?m still not sure what you?re proposing regarding the joint NCSG/CSG statement. Are you saying that if it could be edited to reflect these thoughts, it is worth signing now? >> >> My personal feeling is that this is something that can wait. We can always pick this up later once we?re done with dealing with the Westlake recommendations, and whatever way the board SIC decides to react to them. >> >> To all: >> >> I?m guessing Rafik really needs an answer from us to be able to communicate our decision to his CSG counterparts. There are obviously also those of us who initially wished to collaborate with the CSG on a joint statement during the NCPH intercessional (I think back in January), then followed up with a breakfast meeting in BA. So there are NCSG members who have thoughts on why we should sign this. I?m just trying to figure out where folks stand on this. >> >> I should note that this letter does not appear (as drafted) to be a response to the public comment period that will be closing in about 24 hours, but a letter addressed to Steve Crocker with a copy sent to Richard Westlake. So taking some time to bring others, not subscribed to this list, in on this conversation seems like an option to me as well. >> >> 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: From stephanie.perrin Fri Jul 31 06:18:59 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:18:59 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Brief comments on the Westlake report Message-ID: <55BAE923.5010307@mail.utoronto.ca> attached is a word version of the google doc, which is still available here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxXbcVnRrjppVK3bkN-RNgwzJm3SuXZsIeDOI_CsdLU/edit. Following Avri's suggestion, I have changed all your access rights to comment not edit, (or suggest) and if you hate google docs I will accept to revise based on a redline version of the attached word doc. Frankly, after doing 10 pages on the last round, I feel like I have already said it all and they are not listening. We have serious problems with volunteer burnout and we have 36 recommendations where most of them appear to be make work projects for staff and consultants. I may be getting cynical, this is why I invite you to have at it. I sent the questionnaire around earlier. Kind regards, Stephanie -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO Review.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 141994 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lanfran Fri Jul 31 06:57:55 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:57:55 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Brief comments on the Westlake report In-Reply-To: <55BAE923.5010307@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55BAE923.5010307@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <55BAF243.9070002@yorku.ca> PC Colleagues, I am about to disappear into a Canadian Internet black hole for several days so I will take my last shot at the proposed NCSG comments. I will not suggest revisions. I leave that to the rest of you. I personally do not think it really matters whether NCSG formally submits comments, or the process just feeds off of the individual comments and discussions that have surrounded the review of the Westlake report. A formal submission looks better, I guess, but the core messages to the Board (and staff) are pretty clear and have been sent in a number of ways. Should this draft statement get to a consensus assessment, treat me as siding with the majority. For me, in addition to the obvious points that are made in this draft and have been made elsewhere, there are two issue areas that stand out in the comments: * The first is that the how, what, and why of outreach efforts needs to be carefully examined. Outreach is for awareness and engagement, but it too often looks like simply the recruitment of volunteer labor, and not an effort to help members of the constituency understand the issues that impact on them both within Internet governance and within the Internet ecosystem. Again, the how, what and why of outreach efforts needs a clear vision and strategy. * The second, as flagged in the draft NSCG comments, is that recommendations that simply pile work obligations on staff (and demand more staff) need to be evaluated against alternative processes that do not depend on augmented staff.....and make efficient use of volunteer labor from constituencies. I leave the rest in your hands. Sam /On 30/07/2015 11:18 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:/ > /attached is a word version of the google doc, which is still > available here > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxXbcVnRrjppVK3bkN-RNgwzJm3SuXZsIeDOI_CsdLU/edit. > Following Avri's suggestion, I have changed all your access rights to > comment not edit, (or suggest) and if you hate google docs I will > accept to revise based on a redline version of the attached word doc. > Frankly, after doing 10 pages on the last round, I feel like I have > already said it all and they are not listening. We have serious > problems with volunteer burnout and we have 36 recommendations where > most of them appear to be make work projects for staff and > consultants. I may be getting cynical, this is why I invite you to > have at it. // > //I sent the questionnaire around earlier. // > //Kind regards, // > //Stephanie / > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Jul 31 17:32:18 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:32:18 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents Message-ID: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday. Steph -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO Review.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 141994 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 71068 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Jul 31 18:21:47 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:21:47 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review In-Reply-To: <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> References: <8FDC24BE-8FB8-41DF-87F4-D66DAA1598A9@egyptig.org> <55B4FC88.5080809@mail.utoronto.ca> <448D8023-E905-4771-B1D0-DD3D198B9381@gmail.com> <519155C8-BC5D-4CF3-8520-E095A8D3AB2A@egyptig.org> <55B6C9A1.7080709@yorku.ca> <8037A708-A02C-4C94-B743-2EC6FF9C61D9@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, I see that we cannot support the letter or agree on strategy for now. I will respond to CSG folks that we cannot support the letter and we have to discuss more. the deadline is not relevant since the letter was supposed to be sent to the board anyway not the most winning answer when we have to cooperate with them but I guess we can live with that for now. Best, Rafik 2015-07-31 1:56 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Hi, > > There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard from a handful > of PC members. Could others weigh in with opinions on whether we should > sign this statement along with the CSG? > > Thanks. > > Amr > > Sent from mobile > > > On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > > > I am traveling in the Canadian North (read: no Internet; no cell > coverage) and in a village with Internet at the moment, so this will be > short. I am told that the deadline for responses has been extended slightly > and I would expect that the NPOC submission will be modified and expanded > slightly compared to to comments submitted just prior to the previous > deadline. There is no disagreement around the inadequate survey methods > used to produce the report. There are a variety of opinions with regard to > how best to respond to that issue and with regard to the best sequence of > next steps. > > > > With regard to the future of GNSO, we are not in a position to have a > menu of choices and decide which are selected and which are to be ignored. > We are more like a cook with a list of ingredients trying to figure out > what should be cooked, how it should be cooked, and who is it for. > > > > My personal view is that the Westlake report should not be allowed to > used to make change decisions, but that the occasion of the Westlake report > can be used to highlight issues that need be addressed, be they in the > report or not. > > > > Sam > > > >> On 2015-07-27 5:01 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Apologies regarding the delay in providing a draft NCSG response to the > Westlake report. I am trying to get that done as soon as I can, but am also > a bit preoccupied with selling all my furniture, packing up three years > worth of junk to move back to Egypt (leaving Troms? in under a week). > >> > >> Again?, am really sorry about being so late with this. > >> > >> 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: From aelsadr Fri Jul 31 18:34:22 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:34:22 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents In-Reply-To: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they support these as NCSG submissions? Thanks again. Amr > On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday. > Steph > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Fri Jul 31 19:51:41 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:51:41 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents In-Reply-To: <7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org> References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca> <7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet. That is about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if folks try.... cheers Steph On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they support these as NCSG submissions? > > Thanks again. > > Amr > >> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday. >> Steph >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Fri Jul 31 20:03:58 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:03:58 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents In-Reply-To: <55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca> <7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org> <55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19 recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ... Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!! cheers SP On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal comments, > if we have not achieved concensus on them yet. That is about 6 hours > from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if folks try.... > cheers Steph > > On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other >> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has >> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they support >> these as NCSG submissions? >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>> wrote: >>> >>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They >>> were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday. >>> Steph >>> >>> >> Review.docx>_______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO Review3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 145784 bytes Desc: not available URL: From klaus.stoll Fri Jul 31 21:51:04 2015 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:51:04 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents In-Reply-To: <55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca> <7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org> <55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org> Dear Stephanie and Friends I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is not enough for such an important letter. I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on a personal basis. Yours Klaus On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits and > added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19 recommendations > do attempt to deal with worker burnout ... > Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!! > cheers SP > > On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal >> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet. That is >> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if folks >> try.... >> cheers Steph >> >> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other >>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has >>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they support >>> these as NCSG submissions? >>> >>> Thanks again. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They >>>> were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday. >>>> Steph >>>> >>>> >>> Review.docx>_______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Fri Jul 31 22:20:45 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:20:45 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents In-Reply-To: <55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org> References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca> <7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org> <55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <1112BD18-9D83-4557-BE00-ADFBF9F58D87@egyptig.org> Hi Klaus, Thanks for your response. However, I would like point something out regarding your reasons for not wishing to endorse it. In principle, I certainly agree that it is always desirable to consult with the broader NCSG membership before the PC endorses any statement on behalf of the NCSG. I have actually expressed this same desire regarding the joint NCSG/CSG letter to Steve Crocker regarding the GNSO structure. Having said that, the PC is perfectly within its mandate to endorse statements on behalf of the stakeholder group. The members of this committee are either elected councillors or appointees of the two NC constituencies (in addition to the NCSG Chair). The timing of this submission, being so close to the deadline, presents a far from perfect scenario, but it is what we have to deal with now. You are, of course, free to make your decision based on what you perceive to be in the best interest of the NCSG. Just wanted to point out that this committee is always (unfortunately) likely to face this kind of situation, and we have a responsibility to manage such scenarios as best we can. Thanks. Amr > On Jul 31, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Klaus Stoll wrote: > > Dear Stephanie and Friends > > I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is not enough for such an important letter. > > I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on a personal basis. > > Yours > > Klaus > > > > On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19 recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ... >> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!! >> cheers SP >> >> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet. That is about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if folks try.... >>> cheers Steph >>> >>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they support these as NCSG submissions? >>>> >>>> Thanks again. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday. >>>>> Steph >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Fri Jul 31 23:48:25 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:48:25 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents In-Reply-To: <55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org> References: <55BB86F2.4070805@mail.utoronto.ca> <7B486FFC-10DA-46BE-B6BF-1CD0F689AE30@egyptig.org> <55BBA79D.1080702@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBAA7E.6090600@mail.utoronto.ca> <55BBC398.60605@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <55BBDF19.5000105@mail.utoronto.ca> Fair enough, can we gather a list of folks who will sign on? SP On 2015-07-31 14:51, Klaus Stoll wrote: > Dear Stephanie and Friends > > I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on > this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this > document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has not > been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is not > enough for such an important letter. > > I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on a > personal basis. > > Yours > > Klaus > > > > On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits >> and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19 >> recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ... >> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!! >> cheers SP >> >> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal >>> comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet. That is >>> about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if folks >>> try.... >>> cheers Steph >>> >>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other >>>> members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has >>>> provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they >>>> support these as NCSG submissions? >>>> >>>> Thanks again. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They >>>>> were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday. >>>>> Steph >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Review.docx>_______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: