From aelsadr  Tue Mar  3 17:12:04 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:12:04 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Survey Questions for the GNSO
	Policy/Implementation Working Group Initial Report
In-Reply-To: <327B8A95-7C3B-44C1-8832-9F073ED5F255@egyptig.org>
References: <327B8A95-7C3B-44C1-8832-9F073ED5F255@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <1CF89250-6173-4FC5-811C-2FF014BC087D@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

Like I said on another thread, the public comment period for this initial report has been extended to March 17th. At this point, it?d be really good to start getting some feedback/input. I?d also be happy to answer any questions.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 25, 2015, at 3:35 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> One of the currently open public comment periods is for the GNSO Policy/Implementation Working Group initial report and recommendations. The public comment period closes on March 3rd. Details on that can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
> 
> Normally public comments are submitted via email after drafting, however, this working group members have developed a survey to help them get answers to specific questions. This does not preclude the option of sending in free text comments as part of the survey or separately.
> 
> Several NCSG members participated in this working group, and I am personally largely in support of the recommendations it has made. It has come up with some very interesting principles it is asking the GNSO and ICANN board to adopt in relation to gTLD policy development and implementation. Additionally, it is proposing three new processes to be used under certain circumstances as well as formalising the role of implementation review teams; to keep the GNSO engaged with the Global Domains Division (GDD) of ICANN during policy implementation.
> 
> I do have a few minor issues that I tried to make clear in a draft response to the survey that I?m drafting on behalf of the NCSG. I?ve attached that to this email, and would very much appreciate feedback before the policy committee has a go at it. If there are folks out there who are interested in GNSO processes, then please go through the working group?s initial report. It?s actually really good stuff. Be warned though that it isn?t exactly light reading. :)
> 
> I?d be happy to answer any questions if anyone?s got ?em.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> <NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey questions - Draft.pdf>




From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar  4 07:15:57 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:15:57 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

here a call to get a representative to join GNSO drafting team on ICANN
meeting strategy. one recommendation is "ideally this is someone who is
familiar with the current meeting schedule and requirements for your
respective groups".

I would be happy to join the DT for NCSG if there is no objection, or if
someone else wants to volunteer.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>




Dear All,



As you may know, the GNSO Council agreed to form a Drafting Team during
ICANN52 to start planning for the new ICANN meeting strategy which will be
implemented in 2016 (see
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/recommendations-25feb14-en.pdf).
In order to ensure co-ordination amongst all parts of the GNSO that are
involved in participating in and organising meetings, each Stakeholder
Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member to this drafting
team (ideally this is someone who is familiar with the current meeting
schedule and requirements for your respective groups). Of course, it is the
expectation that any recommendations that may come out of this drafting
team will be shared with the GNSO for input before being finalised.
Existing Council volunteers for this effort are Tony Holmes, Bret Fausett,
James Bladel and Volker Greimann.



Please let the GNSO Secretariat know by 13 March at the latest whom from
your respective groups would like to join this effort.



Best 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/ec0d4663/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar  4 07:19:06 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:19:06 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: A working group to develop recommendations on new
	gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group on
new gTLD auctions proceeds.
I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore meeting
and it is something we advocated for for years.
can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction
proceeds
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <
marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>




Dear SO/AC Chairs,



*A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds*



During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO
discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new gTLD
auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current plan in
place for the use or allocation of these funds.



In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD auction
proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to develop
recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to you to see
whether there is an interest to form a cross-community working group on
this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to form a
cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO
working group on this topic which will be open to anyone interested to
participate in.  Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s
expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through an open
and consultative process allowing everyone interested to participate and
provide their perspectives.



In order to determine the interest from the different communities in this
topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to me by *14
March 2015* at the latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO Council
will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March 2015.



Sincerely,







Jonathan Robinson

For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/174db826/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar  4 07:22:47 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:22:47 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Survey Questions for the GNSO
 Policy/Implementation Working Group Initial Report
In-Reply-To: <1CF89250-6173-4FC5-811C-2FF014BC087D@egyptig.org>
References: <327B8A95-7C3B-44C1-8832-9F073ED5F255@egyptig.org>
	<1CF89250-6173-4FC5-811C-2FF014BC087D@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=b-ha4tjg3AC5fbbi2KFwNagH+V5-+dphfgFHE_i3-tg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

thanks for the reminder, and looking for the draft.
we can setup a webinar for this topic to work next week on NCSG comment and
explain about the report. such confcall helped us for the NCSG answer to
IANA stewardship transition CWG.
details about the webinar will be sent later.

Best,

Rafik

2015-03-04 0:12 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi again,
>
> Like I said on another thread, the public comment period for this initial
> report has been extended to March 17th. At this point, it?d be really good
> to start getting some feedback/input. I?d also be happy to answer any
> questions.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Feb 25, 2015, at 3:35 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > One of the currently open public comment periods is for the GNSO
> Policy/Implementation Working Group initial report and recommendations. The
> public comment period closes on March 3rd. Details on that can be found
> here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
> >
> > Normally public comments are submitted via email after drafting,
> however, this working group members have developed a survey to help them
> get answers to specific questions. This does not preclude the option of
> sending in free text comments as part of the survey or separately.
> >
> > Several NCSG members participated in this working group, and I am
> personally largely in support of the recommendations it has made. It has
> come up with some very interesting principles it is asking the GNSO and
> ICANN board to adopt in relation to gTLD policy development and
> implementation. Additionally, it is proposing three new processes to be
> used under certain circumstances as well as formalising the role of
> implementation review teams; to keep the GNSO engaged with the Global
> Domains Division (GDD) of ICANN during policy implementation.
> >
> > I do have a few minor issues that I tried to make clear in a draft
> response to the survey that I?m drafting on behalf of the NCSG. I?ve
> attached that to this email, and would very much appreciate feedback before
> the policy committee has a go at it. If there are folks out there who are
> interested in GNSO processes, then please go through the working group?s
> initial report. It?s actually really good stuff. Be warned though that it
> isn?t exactly light reading. :)
> >
> > I?d be happy to answer any questions if anyone?s got ?em.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > <NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey questions - Draft.pdf>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/5c4e3efe/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Mar  4 07:29:28 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 00:29:28 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>

As long as you put a stake through the heart of that dumb idea to 
shorten the meetings...
:-)
SP

On 2015-03-04 0:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> here a call to get a representative to join GNSO drafting team on 
> ICANN meeting strategy. one recommendation is "ideally this is someone 
> who is familiar with the current meeting schedule and requirements for 
> your respective groups".
>
> I would be happy to join the DT for NCSG if there is no objection, or 
> if someone else wants to volunteer.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> As you may know, the GNSO Council agreed to form a Drafting Team 
> during ICANN52 to start planning for the new ICANN meeting strategy 
> which will be implemented in 2016 (see 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/recommendations-25feb14-en.pdf). 
> In order to ensure co-ordination amongst all parts of the GNSO that 
> are involved in participating in and organising meetings, each 
> Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member 
> to this drafting team (ideally this is someone who is familiar with 
> the current meeting schedule and requirements for your respective 
> groups). Of course, it is the expectation that any recommendations 
> that may come out of this drafting team will be shared with the GNSO 
> for input before being finalised. Existing Council volunteers for this 
> effort are Tony Holmes, Bret Fausett, James Bladel and Volker Greimann.
>
> Please let the GNSO Secretariat know by 13 March at the latest whom 
> from your respective groups would like to join this effort.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>
> http://gnso.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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/944f2629/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Mar  4 07:31:19 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 00:31:19 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: A working group to develop recommendations on
 new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>

Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no 
baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget 
planning experience.
cheers SP

On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group 
> on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore 
> meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD 
> auction proceeds
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info 
> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, Marika Konings 
> <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, 
> "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" 
> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>
>
> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>
> *A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds*
>
> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO 
> discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new 
> gTLD auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current 
> plan in place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>
> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD 
> auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to 
> develop recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to 
> you to see whether there is an interest to form a cross-community 
> working group on this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient 
> interest to form a cross-community working group at this stage, the 
> GNSO plans to form a GNSO working group on this topic which will be 
> open to anyone interested to participate in.  Regardless of which 
> approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s expectation that any work on this 
> topic will be conducted through an open and consultative process 
> allowing everyone interested to participate and provide their 
> perspectives.
>
> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in 
> this topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to 
> me by *14 March 2015* at the latest. Based on the feedback received, 
> the GNSO Council will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting 
> on 19 March 2015.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jonathan Robinson
>
> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/e6ae8e0e/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Mar  4 11:31:55 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:31:55 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: A working group to develop recommendations on
	new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>



Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget planning experience. 
> cheers SP
> 
>> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new gTLD auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current plan in place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to develop recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to you to see whether there is an interest to form a cross-community working group on this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to form a cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO working group on this topic which will be open to anyone interested to participate in.  Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through an open and consultative process allowing everyone interested to participate and provide their perspectives.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in this topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to me by 14 March 2015 at the latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO Council will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March 2015.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Sincerely,   
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Jonathan Robinson
>> 
>> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/4a47fa54/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Mar  4 12:20:04 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:20:04 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <E7CBBB3E-956E-4A17-B78D-52830675D19F@toast.net>

Interesting. Heather and I also volunteered but are not listed. Happy to defer to you, Rafik, if you'd like to do it. You have far more experience in this area than I do.

Ed

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> As long as you put a stake through the heart of that dumb idea to shorten the meetings...
> :-)
> SP
> 
>> On 2015-03-04 0:15, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> here a call to get a representative to join GNSO drafting team on ICANN meeting strategy. one recommendation is "ideally this is someone who is familiar with the current meeting schedule and requirements for your respective groups".
>> 
>> I would be happy to join the DT for NCSG if there is no objection, or if someone else wants to volunteer.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As you may know, the GNSO Council agreed to form a Drafting Team during ICANN52 to start planning for the new ICANN meeting strategy which will be implemented in 2016 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/recommendations-25feb14-en.pdf). In order to ensure co-ordination amongst all parts of the GNSO that are involved in participating in and organising meetings, each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member to this drafting team (ideally this is someone who is familiar with the current meeting schedule and requirements for your respective groups). Of course, it is the expectation that any recommendations that may come out of this drafting team will be shared with the GNSO for input before being finalised. Existing Council volunteers for this effort are Tony Holmes, Bret Fausett, James Bladel and Volker Greimann. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Please let the GNSO Secretariat know by 13 March at the latest whom from your respective groups would like to join this effort. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Glen
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> 
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> 
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> 
>> http://gnso.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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/1331a40b/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Mar  4 12:35:47 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:35:47 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <1B9FD9C2-1CA7-470D-8858-4169BF1E5E5B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

On Mar 4, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> As long as you put a stake through the heart of that dumb idea to shorten the meetings...
> :-)
> SP

My understanding is that that?s a done deal. The question now, I believe, is how to organise the schedule of those meetings, not determine their length.

I haven?t been paying much attention to this topic so may have misunderstood.

Thanks.

Amr


From avri  Wed Mar  4 12:43:47 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:43:47 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: A working group to develop recommendations on
 new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
Message-ID: <54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>

hi,

I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or energy to 
dive back into this swamp.

avri


On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>> Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no 
>> baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget 
>> planning experience.
>> cheers SP
>>
>> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we should give an initial response for this : forming a working 
>>> group on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>>> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore 
>>> meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>>> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>>> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>>> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD 
>>> auction proceeds
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info 
>>> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, Marika Konings 
>>> <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, 
>>> "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" 
>>> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>>
>>> *A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction 
>>> proceeds*
>>>
>>> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO 
>>> discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new 
>>> gTLD auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current 
>>> plan in place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>>>
>>> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD 
>>> auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to 
>>> develop recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to 
>>> you to see whether there is an interest to form a cross-community 
>>> working group on this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient 
>>> interest to form a cross-community working group at this stage, the 
>>> GNSO plans to form a GNSO working group on this topic which will be 
>>> open to anyone interested to participate in. Regardless of which 
>>> approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s expectation that any work on 
>>> this topic will be conducted through an open and consultative 
>>> process allowing everyone interested to participate and provide 
>>> their perspectives.
>>>
>>> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in 
>>> this topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response 
>>> to me by *14 March 2015* at the latest. Based on the feedback 
>>> received, the GNSO Council will initially discuss how to proceed at 
>>> its meeting on 19 March 2015.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>>
>>> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/89af4569/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Mar  4 12:49:36 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:49:36 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <1B9FD9C2-1CA7-470D-8858-4169BF1E5E5B@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<1B9FD9C2-1CA7-470D-8858-4169BF1E5E5B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <0ED147DD-40F2-494B-8BF1-93E8A9CA7B13@toast.net>

That is my understanding as well, Amr.

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> As long as you put a stake through the heart of that dumb idea to shorten the meetings...
>> :-)
>> SP
> 
> My understanding is that that?s a done deal. The question now, I believe, is how to organise the schedule of those meetings, not determine their length.
> 
> I haven?t been paying much attention to this topic so may have misunderstood.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From aelsadr  Wed Mar  4 13:52:03 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:52:03 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: A working group to develop recommendations on
	new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences on this being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> hi,
> 
> I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or energy to dive back into this swamp.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget planning experience. 
>>> cheers SP
>>> 
>>> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>>>> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>>>> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>>> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>>>> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new gTLD auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current plan in place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to develop recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to you to see whether there is an interest to form a cross-community working group on this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to form a cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO working group on this topic which will be open to anyone interested to participate in.  Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through an open and consultative process allowing everyone interested to participate and provide their perspectives.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in this topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to me by 14 March 2015 at the latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO Council will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March 2015.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> Sincerely,   
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>>> 
>>>> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/0db80592/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Wed Mar  4 15:41:26 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:41:26 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: A working group to develop recommendations on
 new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
	<5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <54F70B86.1010409@yorku.ca>

All,

I too would like to be included in this working group. I have already 
submitted one proposal for how some of the new gTLD auction proceeds 
could be used. Process is as important as purpose here, and both can 
become a "swamp". My submission was one of the group that Steve Crocker 
commented on (saying they have received suggestions) in Singapore.

 From prior experience part of the task/trick is to prevent this from 
turning into a "swamp". Who is that guy who is always saying "what are 
the core values here?" :-)

Sam L.

On 04/03/2015 6:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences on 
> this being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org 
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or energy 
>> to dive back into this swamp.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no 
>>>> baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable 
>>>> budget planning experience.
>>>> cheers SP
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> we should give an initial response for this : forming a working 
>>>>> group on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>>>>> I think there were positive comments from our side during 
>>>>> Singapore meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>>>>> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>>>>> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>>>>> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD 
>>>>> auction proceeds
>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info 
>>>>> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, Marika Konings 
>>>>> <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, 
>>>>> "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" 
>>>>> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction 
>>>>> proceeds*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the 
>>>>> GNSO discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you 
>>>>> know, new gTLD auction proceeds have been building up and there is 
>>>>> no current plan in place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD 
>>>>> auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to 
>>>>> develop recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out 
>>>>> to you to see whether there is an interest to form a 
>>>>> cross-community working group on this topic. Note, should there 
>>>>> not be sufficient interest to form a cross-community working group 
>>>>> at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO working group on this 
>>>>> topic which will be open to anyone interested to participate in.  
>>>>> Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s 
>>>>> expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through 
>>>>> an open and consultative process allowing everyone interested to 
>>>>> participate and provide their perspectives.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to determine the interest from the different communities 
>>>>> in this topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial 
>>>>> response to me by *14 March 2015* at the latest. Based on the 
>>>>> feedback received, the GNSO Council will initially discuss how to 
>>>>> proceed at its meeting on 19 March 2015.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>>>>
>>>>> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-- 
------------------------------------------------
"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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/38002875/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Wed Mar  4 15:46:01 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:46:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <1B9FD9C2-1CA7-470D-8858-4169BF1E5E5B@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>	<54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<1B9FD9C2-1CA7-470D-8858-4169BF1E5E5B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <54F70C99.4020807@yorku.ca>

/We might want a bit of an online discussion of this (here) since I have 
shifted from "dumb idea" //with no marginal savings//,
//to "the idea has several merits" that revolve around scheduling and 
locations.//
/
Sam L.

On 04/03/2015 5:35 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> As long as you put a stake through the heart of that dumb idea to shorten the meetings...
>> :-)
>> SP
> My understanding is that that?s a done deal. The question now, I believe, is how to organise the schedule of those meetings, not determine their length.
>
> I haven?t been paying much attention to this topic so may have misunderstood.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/428e464f/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Wed Mar  4 15:51:29 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:51:29 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <E7CBBB3E-956E-4A17-B78D-52830675D19F@toast.net>
References: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>	<54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<E7CBBB3E-956E-4A17-B78D-52830675D19F@toast.net>
Message-ID: <54F70DE1.5010707@yorku.ca>

All,

I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute 
one member".
For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and 
NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group 
/ Constituency is invited to contribute one member"

In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an 
NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.

Sam L.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/6320af3c/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar  4 15:57:29 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 22:57:29 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: A working group to develop recommendations on
 new gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
	<5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmYiZLRqpnrTANXFBa0SsypFet-4qXo9KAvR4uAK3srmg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi ,

if it is cross-community WG, I guess that may make sense to have it with
ALAC and less with GAC.
seeing all statements to get involved in the working group, I guess we have
to wait for th idea of group to get traction and to have it formed first :)
but I would that such group will be open to everybody to participate.

Rafik

2015-03-04 20:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences on this
> being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>  hi,
>
> I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or energy to
> dive back into this swamp.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>   Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no
> baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget
> planning experience.
> cheers SP
>
> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>  we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group on
> new gTLD auctions proceeds.
> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore
> meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>
>  Best,
>
>  Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction
> proceeds
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <
> marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
>
>
>
> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>
>
> *A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds*
>
>
> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO
> discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new gTLD
> auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current plan in
> place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>
>
> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD auction
> proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to develop
> recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to you to see
> whether there is an interest to form a cross-community working group on
> this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to form a
> cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO
> working group on this topic which will be open to anyone interested to
> participate in.  Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s
> expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through an open
> and consultative process allowing everyone interested to participate and
> provide their perspectives.
>
>
> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in this
> topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to me by *14
> March 2015* at the latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO
> Council will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March
> 2015.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson
>
> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>  _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/a6d11f50/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Mar  4 16:10:05 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:10:05 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <54F70DE1.5010707@yorku.ca>
References: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>	<54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<E7CBBB3E-956E-4A17-B78D-52830675D19F@toast.net>
	<54F70DE1.5010707@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <713CED73-FEC6-46DD-BD25-2A28D958C282@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.

I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.

Other thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
> 
> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the       idea.
> 
> Sam L. 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/e54a8ef3/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Mar  4 22:13:35 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:13:35 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] EU Data Protection Authority
In-Reply-To: <7D008B4D-DE23-4C6F-9C6C-0D30FB113A7C@epic.org>
References: <7D008B4D-DE23-4C6F-9C6C-0D30FB113A7C@epic.org>
Message-ID: <54F7676F.5040204@mail.utoronto.ca>

Buttarelli, the new EDPS, has released his strategy, speech to IAPP, and 
press release.  Should be of interest re privacy.



Below are some links of interest:
*
*
CPDP Speech 
<https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Speeches/2015/15-01-23_CPDP_concluding_remarks_GB_EN.pdf>
Press Release: EDPS Strategy 2015-2019 
<https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/PressNews/Press/2015/EDPS-2015-02-EDPS_Strategy_EN.pdf>
EDPS Strategy 2015-2019 
<https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Strategy/15-02-26_Strategy_2015_2019_EN.pdf>
Bio 
<https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/MembersMission/Members/GButtarelli_CV2014_EN.pdf>
European Data Protection Supervisor Website 
<https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/EDPS>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/d00c96a5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/d00c96a5/attachment.sig>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Mar  4 22:27:31 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:27:31 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] EU Data Protection Authority
In-Reply-To: <54F7676F.5040204@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <7D008B4D-DE23-4C6F-9C6C-0D30FB113A7C@epic.org>
	<54F7676F.5040204@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <54F76AB3.6040807@mail.utoronto.ca>

I should have spelled this out....Giovanni Buttarelli is the new 
European Data protection Supervisor, responsible for advising the 
Commission  and all its creatures on data protection (go to his website, 
the last link, for a much better definition.)
He is giving a keynote at the International Association of Privacy 
Professionals in Washington, the speech in the link appears to be the 
one he gave in Brussels back in January....(I would describe that outfit 
as the US based association for training privacy officers within 
corporations.)
This is an opportunity to reach out and get them involved...
best route is to contact Achim Klabunde who attended our workshop last 
year, IMHO.

cheers Steph
PS not sure these links are working, sometimes I hate Thunderbird....
On 15-03-04 3:13 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Buttarelli, the new EDPS, has released his strategy, speech to IAPP, 
> and press release.  Should be of interest re privacy.
>
>
>
> Below are some links of interest:
> *
> *
> CPDP Speech <cid:part1.06040302.03080108 at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Press Release: EDPS Strategy 2015-2019 
> <cid:part2.09070402.08050507 at mail.utoronto.ca>
> EDPS Strategy 2015-2019 <cid:part3.02020608.08010003 at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Bio <cid:part4.08010605.03020804 at mail.utoronto.ca>
> European Data Protection Supervisor Website 
> <cid:part5.03000301.01070104 at mail.utoronto.ca>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/c38276aa/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 15-01-23_CPDP_concluding_remarks_GB_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 370470 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/c38276aa/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EDPS-2015-02-EDPS_Strategy_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 165154 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/c38276aa/attachment-0005.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 15-02-26_Strategy_2015_2019_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2683522 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/c38276aa/attachment-0006.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GButtarelli_CV2014_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 243049 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/c38276aa/attachment-0007.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/c38276aa/attachment-0003.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Mar  4 23:25:50 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:25:50 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS
 Conflicts call, March 4th
In-Reply-To: <D11CBFCE.396CC%maria.otanes@icann.org>
References: <D11CBFCE.396CC%maria.otanes@icann.org>
Message-ID: <54F7785E.5010305@mail.utoronto.ca>

Colleagues,
Sadly, I forgot about this whois conflicts meeting today.  However, I 
listened to the transcript and quite frankly I think I would have gone 
right bonkers had I been on the call.  Michele Neylon and Volker Greiman 
did not actually need our help. However, I really think that since we 
now have a genuine data protection authority among us now in the form of 
Joy (cheers and clapping!) (my credentials have long since faded, I am 
afraid, since I left the OPC in 2007) we should try to draft Joy to join 
this committee.  Monthly calls only.  I would be happy to support and 
brief her, but we need her to tell these guys just exactly how crazy 
this procedure is. Members of the PPSAI have heard me threaten that the 
only way to resolve this issue is to crowd source a global appeal to 
federal courts in numerous jurisdictions, if ICANN will not accept the 
word of a data commissioner that WHOIS practices violate DP law. 
Nevertheless, they were sticking to that line in today's call, backed up 
by the NTIA, who helpfully suggested that ICANN should ask the GAC for 
an opinion.  They are actually talking still about ICANN hiring a 
privacy counsel to offer an opinion (in place of the questionable 
authority of a DP authority.  IPC position is that if DPAs cannot 
actually enforce the law (ie no criminal sanctions, no ability to 
enforce) then registrars should not be off the hook.....unbelievable, i 
need to listen to previous transcripts just to be sure I got that 
right....we should import that logic into PPSAI with respect to 
copyright and trademark enforcement.  I digress...
As Michele kept saying, it hurts my head.  I am not trying to hurt Joy's 
head too, but I think it would be delightful if she would participate 
and sort them out.
Kind regards, Stephanie.
PS check out the recording yourself...not while driving, in case you 
swerve while laughing....


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call, 
March 4th
Date: 	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 18:58:51 +0000
From: 	Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org>
To: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>



Hi Stephanie,

The call was held at 13:00 UTC earlier today.

You can listen to the audio on the call on: 
https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/IAG-WHOIS+and+Conflicts+Conference+Call+Schedule

Please let me know if you need anything else.

Best,
Maria

From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 1:52 PM
To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org <mailto:maria.otanes at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call, 
March 4th

Where are the instructions to get on the bridge please?
stephanie Perrin


On 2015-02-24 17:56, Maria Otanes wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Please complete the Doodle Poll below with your time preference for 
> next week's call on Wednesday, March 4th. Please complete this in the 
> next 48 hours. I will send a calendar invite once I've closed the poll.
>
> The available times are:
> 13:00 UTC
> 18:30 UTC
> 23:00 UTC
>
> http://doodle.com/hbi3gtquv2daksxu
>
> If you have any questions, please let me know.
>
> Best,
> Ria
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
> *Ria Otanes*
> *Administrative Assistant*
> *I**nternet **C**orporation for **A**ssigned **N**ames and **N**umbers*
> */Washington, DC Office/*
> *Office +1 (202) 249-7540 <file:///tel/%2528202%2529%20249-7540>* | 
> *Cell +1 (202) 679-5185 <file:///tel/%2528202%2529%20679-5185>*
> maria.otanes at icann.org <mailto:maria.otanes at icann.org>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/0dbb1300/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Mar  5 08:54:01 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:54:01 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS
 Conflicts call, March 4th
In-Reply-To: <54F7785E.5010305@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <D11CBFCE.396CC%maria.otanes@icann.org>
	<54F7785E.5010305@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <54F7FD89.4050201@acm.org>

Hi,

I agree that this would be an excellent task to draft Joy into.

I assume she is still on this list.

avri


On 04-Mar-15 22:25, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Colleagues,
> Sadly, I forgot about this whois conflicts meeting today.  However, I
> listened to the transcript and quite frankly I think I would have gone
> right bonkers had I been on the call.  Michele Neylon and Volker
> Greiman did not actually need our help. However, I really think that
> since we now have a genuine data protection authority among us now in
> the form of Joy (cheers and clapping!) (my credentials have long since
> faded, I am afraid, since I left the OPC in 2007) we should try to
> draft Joy to join this committee.  Monthly calls only.  I would be
> happy to support and brief her, but we need her to tell these guys
> just exactly how crazy this procedure is.  Members of the PPSAI have
> heard me threaten that the only way to resolve this issue is to crowd
> source a global appeal to federal courts in numerous jurisdictions, if
> ICANN will not accept the word of a data commissioner that WHOIS
> practices violate DP law.  Nevertheless, they were sticking to that
> line in today's call, backed up by the NTIA, who helpfully suggested
> that ICANN should ask the GAC for an opinion.  They are actually
> talking still about ICANN hiring a privacy counsel to offer an opinion
> (in place of the questionable authority of a DP authority.  IPC
> position is that if DPAs cannot actually enforce the law (ie no
> criminal sanctions, no ability to enforce) then registrars should not
> be off the hook.....unbelievable, i need to listen to previous
> transcripts just to be sure I got that right....we should import that
> logic into PPSAI with respect to copyright and trademark enforcement. 
> I digress...
> As Michele kept saying, it hurts my head.  I am not trying to hurt
> Joy's head too, but I think it would be delightful if she would
> participate and sort them out.
> Kind regards, Stephanie.
> PS check out the recording yourself...not while driving, in case you
> swerve while laughing....
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts
> call, March 4th
> Date: 	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 18:58:51 +0000
> From: 	Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org>
> To: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>
>
>
> Hi Stephanie, 
>
> The call was held at 13:00 UTC earlier today. 
>
> You can listen to the audio on the call
> on: https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/IAG-WHOIS+and+Conflicts+Conference+Call+Schedule
>
> Please let me know if you need anything else.
>
> Best,
> Maria
>
> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 1:52 PM
> To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org <mailto:maria.otanes at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts
> call, March 4th
>
> Where are the instructions to get on the bridge please?
> stephanie Perrin
>
>
> On 2015-02-24 17:56, Maria Otanes wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Please complete the Doodle Poll below with your time preference for
>> next week's call on Wednesday, March 4th. Please complete this in the
>> next 48 hours. I will send a calendar invite once I've closed the poll.
>>
>> The available times are:
>> 13:00 UTC
>> 18:30 UTC
>> 23:00 UTC
>>
>> http://doodle.com/hbi3gtquv2daksxu
>>
>> If you have any questions, please let me know. 
>>
>> Best,
>> Ria
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
>> *Ria Otanes*
>> *Administrative Assistant*
>> *I**nternet **C**orporation for **A**ssigned **N**ames and **N**umbers*
>> */Washington, DC Office/*
>> *Office +1 (202) 249-7540
>> <file:///tel/%2528202%2529%20249-7540>* | *Cell +1 (202) 679-5185
>> <file:///tel/%2528202%2529%20679-5185>*
>> maria.otanes at icann.org <mailto:maria.otanes at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
>> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/f504f9f6/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Thu Mar  5 11:10:35 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:10:35 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <713CED73-FEC6-46DD-BD25-2A28D958C282@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<E7CBBB3E-956E-4A17-B78D-52830675D19F@toast.net>
	<54F70DE1.5010707@yorku.ca>
	<713CED73-FEC6-46DD-BD25-2A28D958C282@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <75D6A591-1FAD-4D64-8308-977E46275802@gmail.com>

Hi

Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.

Bill



> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
> 
> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
> 
> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>> 
>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>> 
>> Sam L. 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

*********************************************************
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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/e6a7fab6/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Mar  5 12:51:49 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:51:49 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS
	Conflicts call, March 4th
In-Reply-To: <54F7FD89.4050201@acm.org>
References: <D11CBFCE.396CC%maria.otanes@icann.org>
	<54F7785E.5010305@mail.utoronto.ca> <54F7FD89.4050201@acm.org>
Message-ID: <93CA85BE-CEB5-406D-99E4-C60EC6DE0013@egyptig.org>

Joy is still on this list. Luckily, she is also one of the current NCUC appointees to the PC. :)

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 5, 2015, at 7:54 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I agree that this would be an excellent task to draft Joy into.
> 
> I assume she is still on this list.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 04-Mar-15 22:25, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Colleagues,
>> Sadly, I forgot about this whois conflicts meeting today.  However, I listened to the transcript and quite frankly I think I would have gone right bonkers had I been on the call.  Michele Neylon and Volker Greiman did not actually need our help. However, I really think that since we now have a genuine data protection authority among us now in the form of Joy (cheers and clapping!) (my credentials have long since faded, I am afraid, since I left the OPC in 2007) we should try to draft Joy to join this committee.  Monthly calls only.  I would be happy to support and brief her, but we need her to tell these guys just exactly how crazy this procedure is.  Members of the PPSAI have heard me threaten that the only way to resolve this issue is to crowd source a global appeal to federal courts in numerous jurisdictions, if ICANN will not accept the word of a data commissioner that WHOIS practices violate DP law.  Nevertheless, they were sticking to that line in today's call, backed up by the NTIA, who helpfully suggested that ICANN should ask the GAC for an opinion.  They are actually talking still about ICANN hiring a privacy counsel to offer an opinion (in place of the questionable authority of a DP authority.  IPC position is that if DPAs cannot actually enforce the law (ie no criminal sanctions, no ability to enforce) then registrars should not be off the hook.....unbelievable, i need to listen to previous transcripts just to be sure I got that right....we should import that logic into PPSAI with respect to copyright and trademark enforcement.  I digress...
>> As Michele kept saying, it hurts my head.  I am not trying to hurt Joy's head too, but I think it would be delightful if she would participate and sort them out.
>> Kind regards, Stephanie.
>> PS check out the recording yourself...not while driving, in case you swerve while laughing....
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:	Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call, March 4th
>> Date:	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 18:58:51 +0000
>> From:	Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org>
>> To:	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> 
>> Hi Stephanie, 
>> 
>> The call was held at 13:00 UTC earlier today. 
>> 
>> You can listen to the audio on the call on: https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/IAG-WHOIS+and+Conflicts+Conference+Call+Schedule
>> 
>> Please let me know if you need anything else.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Maria
>> 
>> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 1:52 PM
>> To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Scheduling IAG-WHOIS Conflicts call, March 4th
>> 
>> Where are the instructions to get on the bridge please?
>> stephanie Perrin
>> 
>> 
>> On 2015-02-24 17:56, Maria Otanes wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>> Please complete the Doodle Poll below with your time preference for next week's call on Wednesday, March 4th. Please complete this in the next 48 hours. I will send a calendar invite once I've closed the poll.
>>> 
>>> The available times are:
>>> 13:00 UTC
>>> 18:30 UTC
>>> 23:00 UTC
>>> 
>>> http://doodle.com/hbi3gtquv2daksxu
>>> 
>>> If you have any questions, please let me know. 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Ria
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
>>> Ria Otanes
>>> Administrative Assistant
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>> Washington, DC Office
>>> Office +1 (202) 249-7540 | Cell +1 (202) 679-5185
>>> maria.otanes at icann.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
>>> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/10d671a6/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Mar  5 13:05:08 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:05:08 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <75D6A591-1FAD-4D64-8308-977E46275802@gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmaVW2R9kWssS+dK7OEQKoOXi18=skcgTh9fKeUNuyYkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F69838.8040303@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<E7CBBB3E-956E-4A17-B78D-52830675D19F@toast.net>
	<54F70DE1.5010707@yorku.ca>
	<713CED73-FEC6-46DD-BD25-2A28D958C282@egyptig.org>
	<75D6A591-1FAD-4D64-8308-977E46275802@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2FE16701-2E91-439B-B371-C421D15F1023@egyptig.org>

Hi,

IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, won?t it?

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>> 
>> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
>> 
>> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
>>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>>> 
>>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>>> 
>>> Sam L. 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/02cb555d/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Thu Mar  5 15:25:12 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:25:12 +0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
Message-ID: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>

Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at first glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, including the time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think through both of those as we plan. The synchronous/f2f should build on, and not substitute for, preconference work focused on the best use of conference time.?

When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the minimal marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that savings and marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two core issues that are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to schedual meeings in a more representative pattern of venues around the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and not just in the convention capitals of those regions. Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a year, are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO contain a lot of the "same old same old" with respect to content and positions. One can listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and find it a lot like the audio from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year would be enough.?

Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter schedual there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal across SGs in more productive ways, and -very important- have greater engagement with their constituencies in the new meeting regions.

This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller shoe. It is ?a ?major opportunity on the table.

Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee


Sent from Samsung MobileAmr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:Hi,

IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, won?t it?

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi

Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok. ?I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination. ?But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.

Bill



On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.

I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.

Other thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

All,

I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to       contribute one member". 
For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and       NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"

In any event here could be a       background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.

Sam L. 
_______________________________________________
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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/ad12cd22/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Thu Mar  5 15:39:38 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 21:39:38 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>


On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at first glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, including the time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think through both of those as we plan. The synchronous/f2f should build on, and not substitute for, preconference work focused on the best use of conference time.
> 
> When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the minimal marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that savings and marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two core issues that are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to schedual meeings in a more representative pattern of venues around the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and not just in the convention capitals of those regions.

> Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a year, are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO contain a lot of the "same old same old" with respect to content and positions. One can listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and find it a lot like the audio from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year would be enough.

	And some of us have no problem with that aspect of the meeting proposal, but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work.
	I?d love a middle meeting that is somewhat shorter than the current, by dumping the opening ceremony, public forum in whole or part, the big picture sessions etc. and that by skipping a lot of the business focussed items, social events, etc allows us to focus on getting work done.
	The real problem is that ICANN has a large number of people who attend but have very little to do with SOAC work, and that makes the meetings, especially the big plenary sessions, very big. The real problem is size, not length, so I don?t know why they are being so defensive on length.

> Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter schedual there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal across SGs in more productive ways, and -very important- have greater engagement with their constituencies in the new meeting regions.

	Indeed, and thats all fine. The problem is that rather than a meeting schedule that has a shorter non-SO/AC agenda allowing more time for SOAC work, we have a meeting that has a shorter non-SOAC agenda, and a shorter SOAC agenda too.

	SOAC

	David

> 
> This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller shoe. It is  a  major opportunity on the table.
> 
> Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
> 
> 
> Sent from Samsung Mobile
> 
> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, won?t it?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>>> 
>>> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
>>> 
>>> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> 
>>>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member".
>>>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>>>> 
>>>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>>>> 
>>>> Sam L.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> *********************************************************
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/6d895e6b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/6d895e6b/attachment.sig>


From egmorris1  Thu Mar  5 15:44:08 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:44:08 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>

Save the public forum, which I'd prefer be held even in the shorter meeting (folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the Board...happy with a smaller public forum at those meetings restricted to residents of the region), I agree with David's comments. 

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:39 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at first glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, including the time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think through both of those as we plan. The synchronous/f2f should build on, and not substitute for, preconference work focused on the best use of conference time. 
>> 
>> When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the minimal marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that savings and marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two core issues that are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to schedual meeings in a more representative pattern of venues around the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and not just in the convention capitals of those regions.
> 
>> Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a year, are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO contain a lot of the "same old same old" with respect to content and positions. One can listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and find it a lot like the audio from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year would be enough. 
> 
> 	And some of us have no problem with that aspect of the meeting proposal, but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work. 
> 	I?d love a middle meeting that is somewhat shorter than the current, by dumping the opening ceremony, public forum in whole or part, the big picture sessions etc. and that by skipping a lot of the business focussed items, social events, etc allows us to focus on getting work done. 
> 	The real problem is that ICANN has a large number of people who attend but have very little to do with SOAC work, and that makes the meetings, especially the big plenary sessions, very big. The real problem is size, not length, so I don?t know why they are being so defensive on length. 
> 
>> Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter schedual there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal across SGs in more productive ways, and -very important- have greater engagement with their constituencies in the new meeting regions.
> 
> 	Indeed, and thats all fine. The problem is that rather than a meeting schedule that has a shorter non-SO/AC agenda allowing more time for SOAC work, we have a meeting that has a shorter non-SOAC agenda, and a shorter SOAC agenda too. 
> 
> 	SOAC 
> 
> 	David
> 
>> 
>> This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller shoe. It is  a  major opportunity on the table.
>> 
>> Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>> 
>> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, won?t it?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>>>> 
>>>> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
>>>> 
>>>> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
>>>>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>>>>> 
>>>>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sam L. 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> *********************************************************
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/9b7dfc70/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Thu Mar  5 16:17:02 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:17:02 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <54F8655E.3000107@yorku.ca>

David hits on the key issue in the scheduling of the time during 
meetings: /"but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be 
the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work."/ 
Here is where we dig our heals in and insist on shaping the schedule. It 
is our time, our labour, and our ICANN work to get done. What is 
valuable is our time, what we do with it, and what we accomplish. A 
meeting schedule is designed to facilitate that, and we are obliged to 
insist (if necessary) that there be a sensible schedule.

As for shorter or longer revised meetings, I have no personal views 
there other than to say the marginal costs of shorter are trivial, 
basically hotel nights and per diems, probably less than 10% of an 
anyhow smaller overall budget. As for smaller attendance, that is 
important and I don't want that to fall off the table since it is 
ICANN's, and our, gateway to greater presence and engagement with 
ICANN's and our constituencies in currently under engaged regions.

An aside on costs: While some may see covering our travel and (some) 
expenses as ICANN's /*perks to us*/, it is quite the opposite. That is 
ICANN's cost so that ICANN can extract/receive /*perks from us*/ in the 
form of our labour, skills and wisdom in ICANN's multistakeholder 
process. When my cousin sends a wine lobbyist to Washington D.C., he 
doesn't see the travel, accommodations and per diem as that person's 
"perks", they are the costs to his operation of getting his (paid) 
labour in position to work. While there are always possibilities for  
"free riders" and volunteers who gain private benefit (retainers, etc.) 
from participation in any group like the ours, the core of the process 
is us providing ICANN with perks.

Sam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/d83feff4/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Thu Mar  5 16:20:29 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:20:29 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <54F8662D.2010605@yorku.ca>

David hits on the key issue in the scheduling of the time during 
meetings: /"but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be 
the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work."/ 
Here is where we dig our heals in and insist on shaping the schedule. It 
is our time, our labour, and our ICANN work to get done. What is 
valuable is our time, what we do with it, and what we accomplish. A 
meeting schedule is designed to facilitate that, and we are obliged to 
insist (if necessary) that there be a sensible schedule.

As for shorter or longer revised meetings, I have no personal views 
there other than to say the marginal costs of shorter are trivial, 
basically hotel nights and per diems, probably less than 10% of an 
anyhow smaller overall budget. As for smaller attendance, that is 
important and I don't want that to fall off the table since it is 
ICANN's, and our, gateway to greater presence and engagement with 
ICANN's and our constituencies in currently under engaged regions.

An aside on costs: While some may see covering our travel and (some) 
expenses as ICANN's /*perks to us*/, it is quite the opposite. That is 
ICANN's cost so that ICANN can extract/receive /*perks from us*/ in the 
form  our labour, skills and wisdom in ICANN's multistakeholder process. 
When my cousin sends a wine lobbyist to Washington D.C., he doesn't see 
the travel, accommodations and per diem as "perks", they are the costs 
to his operation of getting his (paid) labour in position to work. While 
there are always "free riders" and volunteers who gain private benefit 
(retainers, etc.) in any group like the ours, the core of the process is 
us providing ICANN with perks.

Sam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/2423cb16/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Mar  5 16:22:45 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:22:45 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <54F8655E.3000107@yorku.ca>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
	<54F8655E.3000107@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <54F866B5.3010908@mail.utoronto.ca>

Well said.  We are having similar issues in planning face to face 
meetings for the PPSAI....
cheers SP
On 2015-03-05 9:17, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> David hits on the key issue in the scheduling of the time during 
> meetings: /"but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be 
> the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work."/ 
> Here is where we dig our heals in and insist on shaping the schedule. 
> It is our time, our labour, and our ICANN work to get done. What is 
> valuable is our time, what we do with it, and what we accomplish. A 
> meeting schedule is designed to facilitate that, and we are obliged to 
> insist (if necessary) that there be a sensible schedule.
>
> As for shorter or longer revised meetings, I have no personal views 
> there other than to say the marginal costs of shorter are trivial, 
> basically hotel nights and per diems, probably less than 10% of an 
> anyhow smaller overall budget. As for smaller attendance, that is 
> important and I don't want that to fall off the table since it is 
> ICANN's, and our, gateway to greater presence and engagement with 
> ICANN's and our constituencies in currently under engaged regions.
>
> An aside on costs: While some may see covering our travel and (some) 
> expenses as ICANN's /*perks to us*/, it is quite the opposite. That is 
> ICANN's cost so that ICANN can extract/receive /*perks from us*/ in 
> the form of our labour, skills and wisdom in ICANN's multistakeholder 
> process. When my cousin sends a wine lobbyist to Washington D.C., he 
> doesn't see the travel, accommodations and per diem as that person's 
> "perks", they are the costs to his operation of getting his (paid) 
> labour in position to work. While there are always possibilities for  
> "free riders" and volunteers who gain private benefit (retainers, 
> etc.) from participation in any group like the ours, the core of the 
> process is us providing ICANN with perks.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/aad83348/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Thu Mar  5 16:45:55 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:45:55 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
	<9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>
Message-ID: <54F86C23.6060706@yorku.ca>

Ed,

Just a short response to "/folks in smaller cities should have the 
chance to confront the Board"/, while I am not against that in 
principle, how it how happens is generally unsatisfactory, based on my 
conversations with the "local folk" who do confront the board. Many come 
away with a feeling that it was ritual and that all the board is doing 
is looking accessible..and little more. There is little evidence to 
counter that impression. Some come away bruised. I spent 30 minutes with 
the highly esteemed medical professor who "confronted" the board on 
.health in Los Angeles. He walked out of there bruised and confused. 
There of course those who confront the board as "part of their job", 
i.e., some commercial and non-contract people at the event, and others 
doing it as career capital. Fine, but it all falls short on the "voice 
of the local folk" part.

This would work if we (the SG's) better engaged the "local folk" prior 
to the meetings and prior to the public forum. ICANN underestimates the 
extent to which it is a "walled city" from the outside. After Singapore 
I was in Bangkok and looking at DNS awareness and issues in Myanmar and 
Laos. There should/could have been targeted pre-Conference outreach 
there. ICANN has little presence there, little evidence of effort, or of 
any impact. Last year, in Buenos Aires, the only major local coverage of 
ICANN was basically a pre-conference Sunday Clarion article based on an 
interview with me. The CEOs local appearances are seen more as PR than 
outreach. For Buenos Aires this time, are their pot boiler DNS issues in 
Latin America? As far as the NPOC constituency group members are 
concerned, there are, but they don't view  "a chance to confront the 
Board" as even a card in their DNS strategy deck of playing cards for 
dealing with the issues.

Sam


On 2015-03-05 8:44 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Save the public forum, which I'd prefer be held even in the shorter 
> meeting (folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront 
> the Board...happy with a smaller public forum at those meetings 
> restricted to residents of the region), I agree with David's comments.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:39 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au 
> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca 
>> <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at 
>>> first glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, 
>>> including the time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think 
>>> through both of those as we plan. The synchronous/f2f should build 
>>> on, and not substitute for, preconference work focused on the best 
>>> use of conference time.
>>>
>>> When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the 
>>> minimal marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that 
>>> savings and marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two 
>>> core issues that are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to 
>>> schedual meeings in a more representative pattern of venues around 
>>> the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and not just in the 
>>> convention capitals of those regions.
>>
>>> Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a 
>>> year, are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO 
>>> contain a lot of the "same old same old" with respect to content and 
>>> positions. One can listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and 
>>> find it a lot like the audio from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year 
>>> would be enough.
>>
>> And some of us have no problem with that aspect of the meeting 
>> proposal, but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be 
>> the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work.
>> I?d love a middle meeting that is somewhat shorter than the current, 
>> by dumping the opening ceremony, public forum in whole or part, the 
>> big picture sessions etc. and that by skipping a lot of the business 
>> focussed items, social events, etc allows us to focus on getting work 
>> done.
>> The real problem is that ICANN has a large number of people who 
>> attend but have very little to do with SOAC work, and that makes the 
>> meetings, especially the big plenary sessions, very big. The real 
>> problem is size, not length, so I don?t know why they are being so 
>> defensive on length.
>>
>>> Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter 
>>> schedual there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal 
>>> across SGs in more productive ways, and -very important- have 
>>> greater engagement with their constituencies in the new meeting regions.
>>
>> Indeed, and thats all fine. The problem is that rather than a meeting 
>> schedule that has a shorter non-SO/AC agenda allowing more time for 
>> SOAC work, we have a meeting that has a shorter non-SOAC agenda, and 
>> a shorter SOAC agenda too.
>>
>> SOAC
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller 
>>> shoe. It is  a  major opportunity on the table.
>>>
>>> Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>>>
>>> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. 
>>> ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a 
>>> logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a 
>>> strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, 
>>> some activities that used to normally take place may need to be 
>>> dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the 
>>> schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, 
>>> won?t it?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and 
>>>> scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked 
>>>> like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical 
>>>> crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring 
>>>> coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the 
>>>> mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to 
>>>> swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG 
>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives 
>>>>> forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC 
>>>>> have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in 
>>>>> this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want 
>>>>> to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD 
>>>>> as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to 
>>>>> the meeting?s beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca 
>>>>> <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to 
>>>>>> contribute one member".
>>>>>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and 
>>>>>> NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each 
>>>>>> Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an 
>>>>>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam L.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), 
>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>>> /Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap /http://goo.gl/sRR01q
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

*--------------------------------------------*
"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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/9250262a/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Mar  5 17:15:10 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:15:10 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <54F86C23.6060706@yorku.ca>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
	<9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>
	<54F86C23.6060706@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <7A378F35-3641-48FE-9664-E0C7DA344121@egyptig.org>

Hi,

As interesting as this conversation is, I would like to use my prerogative as PC Chair to shift focus to what the PC needs to do; the appointment of an NCSG representative to the drafting team. Rafik volunteered to do this. I would appreciate views on this, including if others feel there is another candidate who would be willing and appropriate for consideration.

I would like to make clear that it is the duty of the PC to make this appointment on behalf of the full NCSG, and not on behalf of any of its constituencies. I suggest that NCUC and NPOC take up the matter of their own appointments directly with staff, if they so wish.

This discussion certainly has value, and perhaps can be taken up on another thread. I think it would be ideally take place on NCSG-DISCUSS, not here.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Ed,
> 
> Just a short response to "folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the Board", while I am not against that in principle, how it how happens is generally unsatisfactory, based on     my conversations with the "local folk" who do confront the board. Many come away with a feeling that it was ritual and that all the board is doing is looking accessible..and little more. There is little evidence to counter that impression. Some come away bruised. I spent 30 minutes with the highly esteemed medical professor who "confronted" the board on .health in Los Angeles. He walked out of there bruised and confused. There of course those who confront the board as "part of their job", i.e., some commercial and non-contract people at the event, and others doing it as career capital. Fine, but it all falls short on the "voice of the local folk" part.
> 
> This would work if we (the SG's) better engaged the "local folk" prior to the meetings and prior to the public forum. ICANN underestimates the extent to which it is a "walled city" from the outside. After Singapore I was in Bangkok and looking at DNS awareness and issues in Myanmar and Laos. There should/could have been targeted pre-Conference outreach there. ICANN has little presence there, little evidence of effort, or of any impact. Last year, in Buenos Aires, the only major local coverage of ICANN was basically a pre-conference Sunday Clarion article based on an interview with me. The CEOs local appearances are seen more as PR than outreach. For Buenos Aires this time, are their pot boiler DNS issues in Latin America? As far as the NPOC constituency group members are concerned, there are, but they don't view  "a chance to confront the Board" as even a card in their DNS strategy deck of playing cards for dealing with the issues.
> 
> Sam 
> 
> 
> On 2015-03-05 8:44 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Save the public forum, which I'd prefer be held even in the shorter meeting (folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the Board...happy with a smaller public forum at those meetings restricted to residents of the region), I agree with David's comments. 
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:39 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at first glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, including the time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think through both of those as we plan. The synchronous/f2f should build on, and not substitute for, preconference work focused on the best use of conference time. 
>>>> 
>>>> When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the minimal marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that savings and marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two core issues that are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to schedual meeings in a more representative pattern of venues around the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and not just in the convention capitals of those regions.
>>> 
>>>> Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a year, are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO contain a lot of the "same old same old" with respect to content and positions. One can listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and find it a lot like the audio from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year would be enough. 
>>> 
>>>  And some of us have no problem with that aspect of the meeting proposal, but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work. 
>>>  I?d love a middle meeting that is somewhat shorter than the current, by dumping the opening ceremony, public forum in whole or part, the big picture sessions etc. and that by skipping a lot of the business focussed items, social events, etc allows us to focus on getting work done. 
>>>  The real problem is that ICANN has a large number of people who attend but have very little to do with SOAC work, and that makes the meetings, especially the big plenary sessions, very big. The real problem is size, not length, so I don?t know why they are being so defensive on length. 
>>> 
>>>> Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter schedual there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal across SGs in more productive ways, and -very important- have greater engagement with their constituencies in the new meeting regions.
>>> 
>>>  Indeed, and thats all fine. The problem is that rather than a meeting schedule that has a shorter non-SO/AC agenda allowing more time for SOAC work, we have a meeting that has a shorter non-SOAC agenda, and a shorter SOAC agenda too. 
>>> 
>>>  SOAC 
>>> 
>>>  David
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller shoe. It is  a  major opportunity on the table.
>>>> 
>>>> Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>>>> 
>>>> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, won?t it?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>> Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
>>>>>>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sam L. 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/315cc3a4/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Thu Mar  5 18:01:30 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:01:30 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <7A378F35-3641-48FE-9664-E0C7DA344121@egyptig.org>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
	<9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>
	<54F86C23.6060706@yorku.ca>
	<7A378F35-3641-48FE-9664-E0C7DA344121@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <54F87DDA.5040601@yorku.ca>

I endorse Amr's approach here. Get this small piece settled. The 
drafting team is really constrained to only consider the structure of 
the meetings.

The content, processes, and outcomes will be driven by the stakeholder 
groups, including the constituencies within NCSG and elsewhere.

  What the drafting team, and ICANN staff, can do is enable (hopefully 
not constrain) that work. It is in the work itself where we, the SGs and 
constituencies, take the lead.

I earlier added my name as a candidate but now differ to Rafik's name, 
and will turn my attentions to the constituency interests around 
content, process and outcomes here.

Sam

On 2015-03-05 10:15 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
> /As interesting as this conversation is, I would like to use my 
> prerogative as PC Chair to shift focus to what the PC needs to do; the 
> appointment of an NCSG representative to the drafting team. Rafik 
> volunteered to do this. I would appreciate views on this, including if 
> others feel there is another candidate who would be willing and 
> appropriate for consideration./
> I would like to make clear that it is the duty of the PC to make this 
> appointment on behalf of the full NCSG, and not on behalf of any of 
> its constituencies. I suggest that NCUC and NPOC take up the matter of 
> their own appointments directly with staff, if they so wish.
> This discussion certainly has value, and perhaps can be taken up on 
> another thread. I think it would be ideally take place on 
> NCSG-DISCUSS, not here.
> Thanks.
> Amr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/0546220d/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Thu Mar  5 18:14:04 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:14:04 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <7A378F35-3641-48FE-9664-E0C7DA344121@egyptig.org>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
	<9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>
	<54F86C23.6060706@yorku.ca>
	<7A378F35-3641-48FE-9664-E0C7DA344121@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <97EC7C7E-DFA0-48FE-9CA9-E842439480D3@toast.net>

As Chair of the NCSG, with loads of experience on Council and elsewhere. Rafik would be the ideal candidate. I support that choice and thank him for volunteering.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As interesting as this conversation is, I would like to use my prerogative as PC Chair to shift focus to what the PC needs to do; the appointment of an NCSG representative to the drafting team. Rafik volunteered to do this. I would appreciate views on this, including if others feel there is another candidate who would be willing and appropriate for consideration.
> 
> I would like to make clear that it is the duty of the PC to make this appointment on behalf of the full NCSG, and not on behalf of any of its constituencies. I suggest that NCUC and NPOC take up the matter of their own appointments directly with staff, if they so wish.
> 
> This discussion certainly has value, and perhaps can be taken up on another thread. I think it would be ideally take place on NCSG-DISCUSS, not here.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Ed,
>> 
>> Just a short response to "folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the Board", while I am not against that in principle, how it how happens is generally unsatisfactory, based on my conversations with the "local folk" who do confront the board. Many come away with a feeling that it was ritual and that all the board is doing is looking accessible..and little more. There is little evidence to counter that impression. Some come away bruised. I spent 30 minutes with the highly esteemed medical professor who "confronted" the board on .health in Los Angeles. He walked out of there bruised and confused. There of course those who confront the board as "part of their job", i.e., some commercial and non-contract people at the event, and others doing it as career capital. Fine, but it all falls short on the "voice of the local folk" part.
>> 
>> This would work if we (the SG's) better engaged the "local folk" prior to the meetings and prior to the public forum. ICANN underestimates the extent to which it is a "walled city" from the outside. After Singapore I was in Bangkok and looking at DNS awareness and issues in Myanmar and Laos. There should/could have been targeted pre-Conference outreach there. ICANN has little presence there, little evidence of effort, or of any impact. Last year, in Buenos Aires, the only major local coverage of ICANN was basically a pre-conference Sunday Clarion article based on an interview with me. The CEOs local appearances are seen more as PR than outreach. For Buenos Aires this time, are their pot boiler DNS issues in Latin America? As far as the NPOC constituency group members are concerned, there are, but they don't view  "a chance to confront the Board" as even a card in their DNS strategy deck of playing cards for dealing with the issues.
>> 
>> Sam 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2015-03-05 8:44 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> Save the public forum, which I'd prefer be held even in the shorter meeting (folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the Board...happy with a smaller public forum at those meetings restricted to residents of the region), I agree with David's comments. 
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:39 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at first glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, including the time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think through both of those as we plan. The synchronous/f2f should build on, and not substitute for, preconference work focused on the best use of conference time. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the minimal marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that savings and marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two core issues that are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to schedual meeings in a more representative pattern of venues around the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and not just in the convention capitals of those regions.
>>>> 
>>>>> Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a year, are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO contain a lot of the "same old same old" with respect to content and positions. One can listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and find it a lot like the audio from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year would be enough. 
>>>> 
>>>>  And some of us have no problem with that aspect of the meeting proposal, but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work. 
>>>>  I?d love a middle meeting that is somewhat shorter than the current, by dumping the opening ceremony, public forum in whole or part, the big picture sessions etc. and that by skipping a lot of the business focussed items, social events, etc allows us to focus on getting work done. 
>>>>  The real problem is that ICANN has a large number of people who attend but have very little to do with SOAC work, and that makes the meetings, especially the big plenary sessions, very big. The real problem is size, not length,               so I don?t know why they are being so defensive on length. 
>>>> 
>>>>> Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter schedual there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal across SGs in more productive ways, and -very important- have greater engagement with their constituencies in the new meeting regions.
>>>> 
>>>>  Indeed, and thats all fine. The problem is that rather than a meeting schedule that has a shorter non-SO/AC agenda allowing more time for SOAC work, we have a meeting that has a shorter non-SOAC agenda, and a shorter SOAC agenda too. 
>>>> 
>>>>  SOAC 
>>>> 
>>>>  David
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller shoe. It is  a  major opportunity on the table.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, won?t it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
>>>>>>>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sam L. 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/6d32c8ee/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Mar  5 18:40:16 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:40:16 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <54F87DDA.5040601@yorku.ca>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
	<9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>
	<54F86C23.6060706@yorku.ca>
	<7A378F35-3641-48FE-9664-E0C7DA344121@egyptig.org>
	<54F87DDA.5040601@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <E409FA82-A9CE-432F-A701-7DE53DCE28E5@egyptig.org>

Hi Sam,

I apologise for not noting your candidacy. I honestly didn?t see it. Must?ve missed it somewhere in the thread. I do thank you for your understanding.

Also appreciate your decision to defer to Rafik. As NCSG Chair, I also believe him to be a very suitable candidate for this job.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> I endorse Amr's approach here. Get this small piece settled. The drafting team is really constrained to only consider the structure of the meetings. 
> 
> The content, processes, and outcomes will be driven by the stakeholder groups, including the constituencies within NCSG and elsewhere.
> 
>  What the drafting team, and ICANN staff, can do is enable (hopefully not constrain) that work. It is in the work itself where we, the SGs and constituencies, take the lead. 
> 
> I earlier added my name as a candidate but now differ to Rafik's name, and will turn my attentions to the constituency interests around content, process and outcomes here. 
> 
> Sam
> 
> On 2015-03-05 10:15 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> As interesting as this conversation is, I would like to use my prerogative as PC Chair to shift focus to what the PC needs to do; the appointment of an NCSG representative to the drafting team. Rafik volunteered to do this. I would appreciate views on this, including if others feel there is another candidate who would be willing and appropriate for consideration.
>> I would like to make clear that it is the duty of the PC to make this appointment on behalf of the full NCSG, and not on behalf of any of its constituencies. I suggest that NCUC and NPOC take up the matter of their own appointments directly with staff, if they so wish.
>> This discussion certainly has value, and perhaps can be taken up on another thread. I think it would be ideally take place on NCSG-DISCUSS, not here.
>> Thanks.
>> Amr
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/e1d556b6/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Mar  5 19:22:46 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:22:46 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Agenda and Draft Redline and
	Notes
In-Reply-To: <D11B7957.39442%maria.otanes@icann.org>
References: <D11B7957.39442%maria.otanes@icann.org>
Message-ID: <54F890E6.1050007@mail.utoronto.ca>

Once again, my apologies for missing the meeting.  I have listened to 
the recording, and I can see I missed an interesting meeting.
I would like to offer my views on why the procedure and the remedies 
discussed are off the mark.  I am not a lawyer, but I did spend ten 
years in the Canadian government working on the privacy standard which 
we attempted to take to ISO, and the law which passed parliament and is 
in force today (PIPEDA).  During that period (the 1990s) I did 
considerable research on how to legislate privacy for the private 
sector, particularly in a federal jurisdiction, and had the opportunity 
to hold workshops with data protection authorities to discuss powers and 
what provisions work better than others, to consult with the European 
Commission, and converse with privacy scholars.  It is this experience 
that I hope might make my remarks useful to the discussion.  I also 
served two years as the Director of Policy and Research in our federal 
DPA's office, and spoke many years ago on WHOIS issues on behalf of the 
office at the Vancouver meeting.   Still, remember that my remarks are 
those of a non-lawyer and therefore an amateur.

1.  On the issue of whether a data protection authority is 
legitimate....that is an excellent question.  Unfortunately for those 
wishing to harmonize, different jurisdictions may have authority...in 
the Canadian context, it is hard to predict whether or not a provincial 
data commissioner might think they have jurisdiction.  Where there is 
none, the federal commissioner assuredly would.  I have written a 
textbook on our law, but I would not be brave enough to offer a view on 
that, and I believe it is likely the matter would have to be settled in 
Court.  With respect, I doubt you will get an authoritative answer from 
our GAC representative, so I don't think that is a fruitful avenue to 
explore as I am sure this will be true for many countries.  I really 
don't think ICANN should put users in the postion of having to take 
matters to Court to prove a point, and I believe this is where that 
question would have to be resolved.

2.  In some countries matters relating to the domain industry might be 
covered under other laws than data protection law, a point that was made 
yesterday.  Many of those laws could not necessarily be interpreted 
reliably until they go to Court, so I believe you are in the same 
situation there.  The fact is, ICANN matters with respect to privacy and 
constitutional rights (against search and seizure) have essentially not 
been litigated.  Are you embarking on a policy route that will ensure 
the matters do get litigated?

3.  On the issue of enforcement powers....if I understand the argument 
here, some parties believe that if a DPA simply writes a letter 
indicating that in their opinion the requirements imposed by ICANN 
violate the DP law, this is not sufficient unless the official writing 
the letter has the power to enforce that opinion. Unfortunately, not all 
data protection commissioners have binding powers.  Many new laws are 
"light touch", where states have decided to see whether organizations 
will fall in line with the new laws in this relatively young area of 
law, before loading on criminal sanctions and powers to stop commercial 
activity.   Some DPAs are more like Ombudsmen than judges.  Some DPAs 
have the power to take a matter to the Court to request enforcement: 
this is the case in Canada with the national law.  You are therefore 
pushing end users who are aggrieved to take registrars to Court.  Volker 
Greimann made the point yesterday that if ICANN is going to put 
registrars in legal jeopardy in this way, they should cover the 
liability.  In my view, he is missing a whole area of financial risk 
that goes far beyond the Court costs.  IF end users crowd source class 
action or cases for higher courts to settle this matter and stop what 
they might regard (rightly or wrongly, it does not matter) as 
surveillance, it will certainly be the registrars who pay...not just in 
legal costs and potential damages, but in loss of customer trust and 
damage to their brands.  If I were a registrar, I would find this 
totally and utterly unacceptable.

4.  Just to be clear, on the matter of whether a letter from a DPA 
without enforcement powers is enough.....an end user/registrant who 
received such an opinion would be well armed to take a civil action 
against the registrar in question, at least in my jurisdiction. Tort law 
increasingly is being used in privacy invasion cases. This would 
probably be cheaper and easier than fighting it through the higher 
courts. Damages are often higher too.

5.  I don't actually understand, given what I know about how data 
protection law works, how this procedure could have been accepted in the 
first place.  I would suggest that before ICANN attempts to fix the 
procedure, they need to consult broadly with data protection 
authorities.  The Article 29 group sent a letter giving an authoritative 
opinion for Europe.  Many of the DPAs who form that group are legally 
constrained from offering such an opinion precisely because they have 
binding powers.....so you have put registrars in a catch-22.  ICANN will 
not accept a letter from a group that is mandated by the Directive that 
sets the standard for data protection law in Europe, because they are 
not actually the body that enforces law, and demands instead that 
authorities who have enforcement powers send them a letter.   DPAs with 
enforcement powers are likely to be constrained from offering an 
opinion, precisely because they have binding powers and the status of a 
judge.  These are matters well understood in the data protection 
authority community, why don't you talk to them?  A cynic might be 
forgiven for suspecting that this Catch 22 was engineered precisely to 
prevent registrars from abiding by data protection/constitutional 
requirements, precisely because those who are familiar with DP law 
easily can spot that Catch 22.   I fear that the letter the registrars 
are going to get is a summons to Court...but as I said before, I am not 
a lawyer and I do not pretend to understand European law.

I doubt that this is helpful, but I did want to get it on the record.  
IF you do ask for public comments on this procedure, you may get more 
informed opinion.  iF you don't, please don't assume that the matter 
ends there.   Privacy advocates do not have this matter on their radar 
at the moment, but post-Snowden irritation with business cooperating 
under the table with law enforcement is at a very high level.  I would 
suggest that you do not want 500 comments from irate global experts; it 
may put registrars in more jeopardy.

I will turn my attention now to providing comments on the draft text.  
Once again, my apologies for missing this important discussion.
Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin
NCSG
On 2015-03-03 14:44, Maria Otanes wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Attached, please find the Agenda for tomorrow's call and Draft Redline 
> and Notes based on the last meeting.
>
> I'm updating the calendar invite with the Adobe Connect link for the 
> call, but you may also find the information at the bottom of this 
> email. The call is scheduled for tomorrow, March 4th, at 13:00-14:30 UTC.
>
> If you have any questions, please let me know.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ria
>
> Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/iag-whois/
>
> ***Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you 
> the option to dial out to your phone. Enter your phone number, + 
> country, phone number***
>
> If you are unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via 
> phone or Skype: [Select *6 to mute and unmute on the call]
>
> International Dial In Numbers: 
> https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=3515982074&num=1-719-867-1571
>
> Participant Passcode: 351 598 2074
>
> US Mobile Phone Direct Link: tel://1-719-867-1571,*,,3515982074#
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/a572d18d/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Fri Mar  6 11:02:45 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:02:45 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <97EC7C7E-DFA0-48FE-9CA9-E842439480D3@toast.net>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
	<9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>
	<54F86C23.6060706@yorku.ca>
	<7A378F35-3641-48FE-9664-E0C7DA344121@egyptig.org>
	<97EC7C7E-DFA0-48FE-9CA9-E842439480D3@toast.net>
Message-ID: <7A7F6C92-D899-469B-86F7-3F25A9A92890@gmail.com>

>From the peanut gallery?

Again, I think it?s a pretty logistical thing and it?s sensible for chairs who are responsible for organizing their groups? meetings to represent their groups in discussions about how to organize their groups? meetings.  Of course any substantive issues that rise to a level meriting discussion would be brought back to the groups.

Bill


> On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> As Chair of the NCSG, with loads of experience on Council and elsewhere. Rafik would be the ideal candidate. I support that choice and thank him for volunteering.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As interesting as this conversation is, I would like to use my prerogative as PC Chair to shift focus to what the PC needs to do; the appointment of an NCSG representative to the drafting team. Rafik volunteered to do this. I would appreciate views on this, including if others feel there is another candidate who would be willing and appropriate for consideration.
>> 
>> I would like to make clear that it is the duty of the PC to make this appointment on behalf of the full NCSG, and not on behalf of any of its constituencies. I suggest that NCUC and NPOC take up the matter of their own appointments directly with staff, if they so wish.
>> 
>> This discussion certainly has value, and perhaps can be taken up on another thread. I think it would be ideally take place on NCSG-DISCUSS, not here.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ed,
>>> 
>>> Just a short response to "folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the Board", while I am not against that in principle, how it how happens is generally unsatisfactory, based on my conversations with the "local folk" who do confront the board. Many come away with a feeling that it was ritual and that all the board is doing is looking accessible..and little more. There is little evidence to counter that impression. Some come away bruised. I spent 30 minutes with the highly esteemed medical professor who "confronted" the board on .health in Los Angeles. He walked out of there bruised and confused. There of course those who confront the board as "part of their job", i.e., some commercial and non-contract people at the event, and others doing it as career capital. Fine, but it all falls short on the "voice of the local folk" part.
>>> 
>>> This would work if we (the SG's) better engaged the "local folk" prior to the meetings and prior to the public forum. ICANN underestimates the extent to which it is a "walled city" from the outside. After Singapore I was in Bangkok and looking at DNS awareness and issues in Myanmar and Laos. There should/could have been targeted pre-Conference outreach there. ICANN has little presence there, little evidence of effort, or of any impact. Last year, in Buenos Aires, the only major local coverage of ICANN was basically a pre-conference Sunday Clarion article based on an interview with me. The CEOs local appearances are seen more as PR than outreach. For Buenos Aires this time, are their pot boiler DNS issues in Latin America? As far as the NPOC constituency group members are concerned, there are, but they don't view  "a chance to confront the Board" as even a card in their DNS strategy deck of playing cards for dealing with the issues.
>>> 
>>> Sam 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2015-03-05 8:44 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>> Save the public forum, which I'd prefer be held even in the shorter meeting (folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the Board...happy with a smaller public forum at those meetings restricted to residents of the region), I agree with David's comments. 
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:39 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at first glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, including the time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think through both of those as we plan. The synchronous/f2f should build on, and not substitute for, preconference work focused on the best use of conference time. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the minimal marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that savings and marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two core issues that are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to schedual meeings in a more representative pattern of venues around the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and not just in the convention capitals of those regions.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a year, are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO contain a lot of the "same old same old" with respect to content and positions. One can listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and find it a lot like the audio from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year would be enough. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  And some of us have no problem with that aspect of the meeting proposal, but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work. 
>>>>>  I?d love a middle meeting that is somewhat shorter than the current, by dumping the opening ceremony, public forum in whole or part, the big picture sessions etc. and that by skipping a lot of the business focussed items, social events, etc allows us to focus on getting work done. 
>>>>>  The real problem is that ICANN has a large number of people who attend but have very little to do with SOAC work, and that makes the meetings, especially the big plenary sessions, very big. The real problem is size, not length, so I don?t know why they are being so defensive on length. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter schedual there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal across SGs in more productive ways, and -very important- have greater engagement with their constituencies in the new meeting regions.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Indeed, and thats all fine. The problem is that rather than a meeting schedule that has a shorter non-SO/AC agenda allowing more time for SOAC work, we have a meeting that has a shorter non-SOAC agenda, and a shorter SOAC agenda too. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  SOAC 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  David
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller shoe. It is  a  major opportunity on the table.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, won?t it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
>>>>>>>>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Sam L. 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>>>>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>>>>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>>>>>>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>>>>>>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>>>>>> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q <http://goo.gl/sRR01q>
>>>>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> *--------------------------------------------*
>>> "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 <mailto:Lanfran at Yorku.ca>   Skype: slanfranco
>>> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com <http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com/>
>>> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

*********************************************************
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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150306/81d5a538/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Mar  6 13:44:59 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:44:59 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
In-Reply-To: <5014fd55576c49009d48f884133633aa@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <fe017f4305384eb1b4b1a6c4957773fc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<c303438c558d4baca9833b9044f543ae@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<a37f2f094ab64489bb9fa54e854c7287@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<5014fd55576c49009d48f884133633aa@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThknSjtwZq6tpjcZdCkXV6WAUwaTyi8aKYCEE6pzM49rxA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

it sounds we get another chance to respond to this and we need a volunteer
to draft a response. I think Kathy and David are member in the WG, and had
one day session in Singapore.

Best,

Rafik



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2015-03-06 7:42 GMT+09:00
Subject: FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: "Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu) (
petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu)" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>, Phil
Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, Mary Wong <
mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" <
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>


 Dear Rafik,

On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co-Chairs) of the PDP
IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG, we would like
to seek any comments and input that you and the organization you Chair are
able to provide regarding the email originally sent 9 December 2014. While
the letter accompanying that email had requested response by 23 January
2015, comments and input are very much still welcome.

If you have any questions, please let us know.

Thank you.
Kind regards.

Glen

Glen de Saint G?ry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

http://gnso.icann.org







*From:* Glen de Saint G?ry [mailto:Glen at icann.org]
*Sent:* vendredi 9 janvier 2015 09:37
*To:* Rafik Dammak
*Cc:* Mary Wong; Steve Chan; Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (
petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu) (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu);
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

*Subject:* FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights



Dear Rafik,



On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co-Chairs) of the PDP
IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG, we would like
to provide a friendly reminder that the WG hopes to receive any comments
and input that you and the organization you Chair are able to provide,
regarding the email below, by Friday, 23 January 2015. If you have any
questions, please let us know.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,

Glen

 Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
*gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org* <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
*http://gnso.icann.org* <http://gnso.icann.org/>

*From:* Glen de Saint G?ry
*Sent:* vendredi 12 d?cembre 2014 00:07
*To:* Rafik Dammak
*Cc:* Steve Chan; Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org
*Subject:* FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights





Dear Rafik,



In regards to the email below, it was brought to our attention that there
is some confusion regarding which questions the working group is seeking
feedback. Please see the revised message below from the co-chairs of the
group:



"On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co-Chairs) of the PDP
IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG, we seek to
inform you that the WG has come to some initial conclusions and wish to
update you on the activities within this WG, as well as request your input
on *4 questions* contained in the attachment to the original email"



Kind Regards,

Glen





Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
*gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*
*http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*



*From:* Glen de Saint G?ry
*Sent:* mercredi 10 d?cembre 2014 00:25
*To:* Rafik Dammak
*Cc:* Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org; Steve Chan
*Subject:* Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights





Dear Rafik,



On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co--?Chairs) of the PDP
IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG we request your
input on:

(1) Whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and/or the Uniform
Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) should be amended, and if so, how; or



(2) Whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure
modeled on the UDRP and/or the URS should be developed, in either case to
address the specific needs and concerns of International Governmental
Organizations (IGOs) and/or International Non-Governmental Organizations
(INGOs).

Please see the attached document for full details.



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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150306/d07d2ce5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN-IGO-Letter to GNSO SG Cs for initial input-Final_draft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 131574 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150306/d07d2ce5/attachment-0001.pdf>


From dave  Mon Mar  9 06:54:49 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:54:49 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThknSjtwZq6tpjcZdCkXV6WAUwaTyi8aKYCEE6pzM49rxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fe017f4305384eb1b4b1a6c4957773fc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<c303438c558d4baca9833b9044f543ae@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<a37f2f094ab64489bb9fa54e854c7287@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<5014fd55576c49009d48f884133633aa@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThknSjtwZq6tpjcZdCkXV6WAUwaTyi8aKYCEE6pzM49rxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65CDFE9B-B999-4CB1-8886-DB5E717E34CB@difference.com.au>

Yes, Kathy and I are involved in this group. We did both attend the f2f in Singapore, though it was somewhat frustrating as some important discussions with the GAC putting forward their detailed reasons for their advice to the group had not been received in time, and we ended up breaking early.
This group is proceeding quite slowly as a lot of quite complex legal discussion is involved, and we want to get it right. We are definitely still keen to get any input. Kathy is a better person than me to advice on the work of the group so far, as I?m not a lawyer.

David

On 6 Mar 2015, at 7:44 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> it sounds we get another chance to respond to this and we need a volunteer to draft a response. I think Kathy and David are member in the WG, and had one day session in Singapore.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2015-03-06 7:42 GMT+09:00
> Subject: FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu) (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu)" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> 
> On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co-Chairs) of the PDP IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG, we would like to seek any comments and input that you and the organization you Chair are able to provide regarding the email originally sent 9 December 2014. While the letter accompanying that email had requested response by 23 January 2015, comments and input are very much still welcome.
> 
> If you have any questions, please let us know.
> 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards.
> 
> Glen
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> 
> GNSO Secretariat
> 
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry [mailto:Glen at icann.org]
> Sent: vendredi 9 janvier 2015 09:37
> To: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: Mary Wong; Steve Chan; Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu) (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu); gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> 
> 
> Subject: FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> 
> 
> 
> On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co-Chairs) of the PDP IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG, we would like to provide a friendly reminder that the WG hopes to receive any comments and input that you and the organization you Chair are able to provide, regarding the email below, by Friday, 23 January 2015. If you have any questions, please let us know.
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Glen
> 
>  Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry
> Sent: vendredi 12 d?cembre 2014 00:07
> To: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: Steve Chan; Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org
> Subject: FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to the email below, it was brought to our attention that there is some confusion regarding which questions the working group is seeking feedback. Please see the revised message below from the co-chairs of the group:
> 
> 
> 
> "On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co-Chairs) of the PDP IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG, we seek to inform you that the WG has come to some initial conclusions and wish to update you on the activities within this WG, as well as request your input on 4 questions contained in the attachment to the original email"
> 
> 
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Glen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> 
> 
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry
> Sent: mercredi 10 d?cembre 2014 00:25
> To: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org; Steve Chan
> Subject: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> 
> 
> 
> On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co--?Chairs) of the PDP IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG we request your input on:
> 
> (1) Whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and/or the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) should be amended, and if so, how; or
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure modeled on the UDRP and/or the URS should be developed, in either case to address the specific needs and concerns of International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and/or International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs).
> 
> Please see the attached document for full details.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Glen
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> 
> GNSO Secretariat
> 
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <ICANN-IGO-Letter to GNSO SG Cs for initial input-Final_draft.pdf>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150309/ff78df59/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150309/ff78df59/attachment.sig>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar  9 07:53:28 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:53:28 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
In-Reply-To: <65CDFE9B-B999-4CB1-8886-DB5E717E34CB@difference.com.au>
References: <fe017f4305384eb1b4b1a6c4957773fc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<c303438c558d4baca9833b9044f543ae@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<a37f2f094ab64489bb9fa54e854c7287@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<5014fd55576c49009d48f884133633aa@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThknSjtwZq6tpjcZdCkXV6WAUwaTyi8aKYCEE6pzM49rxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<65CDFE9B-B999-4CB1-8886-DB5E717E34CB@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=TYTnHPXri9QypJ8S++z5qEAPX4OvdoinmSKpHR=gPdg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David,

Thanks, I am adding Kathy to the discussion

Rafik

2015-03-09 13:54 GMT+09:00 David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>:

> Yes, Kathy and I are involved in this group. We did both attend the f2f in
> Singapore, though it was somewhat frustrating as some important discussions
> with the GAC putting forward their detailed reasons for their advice to the
> group had not been received in time, and we ended up breaking early.
> This group is proceeding quite slowly as a lot of quite complex legal
> discussion is involved, and we want to get it right. We are definitely
> still keen to get any input. Kathy is a better person than me to advice on
> the work of the group so far, as I?m not a lawyer.
>
> David
>
> On 6 Mar 2015, at 7:44 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> it sounds we get another chance to respond to this and we need a volunteer
> to draft a response. I think Kathy and David are member in the WG, and had
> one day session in Singapore.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2015-03-06 7:42 GMT+09:00
> Subject: FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu) (
> petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu)" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>, Phil
> Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, Mary Wong <
> mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" <
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>  Dear Rafik,
>
> On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co-Chairs) of the PDP
> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG, we would like
> to seek any comments and input that you and the organization you Chair are
> able to provide regarding the email originally sent 9 December 2014. While
> the letter accompanying that email had requested response by 23 January
> 2015, comments and input are very much still welcome.
>
> If you have any questions, please let us know.
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards.
>
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Glen de Saint G?ry [mailto:Glen at icann.org]
> *Sent:* vendredi 9 janvier 2015 09:37
> *To:* Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Mary Wong; Steve Chan; Phil Corwin; Petter Rindforth (
> petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu) (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu);
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> *Subject:* FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
>
>
>
> Dear Rafik,
>
>
>
> On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co-Chairs) of the PDP
> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG, we would like
> to provide a friendly reminder that the WG hopes to receive any comments
> and input that you and the organization you Chair are able to provide,
> regarding the email below, by Friday, 23 January 2015. If you have any
> questions, please let us know.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
>  Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> *gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org* <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> *http://gnso.icann.org* <http://gnso.icann.org/>
>
> *From:* Glen de Saint G?ry
> *Sent:* vendredi 12 d?cembre 2014 00:07
> *To:* Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Steve Chan; Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org
> *Subject:* FW: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Rafik,
>
>
>
> In regards to the email below, it was brought to our attention that there
> is some confusion regarding which questions the working group is seeking
> feedback. Please see the revised message below from the co-chairs of the
> group:
>
>
>
> "On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co-Chairs) of the PDP
> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG, we seek to
> inform you that the WG has come to some initial conclusions and wish to
> update you on the activities within this WG, as well as request your input
> on *4 questions* contained in the attachment to the original email"
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Glen
>
>
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> *gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*
> *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Glen de Saint G?ry
> *Sent:* mercredi 10 d?cembre 2014 00:25
> *To:* Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org; Steve Chan
> *Subject:* Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Rafik,
>
>
>
> On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co--?Chairs) of the PDP
> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG we request your
> input on:
>
> (1) Whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and/or the
> Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) should be amended, and if so, how;
> or
>
>
>
> (2) Whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure
> modeled on the UDRP and/or the URS should be developed, in either case to
> address the specific needs and concerns of International Governmental
> Organizations (IGOs) and/or International Non-Governmental Organizations
> (INGOs).
>
> Please see the attached document for full details.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <ICANN-IGO-Letter to GNSO SG Cs for initial input-Final_draft.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150309/7888666a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN-IGO-Letter to GNSO SG Cs for initial input-Final_draft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 131574 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150309/7888666a/attachment-0001.pdf>


From avri  Tue Mar 10 07:51:49 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 01:51:49 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your review
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20150309163314.178062b0@mail.corecom.com>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20150309163314.178062b0@mail.corecom.com>
Message-ID: <54FE8675.5020303@acm.org>


fyi - advice welcome, as always.

avri

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your review
Date: 	Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:36:32 -0600
From: 	Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com>
To: 	ewg-process-wg at icann.org



Dear all,

Per Susan's request, attached please find an updated draft of the EP-WG
framework for your consideration and discussion during next week?s 
EP-WG call.

This update attempts to address all questions raised in Singapore; you
will find suggested new text highlighted in red. Three placeholders were
also inserted for EP-WG members to answer unaddressed questions on cost
assessment, input timing, and GNSO decision points.

In addition, the entire document has been reorganized to better
decompose and explain complex steps and phases, presenting them more
sequentially. This reorganization is not intended to add new material,
except as highlighted in red. Rather, the reorganization moves and
expands existing material to make the framework easier for the community
to digest.

Please consider whether this updated draft covers questions raised in
Singapore and does a sufficient job of communicating your proposed
framework for an RDS PDP. Please also consider how to complete the three
placeholders for unaddressed questions. Your feedback on this draft will
be the subject of next week?s EP-WG call, along cost analysis input from
James and Chris, and any other business that should addressed at this
juncture. A meeting notice with agenda will follow from Charla.

Best, Lisa




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150310/88c3c07d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RDS-PDP-Process-Draft5-9Mar2015-1450.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 812413 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150310/88c3c07d/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ewg-process-wg mailing list
Ewg-process-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ewg-process-wg



From stephanie.perrin  Tue Mar 10 09:03:09 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 07:03:09 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your
 review
In-Reply-To: <54FE8675.5020303@acm.org>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20150309163314.178062b0@mail.corecom.com>
	<54FE8675.5020303@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20150310070309.8061072.1068.42228@mail.utoronto.ca>

Somehow, I don't think this answers all our concerns...
But be assured, more detailed comments will follow!
Stephanie
And many thanks for forwarding.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:52 AM
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Reply To: avri at acm.org
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your review



fyi - advice welcome, as always.

avri

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        [EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your review
Date:   Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:36:32 -0600
From:   Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com><mailto:lisa at corecom.com>
To:     ewg-process-wg at icann.org<mailto:ewg-process-wg at icann.org>


Dear all,

Per Susan's request, attached please find an updated draft of the EP-WG framework for your consideration and discussion during next week?s  EP-WG call.

This update attempts to address all questions raised in Singapore; you will find suggested new text highlighted in red. Three placeholders were also inserted for EP-WG members to answer unaddressed questions on cost assessment, input timing, and GNSO decision points.

In addition, the entire document has been reorganized to better decompose and explain complex steps and phases, presenting them more sequentially. This reorganization is not intended to add new material, except as highlighted in red. Rather, the reorganization moves and expands existing material to make the framework easier for the community to digest.

Please consider whether this updated draft covers questions raised in Singapore and does a sufficient job of communicating your proposed framework for an RDS PDP. Please also consider how to complete the three placeholders for unaddressed questions. Your feedback on this draft will be the subject of next week?s EP-WG call, along cost analysis input from James and Chris, and any other business that should addressed at this juncture. A meeting notice with agenda will follow from Charla.

Best, Lisa




________________________________
[http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png] <http://www.avast.com/>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150310/fc2fbaa1/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Mar 10 15:43:58 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:43:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your
	review
In-Reply-To: <20150310070309.8061072.1068.42228@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20150309163314.178062b0@mail.corecom.com>
	<54FE8675.5020303@acm.org>
	<20150310070309.8061072.1068.42228@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <2B4EFDB1-98D6-44F4-85D3-3D8C3AE14323@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I think this all looks pretty good, except for the suggestions and reasoning for different tracks being handled in parallel on slides 8 and 11, which is a really really bad thing. No matter how desirable this may seem to some, it will be very impractical for community members (including but not limited to the NCSG) to keep track of everything in scope running simultaneously.

We should insist on an alternative to this.

Those are my thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 10, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Somehow, I don't think this answers all our concerns...
> But be assured, more detailed comments will follow!
> Stephanie 
> And many thanks for forwarding.
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> 
> From: Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:52 AM
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Reply To: avri at acm.org
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your review
> 
> 
> fyi - advice welcome, as always.
> 
> avri
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	[EWG-Process-WG] EP-WG Framework v5 for your review
> Date:	Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:36:32 -0600
> From:	Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com>
> To:	ewg-process-wg at icann.org
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Per Susan's request, attached please find an updated draft of the EP-WG framework for your consideration and discussion during next week?s  EP-WG call.
> 
> This update attempts to address all questions raised in Singapore; you will find suggested new text highlighted in red. Three placeholders were also inserted for EP-WG members to answer unaddressed questions on cost assessment, input timing, and GNSO decision points.
> 
> In addition, the entire document has been reorganized to better decompose and explain complex steps and phases, presenting them more sequentially. This reorganization is not intended to add new material, except as highlighted in red. Rather, the reorganization moves and expands existing material to make the framework easier for the community to digest.
> 
> Please consider whether this updated draft covers questions raised in Singapore and does a sufficient job of communicating your proposed framework for an RDS PDP. Please also consider how to complete the three placeholders for unaddressed questions. Your feedback on this draft will be the subject of next week?s EP-WG call, along cost analysis input from James and Chris, and any other business that should addressed at this juncture. A meeting notice with agenda will follow from Charla.
> 
> Best, Lisa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150310/99c9e61e/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Mar 12 15:46:11 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:46:11 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A working group to develop recommendations on new
 gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <B310215D-0FB9-4E10-BBA4-DD50125D1CCB@egyptig.org>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
	<5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmYiZLRqpnrTANXFBa0SsypFet-4qXo9KAvR4uAK3srmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B310215D-0FB9-4E10-BBA4-DD50125D1CCB@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <550198A3.2090804@acm.org>

Hi,

As a starter position.

I support the idea of a CWG that includes GNSO & ALAC and possibly GAC.

I think the group should:

- collect the various nputs on what should be done
- should gain consensus on the top n possibilities for further
exploration and implementation.

Whether it is a CWG or a GNSO WG, I will volunteer to be involved.

avri


On 12-Mar-15 08:11, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I?ve unintentionally neglected this discussion, but would like to pick
> it up again. We only have a couple of days to send a response, but I
> don?t think it would hurt to let Glen know we?ll be a few days late on
> this one. It isn?t on the agenda for the next Council meeting, so
> maybe asking her for an extra week won?t be too disruptive.
>
> Remember, we?re being asked whether or not the NCSG would be willing
> to participate in a CCWG on this topic. Other SOs/ACs are getting this
> same question. If there is no support from outside the GNSO to do this
> (which I very much doubt), the GNSO will create its own working group
> to address the issue. This WG will, of course, be open to
> participation by anyone.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>
>> Hi ,
>>
>> if it is cross-community WG, I guess that may make sense to have it
>> with ALAC and less with GAC.
>> seeing all statements to get involved in the working group, I guess
>> we have to wait for th idea of group to get traction and to have it
>> formed first :) but I would that such group will be open to everybody
>> to participate.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-03-04 20:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences
>>     on this being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.
>>
>>     Thanks.
>>
>>     Amr
>>
>>     On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>     hi,
>>>
>>>     I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or
>>>     energy to dive back into this swamp.
>>>
>>>     avri
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>>     On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have
>>>>>     no baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have
>>>>>     considerable budget planning experience.
>>>>>     cheers SP
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     we should give an initial response for this : forming a
>>>>>>     working group on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>>>>>>     I think there were positive comments from our side during
>>>>>>     Singapore meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>>>>>>     can we get a short statement to express our support for such
>>>>>>     effort?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>     From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org
>>>>>>     <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>>>>>>     Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>>>>>>     Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new
>>>>>>     gTLD auction proceeds
>>>>>>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>     Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>>>>     <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, Marika Konings
>>>>>>     <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>,
>>>>>>     "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>"
>>>>>>     <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     *A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD
>>>>>>     auction proceeds*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore,
>>>>>>     the GNSO discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As
>>>>>>     you know, new gTLD auction proceeds have been building up and
>>>>>>     there is no current plan in place for the use or allocation
>>>>>>     of these funds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new
>>>>>>     gTLD auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working
>>>>>>     group to develop recommendations on this topic. As such, I am
>>>>>>     reaching out to you to see whether there is an interest to
>>>>>>     form a cross-community working group on this topic. Note,
>>>>>>     should there not be sufficient interest to form a
>>>>>>     cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans
>>>>>>     to form a GNSO working group on this topic which will be open
>>>>>>     to anyone interested to participate in.  Regardless of which
>>>>>>     approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s expectation that any
>>>>>>     work on this topic will be conducted through an open and
>>>>>>     consultative process allowing everyone interested to
>>>>>>     participate and provide their perspectives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     In order to determine the interest from the different
>>>>>>     communities in this topic, I would like to ask you to provide
>>>>>>     an initial response to me by *14 March 2015* at the latest.
>>>>>>     Based on the feedback received, the GNSO Council will
>>>>>>     initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March 2015.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Sincerely,   
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Jonathan Robinson
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>>>
>>>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>     software.
>>>     www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150312/23843a78/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Mar 12 23:26:00 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:26:00 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] FW: Updated on GNSO Review Working Party Timeline
In-Reply-To: <22f9c2785e3b4476a0b7b45242a339cc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <22f9c2785e3b4476a0b7b45242a339cc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <55020468.7020809@acm.org>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] FW: Updated on GNSO Review Working Party Timeline
Date: 	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:56:35 +0000
From: 	Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
To: 	Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>



 

*Forwarded on behalf of:*Jen Wolfe
*Sent:* jeudi 12 mars 2015 15:48


The attachment has been posted on page:**
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts

And can be viewed directly at:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/gnso-review-timeline-schedule-09mar15-en.pdf

 

Dear GNSO Review Working Party,

 

Thank you to everyone for your active participation in our call to
provide initial feedback to the Westlake team last week.   You diligence
in reviewing the report and providing feedback is greatly appreciated!

 

To address concerns regarding the timeline,  we have worked with Staff
and Westlake to adjust the timeframe for next steps.  I have attached a
Word document which details the adjusted time frame and also dropped in
below a graphic showing the timeline modified to respond to community
concerns.

 

*Please continue to provide redlines, letters or responses through March
20^th *, so that Westlake can take this into consideration when revising
their report.  You can send this through the list or post on the wiki. 
All comments will be provided to Westlake.

 

When delivering the next version of the report, we have asked Westlake
to be clear in stating its rationale for any comments which they _do
not_ take incorporate into their report.  The next version will be
provided as Draft 0 and circulated on April 24^th .  Please note dates
for subsequent calls and meetings to respond to Draft 0 are included on
the attached timeline and schedule. 

 

I hope you will agree this is helpful in providing additional time to
gather and provide feedback in a meaningful way.  I look forward to
continuing to work with you and welcome your feedback.  I wish you all a
Happy Spring and look forward to talking again in May!

 

 

 

 

 

* *

* *

*jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB*

Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm

*/513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348/*

*/IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014/*

What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P
<http://ow.ly/Ebl8P>

Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc  

Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP <http://ow.ly/EbljP>  

Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM

 





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150312/124f405c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 48876 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150312/124f405c/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Revised  GNSO Review Schedule 9 March 2015.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 121657 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150312/124f405c/attachment-0001.docx>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Mar 13 03:22:18 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:22:18 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A working group to develop recommendations on new
 gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <B310215D-0FB9-4E10-BBA4-DD50125D1CCB@egyptig.org>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
	<5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmYiZLRqpnrTANXFBa0SsypFet-4qXo9KAvR4uAK3srmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B310215D-0FB9-4E10-BBA4-DD50125D1CCB@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnhOid9O9RaowfJbtnK9ZTvfX5pXKpx5ahbeEncuhWqyg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

well Glen sent me a reminder already. I don't really think we need 1 week
to make decision here since it is about expressing support or not for such
effort.
myself I am in favor, having something cross-community would be helpful but
like Avri I will participate regardless the setting.
btw we have to endorse the comment on Policy and Implementation report
which was covered during the last webinar this week.

Best,

Rafik


2015-03-12 21:11 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I?ve unintentionally neglected this discussion, but would like to pick it
> up again. We only have a couple of days to send a response, but I don?t
> think it would hurt to let Glen know we?ll be a few days late on this one.
> It isn?t on the agenda for the next Council meeting, so maybe asking her
> for an extra week won?t be too disruptive.
>
> Remember, we?re being asked whether or not the NCSG would be willing to
> participate in a CCWG on this topic. Other SOs/ACs are getting this same
> question. If there is no support from outside the GNSO to do this (which I
> very much doubt), the GNSO will create its own working group to address the
> issue. This WG will, of course, be open to participation by anyone.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi ,
>
> if it is cross-community WG, I guess that may make sense to have it with
> ALAC and less with GAC.
> seeing all statements to get involved in the working group, I guess we
> have to wait for th idea of group to get traction and to have it formed
> first :) but I would that such group will be open to everybody to
> participate.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-03-04 20:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences on this
>> being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>  hi,
>>
>> I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or energy to
>> dive back into this swamp.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>   Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no
>> baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget
>> planning experience.
>> cheers SP
>>
>> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group
>> on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore
>> meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>>
>>  Best,
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction
>> proceeds
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <
>> marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>
>>
>> *A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds*
>>
>>
>> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO
>> discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new gTLD
>> auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current plan in
>> place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>>
>>
>> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD
>> auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to develop
>> recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to you to see
>> whether there is an interest to form a cross-community working group on
>> this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to form a
>> cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO
>> working group on this topic which will be open to anyone interested to
>> participate in.  Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s
>> expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through an open
>> and consultative process allowing everyone interested to participate and
>> provide their perspectives.
>>
>>
>> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in this
>> topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to me by *14
>> March 2015* at the latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO
>> Council will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March
>> 2015.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Robinson
>>
>> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>    <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/760c0aee/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Mar 13 14:48:06 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:48:06 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>
References: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
Date: 	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
From: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
To: 	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>,
Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>



Hi,

Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages
can?t seem to get through a junk filter.

Thanks.

Amr

Begin forwarded message:

> *From: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
> *Subject: **Fwd: Identity Validation Comments*
> *Date: *March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
> *To: *NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> *Cc: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM
> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>
> Hi,
>
> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study
> Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions
> will be granted, as the public comment period has already been
> extended at least once.
>
> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing,
> particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant
> identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical
> addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in
> assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was paranoid,
> I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at influencing
> future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy development process.
>
> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in
> response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t endorse
> this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself, and see if
> the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>
> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>> *Subject: **Identity Validation Comments*
>> *Date: *March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>> *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>>
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the
>> pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many
>> buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If
>> you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would
>> appreciate it.
>>
>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last
>> week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many more
>> citations and quotes now.
>>
>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. It's
>> an important discussion!
>>
>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding
>> is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments
>> are "coming."
>> Best and tx,
>> Kathy




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/cd0ac35d/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans (00767287xB3D1E).DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 30883 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/cd0ac35d/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/cd0ac35d/attachment-0003.html>


From egmorris1  Fri Mar 13 15:00:15 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:00:15 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
References: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>
	<5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>

Full support for Kathy's statement. I would encourage all PC members to indicate support immediately so this can be submitted as a NCSG endorsed document. Very important issue.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
> Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
> From:	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> To:	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> Subject: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>> Date: March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions will be granted, as the public comment period has already been extended at least once.
>> 
>> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing, particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy development process.
>> 
>> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t endorse this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself, and see if the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>> 
>> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>> Subject: Identity Validation Comments
>>> Date: March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>>> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>
>>> 
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many buried issues                         deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would appreciate it.
>>> 
>>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many more citations and quotes now.
>>> 
>>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. It's an important discussion!
>>> 
>>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments are "coming."
>>> Best and tx,
>>> Kathy
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   			 			
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> <Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans (00767287xB3D1E).DOCX>
> <Attached Message Part>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/edb9d2e6/attachment.html>


From mshears  Fri Mar 13 15:37:23 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:37:23 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>
References: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>	<5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
	<CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>
Message-ID: <5502E813.5000806@cdt.org>


I'm fine with this overall and think it is a good piece of work. Just to 
note that while this is not my "space" rather than encouraging ICANN to 
bring on more staff to address these issues should we not just say NO 
until and when the community has decicded that this issue should be 
addressed?  I am very concerned about scope creep - this is yet another 
example of why we need absolutely explicit limitations on staff, Board 
and CEO in the accountability track.

Matthew

On 3/13/2015 9:00 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Full support for Kathy's statement. I would encourage all PC members 
> to indicate support immediately so this can be submitted as a NCSG 
> endorsed document. Very important issue.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org 
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>> Date: 	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
>> From: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> To: 	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria 
>> <avri at ACM.ORG>, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages 
>> can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>> *Subject: **Fwd: Identity Validation Comments*
>>> *Date: *March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>>> *To: *NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>>> *Cc: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM 
>>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study 
>>> Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions 
>>> will be granted, as the public comment period has already been 
>>> extended at least once.
>>>
>>> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing, 
>>> particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant 
>>> identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical 
>>> addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in 
>>> assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was 
>>> paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at 
>>> influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy 
>>> development process.
>>>
>>> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in 
>>> response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t 
>>> endorse this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself, 
>>> and see if the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>>>
>>> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> *From: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>>> *Subject: **Identity Validation Comments*
>>>> *Date: *March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>>>> *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the 
>>>> pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many 
>>>> buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If 
>>>> you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would 
>>>> appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last 
>>>> week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many 
>>>> more citations and quotes now.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. 
>>>> It's an important discussion!
>>>>
>>>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding 
>>>> is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments 
>>>> are "coming."
>>>> Best and tx,
>>>> Kathy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>>
>> <Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans 
>> (00767287xB3D1E).DOCX>
>> <Attached Message Part>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/932eb196/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Fri Mar 13 15:41:03 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:41:03 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>
References: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>
	<5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
	<CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>
Message-ID: <5502E8EF.8030308@acm.org>


hi,

I am fine with submitting it as NCSG comment.

I recommend one minor change, remove
>
> , even bizarre,
>

from para 2, as it sets a different tone than the rest of the writing
presents.

avri

On 13-Mar-15 09:00, Edward Morris wrote:
> Full support for Kathy's statement. I would encourage all PC members
> to indicate support immediately so this can be submitted as a NCSG
> endorsed document. Very important issue.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>> Date: 	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
>> From: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> To: 	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria
>> <avri at ACM.ORG>, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages
>> can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>> *Subject: **Fwd: Identity Validation Comments*
>>> *Date: *March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>>> *To: *NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>>> *Cc: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM
>>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study
>>> Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions
>>> will be granted, as the public comment period has already been
>>> extended at least once.
>>>
>>> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing,
>>> particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant
>>> identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical
>>> addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in
>>> assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was
>>> paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at
>>> influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy
>>> development process.
>>>
>>> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in
>>> response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t
>>> endorse this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself,
>>> and see if the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>>>
>>> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> *From: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>>> *Subject: **Identity Validation Comments*
>>>> *Date: *March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>>>> *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the
>>>> pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many
>>>> buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If
>>>> you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would
>>>> appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last
>>>> week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many
>>>> more citations and quotes now.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible.
>>>> It's an important discussion!
>>>>
>>>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding
>>>> is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments
>>>> are "coming."
>>>> Best and tx,
>>>> Kathy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>>
>> <Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans
>> (00767287xB3D1E).DOCX>
>> <Attached Message Part>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/d2406df3/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Mar 13 15:43:29 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:43:29 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <5502E813.5000806@cdt.org>
References: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>	<5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
	<CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>
	<5502E813.5000806@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5502E981.3030604@acm.org>

hi,

ICANN  having staff that is knowledgeable and could keep them from doing
stuff like this could be a good thing.

And this is one of the reasons we need professional advice on such
issues in ICANN, but did not figure this was the place for that argument.

avri


On 13-Mar-15 09:37, Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> I'm fine with this overall and think it is a good piece of work.  Just
> to note that while this is not my "space" rather than encouraging
> ICANN to bring on more staff to address these issues should we not
> just say NO until and when the community has decicded that this issue
> should be addressed?  I am very concerned about scope creep - this is
> yet another example of why we need absolutely explicit limitations on
> staff, Board and CEO in the accountability track.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 3/13/2015 9:00 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Full support for Kathy's statement. I would encourage all PC members
>> to indicate support immediately so this can be submitted as a NCSG
>> endorsed document. Very important issue.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: 	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>> Date: 	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
>>> From: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> To: 	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria
>>> <avri at ACM.ORG>, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages
>>> can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> *From: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>>> *Subject: **Fwd: Identity Validation Comments*
>>>> *Date: *March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>>>> *To: *NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>>>> *Cc: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM
>>>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study
>>>> Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no
>>>> extensions will be granted, as the public comment period has
>>>> already been extended at least once.
>>>>
>>>> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing,
>>>> particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant
>>>> identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical
>>>> addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in
>>>> assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was
>>>> paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at
>>>> influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy
>>>> development process.
>>>>
>>>> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in
>>>> response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t
>>>> endorse this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself,
>>>> and see if the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>>>>
>>>> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>>>> *Subject: **Identity Validation Comments*
>>>>> *Date: *March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>>>>> *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the
>>>>> pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many
>>>>> buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression.
>>>>> If you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would
>>>>> appreciate it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last
>>>>> week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many
>>>>> more citations and quotes now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible.
>>>>> It's an important discussion!
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important
>>>>> proceeding is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that
>>>>> our comments are "coming."
>>>>> Best and tx,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>>>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>> <Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans
>>> (00767287xB3D1E).DOCX>
>>> <Attached Message Part>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/3cd79a5c/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Fri Mar 13 16:26:11 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:26:11 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <5502E813.5000806@cdt.org>
References: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>
	<5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
	<CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>
	<5502E813.5000806@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAHdAZHYJNjpukggN9w2PuVS9HOaTp-sbbXSNDYMwLt5WjYW-vA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>
> I'm fine with this overall and think it is a good piece of work.  Just to
> note that while this is not my "space" rather than encouraging ICANN to
> bring on more staff to address these issues should we not just say NO until
> and when the community has decicded that this issue should be addressed?  I
> am very concerned about scope creep - this is yet another example of why we
> need absolutely explicit limitations on staff, Board and CEO in the
> accountability track.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> Excellent point Matt.

In fact, I need to rework the stress test proposal I made yesterday, at
Robin's suggestion (
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/2015-March/000121.html )
to include policy improperly made by staff as well as policy changed by
staff during implementation. Thanks for focusing on this in your post.

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/d3988a62/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Mar 13 16:30:20 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 23:30:20 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <5502E8EF.8030308@acm.org>
References: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>
	<5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
	<CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>
	<5502E8EF.8030308@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmeZJPthWyGNGK7gFNeVAdwngRuys2Od0+X0HrDjxJX=g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi ,

I support the statement to be submitted as NCSG comment

Rafik

2015-03-13 22:41 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>
> hi,
>
> I am fine with submitting it as NCSG comment.
>
> I recommend one minor change, remove
>
>  , even bizarre,
>
>
> from para 2, as it sets a different tone than the rest of the writing
> presents.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 13-Mar-15 09:00, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> Full support for Kathy's statement. I would encourage all PC members to
> indicate support immediately so this can be submitted as a NCSG endorsed
> document. Very important issue.
>
>  Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------  Subject: Fwd: Identity Validation
> Comments  Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100  From: Amr Elsadr
> <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>  To: Rafik Dammak
> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria
> <avri at ACM.ORG> <avri at ACM.ORG>, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>
> Hi,
>
>  Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages
> can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *From: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>  *Subject: **Fwd: Identity Validation Comments*
>  *Date: *March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>  *To: *NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>  *Cc: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>
>  Hi,
>
>  The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study
> Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions will
> be granted, as the public comment period has already been extended at least
> once.
>
>  I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing,
> particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant identity
> validation and widespread checking of registrant physical addresses. To me,
> this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in assuring contactability of
> domain name registrants. If I was paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a
> staff-driven effort aimed at influencing future policies and bypassing the
> bottom-up policy development process.
>
>  Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in response.
> I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t endorse this today, I
> will ask her to submit the statement herself, and see if the NCSG can
> support the statement after its submission.
>
>  I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *From: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>  *Subject: **Identity Validation Comments*
>  *Date: *March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>  *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>
>
> Hi Amr,
> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the pending
> Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many buried issues
> deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If you could kindly take
> a fast look and quick cleanup, I would appreciate it.
>
> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last week, I
> took these back to keep working on them. There are many more citations and
> quotes now.
>
> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. It's an
> important discussion!
>
> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding is
> tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments are
> "coming."
> Best and tx,
> Kathy
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>     <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>   <Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans
> (00767287xB3D1E).DOCX>
>
>  <Attached Message Part>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/ed5aa415/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Mar 13 16:36:22 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:36:22 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd:  Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
References: <5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5502F5E6.6010701@mail.utoronto.ca>


Forwarding...

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
Date: 	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:48:06 -0400
From: 	Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Reply-To: 	avri at acm.org
Organization: 	Technicalities
To: 	NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>






-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
Date: 	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
From: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
To: 	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>, 
Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>



Hi,

Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages 
can?t seem to get through a junk filter.

Thanks.

Amr

Begin forwarded message:

> *From: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
> *Subject: **Fwd: Identity Validation Comments*
> *Date: *March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
> *To: *NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> *Cc: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM 
> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>
> Hi,
>
> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study 
> Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions 
> will be granted, as the public comment period has already been 
> extended at least once.
>
> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing, 
> particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant 
> identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical 
> addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in 
> assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was 
> paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at 
> influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy 
> development process.
>
> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in 
> response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t endorse 
> this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself, and see if 
> the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>
> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>> *Subject: **Identity Validation Comments*
>> *Date: *March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>> *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>>
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the 
>> pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many 
>> buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If 
>> you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would 
>> appreciate it.
>>
>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last 
>> week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many more 
>> citations and quotes now.
>>
>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. It's 
>> an important discussion!
>>
>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding 
>> is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments 
>> are "coming."
>> Best and tx,
>> Kathy




------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.avast.com/> 	

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/6ceaa69f/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans (00767287xB3D1E).DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 30883 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/6ceaa69f/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/6ceaa69f/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Mar 13 16:39:03 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:39:03 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <CAHdAZHYJNjpukggN9w2PuVS9HOaTp-sbbXSNDYMwLt5WjYW-vA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>	<5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>	<CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>	<5502E813.5000806@cdt.org>
	<CAHdAZHYJNjpukggN9w2PuVS9HOaTp-sbbXSNDYMwLt5WjYW-vA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5502F687.2020503@mail.utoronto.ca>

I agree, and my own question was, how do we wind up moving to test id 
validation without a policy process to support it?
Stephanie
On 2015-03-13 10:26, Edward Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org 
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     I'm fine with this overall and think it is a good piece of work. 
>     Just to note that while this is not my "space" rather than
>     encouraging ICANN to bring on more staff to address these issues
>     should we not just say NO until and when the community has
>     decicded that this issue should be addressed?  I am very concerned
>     about scope creep - this is yet another example of why we need
>     absolutely explicit limitations on staff, Board and CEO in the
>     accountability track.
>
>     Matthew
>
>
> Excellent point Matt.
>
> In fact, I need to rework the stress test proposal I made yesterday, 
> at Robin's suggestion ( 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/2015-March/000121.html 
> ) to include policy improperly made by staff as well as policy changed 
> by staff during implementation. Thanks for focusing on this in your post.
>
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/df603490/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Mar 13 17:05:35 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:05:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd:  Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <5502F5E6.6010701@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <5502DC86.4010004@acm.org> <5502F5E6.6010701@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5502FCBF.2010005@mail.utoronto.ca>


My edits attached, all style and formatting.  Great job Kathy!!  I 
support this document.  Due tonight...
Stephanie
On 2015-03-13 10:36, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Forwarding...
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
> Date: 	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:48:06 -0400
> From: 	Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Reply-To: 	avri at acm.org
> Organization: 	Technicalities
> To: 	NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
> Date: 	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
> From: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> To: 	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>, 
> Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages 
> can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>> *Subject: **Fwd: Identity Validation Comments*
>> *Date: *March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>> *To: *NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>> *Cc: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM 
>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study 
>> Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions 
>> will be granted, as the public comment period has already been 
>> extended at least once.
>>
>> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing, 
>> particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant 
>> identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical 
>> addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in 
>> assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was 
>> paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at 
>> influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy 
>> development process.
>>
>> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in 
>> response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t 
>> endorse this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself, 
>> and see if the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>>
>> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>> *Subject: **Identity Validation Comments*
>>> *Date: *March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>>> *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>>
>>>
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the 
>>> pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many 
>>> buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If 
>>> you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would 
>>> appreciate it.
>>>
>>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last 
>>> week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many more 
>>> citations and quotes now.
>>>
>>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. It's 
>>> an important discussion!
>>>
>>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding 
>>> is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments 
>>> are "coming."
>>> Best and tx,
>>> Kathy
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/7476e834/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans (00767287xB3D1E)SP.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 42080 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/7476e834/attachment-0001.docx>


From aelsadr  Fri Mar 13 23:41:42 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:41:42 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd:  Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <5502FCBF.2010005@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <5502DC86.4010004@acm.org> <5502F5E6.6010701@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<5502FCBF.2010005@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <BFB10BD5-DFF5-4DF3-8272-2AC965F242D0@egyptig.org>

Hi,

This statement has received a great many supporters in response to Kathy?s request for endorsement. The following PC members are included in the list of responses:

1. Stephanie Perrin
2. Rafik Dammak
3. Matthew Shears
4. Edward Morris
5. Avri Doria
6. Amr Elsadr
7. Sam LanFranco

Kathy is going to send me a final copy with the individual names of supporters. I?ll circulate it to this list once I receive it, but will also consider it endorsed by the PC, and send it in as an NCSG statement. Thank you all for the quick turn-around on this, and thanks to Stephanie for the edits.

Amr

On Mar 13, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 
> My edits attached, all style and formatting.  Great job Kathy!!  I support this document.  Due tonight...
> Stephanie
> On 2015-03-13 10:36, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> 
>> Forwarding...
>> 
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:	[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>> Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:48:06 -0400
>> From:	Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> Reply-To:	avri at acm.org
>> Organization:	Technicalities
>> To:	NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>> Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
>> From:	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> To:	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> Subject: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>> Date: March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions will be granted, as the public comment period has already been extended at least once.
>>> 
>>> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing, particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy development process.
>>> 
>>> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t endorse this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself, and see if the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>>> 
>>> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>> Subject: Identity Validation Comments
>>>> Date: March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>>>> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would appreciate it.
>>>> 
>>>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many more citations and quotes now.
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. It's an important discussion!
>>>> 
>>>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments are "coming."
>>>> Best and tx,
>>>> Kathy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  	
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> <Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans (00767287xB3D1E)SP.docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/ccb682fa/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Sat Mar 14 00:13:17 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 23:13:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd:  Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <BFB10BD5-DFF5-4DF3-8272-2AC965F242D0@egyptig.org>
References: <5502DC86.4010004@acm.org> <5502F5E6.6010701@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<5502FCBF.2010005@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<BFB10BD5-DFF5-4DF3-8272-2AC965F242D0@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <C9BD0D5E-D1F6-4A9D-8642-8DE938FC82BE@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

This is the final draft + signature. I?m sending this in as an NCSG comment now.

Thanks to all.

Amr


On Mar 13, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This statement has received a great many supporters in response to Kathy?s request for endorsement. The following PC members are included in the list of responses:
> 
> 1. Stephanie Perrin
> 2. Rafik Dammak
> 3. Matthew Shears
> 4. Edward Morris
> 5. Avri Doria
> 6. Amr Elsadr
> 7. Sam LanFranco
> 
> Kathy is going to send me a final copy with the individual names of supporters. I?ll circulate it to this list once I receive it, but will also consider it endorsed by the PC, and send it in as an NCSG statement. Thank you all for the quick turn-around on this, and thanks to Stephanie for the edits.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> My edits attached, all style and formatting.  Great job Kathy!!  I support this document.  Due tonight...
>> Stephanie
>> On 2015-03-13 10:36, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> 
>>> Forwarding...
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:	[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>> Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:48:06 -0400
>>> From:	Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>> Reply-To:	avri at acm.org
>>> Organization:	Technicalities
>>> To:	NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>> Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
>>> From:	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> To:	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>> Subject: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>>> Date: March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>>>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions will be granted, as the public comment period has already been extended at least once.
>>>> 
>>>> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing, particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy development process.
>>>> 
>>>> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t endorse this today, I will ask her to submit the statement                       herself, and see if the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>>>> 
>>>> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>>> Subject: Identity Validation Comments
>>>>> Date: March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>>>>> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the pending Whois Accuracy                             Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would appreciate it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many more citations and quotes now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. It's an important discussion!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments are "coming."
>>>>> Best and tx,
>>>>> Kathy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  	
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>>> www.avast.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> <Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans (00767287xB3D1E)SP.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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/2787cdd6/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to Public Comment Period on Whois Accuracy Pilot Study Report.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 177721 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/2787cdd6/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150313/2787cdd6/attachment-0003.html>


From wendy  Sat Mar 14 00:48:12 2015
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:48:12 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd:  Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <BFB10BD5-DFF5-4DF3-8272-2AC965F242D0@egyptig.org>
References: <5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
	<5502F5E6.6010701@mail.utoronto.ca>	<5502FCBF.2010005@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<BFB10BD5-DFF5-4DF3-8272-2AC965F242D0@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5503692C.4030608@seltzer.com>

Please add me to the list.
Thanks, Kathy!

--Wendy

On 03/13/2015 05:41 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This statement has received a great many supporters in response to Kathy?s request for endorsement. The following PC members are included in the list of responses:
> 
> 1. Stephanie Perrin
> 2. Rafik Dammak
> 3. Matthew Shears
> 4. Edward Morris
> 5. Avri Doria
> 6. Amr Elsadr
> 7. Sam LanFranco
> 
> Kathy is going to send me a final copy with the individual names of supporters. I?ll circulate it to this list once I receive it, but will also consider it endorsed by the PC, and send it in as an NCSG statement. Thank you all for the quick turn-around on this, and thanks to Stephanie for the edits.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
>>
>> My edits attached, all style and formatting.  Great job Kathy!!  I support this document.  Due tonight...
>> Stephanie
>> On 2015-03-13 10:36, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>
>>> Forwarding...
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:	[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>> Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:48:06 -0400
>>> From:	Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>> Reply-To:	avri at acm.org
>>> Organization:	Technicalities
>>> To:	NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>> Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
>>> From:	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> To:	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>> Subject: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>>> Date: March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>>>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions will be granted, as the public comment period has already been extended at least once.
>>>>
>>>> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing, particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy development process.
>>>>
>>>> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t endorse this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself, and see if the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>>>>
>>>> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>>> Subject: Identity Validation Comments
>>>>> Date: March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>>>>> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would appreciate it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many more citations and quotes now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. It's an important discussion!
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments are "coming."
>>>>> Best and tx,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  	
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>>> www.avast.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> <Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans (00767287xB3D1E)SP.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
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/



From wjdrake  Sat Mar 14 10:31:43 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:31:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5
	ICANN Enterprise Risks
In-Reply-To: <CCC0B0AB-AAF6-4968-994D-2A42D3EC05D6@difference.com.au>
References: <CAH5sTh=ZO8N1GaZujS9hUAMDqXsHAtk1YKTf3-o3zUgODAUiKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmapXsez-AT8SMhX0ygJ8Z6cOF2tpDzyNH7BVYJtNgQCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be>
	<54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca>
	<6EB202BF-9E98-4989-8782-82DABE2A66B6@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh==PsGo9XdfEE=WozMrpa+u8YAaEpT64ULtf1nCuLWJhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CCC0B0AB-AAF6-4968-994D-2A42D3EC05D6@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <3258DCEE-7B05-4D2C-AC77-EC21972D1C6D@gmail.com>

Hi

David Olive has written again to chairs asking for input on ?enterprise risks? by 1 April.  At https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-risk-management-process-23jan15-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-risk-management-process-23jan15-en.pdf> you will find the staff?s own construction of what these risks entail.  There are some areas of connection to things we?ve said here and some disjunctures.  Why staff should be doing this rather than the community is a whole other question.

We are supposed to provide 5.  If we come to agreement on just 5 then Rafik can submit them on behalf of NCSG.  If we identify more than 5 we want to highlight than NCUC and NPOC can provide additional listings.  Either way, the process needs coordination.

In our prior conversation, people listed the following points.

1.  The first, overarching risk is if staff and leadership think of ICANN as an corporation with ?enterprise risks? rather than a community-driven global governance mechanism with global public responsibilities and associated risks.

2.  There?s a risk that once the tie to the US government is severed ICANN will be found guilty of being a monopoly under antitrust/competition law in California (Cartwright Ace), the USA (Sherman), the EU (TFEU 101-109) or in some other jurisdiction.

3.  There?s a risk of a  lack of confidence in the domain name system as adequately protecting consumer security and privacy leading to widespread adoption of alternative mechanisms. 

4. There?s a risk of over reliance on commercial gTLD profits as driving ICANNs planning and growth, leading to planning that is not focussed on ICANNs core mission. 

5.  There?s a risk of alternative, external, policy discussion outside ICANN community due to lack of engagement - for example, ICANNs fate being part of US congressional politics is an example of this form of risk.


Please compare these to the staff list, see if there?s tweaks/additions to suggest, and we can go from there.  We have two weeks.

Thanks

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150314/d9511b22/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Sat Mar 14 10:51:43 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:51:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A working group to develop recommendations on new
	gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <550198A3.2090804@acm.org>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
	<5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmYiZLRqpnrTANXFBa0SsypFet-4qXo9KAvR4uAK3srmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B310215D-0FB9-4E10-BBA4-DD50125D1CCB@egyptig.org>
	<550198A3.2090804@acm.org>
Message-ID: <1B865815-50F9-444C-BA5B-2B7F827BA69C@gmail.com>

Sounds right to me

Bill

> On Mar 12, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As a starter position.
> 
> I support the idea of a CWG that includes GNSO & ALAC and possibly GAC.
> 
> I think the group should:
> 
> - collect the various nputs on what should be done
> - should gain consensus on the top n possibilities for further exploration and implementation.
> 
> Whether it is a CWG or a GNSO WG, I will volunteer to be involved.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 12-Mar-15 08:11, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I?ve unintentionally neglected this discussion, but would like to pick it up again. We only have a couple of days to send a response, but I don?t think it would hurt to let Glen know we?ll be a few days late on this one. It isn?t on the agenda for the next Council meeting, so maybe asking her for an extra week won?t be too disruptive.
>> 
>> Remember, we?re being asked whether or not the NCSG would be willing to participate in a CCWG on this topic. Other SOs/ACs are getting this same question. If there is no support from outside the GNSO to do this (which I very much doubt), the GNSO will create its own working group to address the issue. This WG will, of course, be open to participation by anyone.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi ,
>>> 
>>> if it is cross-community WG, I guess that may make sense to have it with ALAC and less with GAC.
>>> seeing all statements to get involved in the working group, I guess we have to wait for th idea of group to get traction and to have it formed first :) but I would that such group will be open to everybody to participate.
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 2015-03-04 20:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences on this being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or energy to dive back into this swamp.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget planning experience. 
>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>>>>>>> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>>>>>>> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>>>>>>> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>>>>>>> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new gTLD auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current plan in place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to develop recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to you to see whether there is an interest to form a cross-community working group on this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to form a cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO working group on this topic which will be open to anyone interested to participate in.  Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through an open and consultative process allowing everyone interested to participate and provide their perspectives.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in this topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to me by 14 March 2015 at the latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO Council will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March 2015.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Sincerely,   
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150314/2867d337/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Sat Mar 14 10:53:19 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:53:19 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Identity Validation Comments
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmeZJPthWyGNGK7gFNeVAdwngRuys2Od0+X0HrDjxJX=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <19FF760F-E063-43CA-B60C-E47A6C72904A@egyptig.org>
	<5502DC86.4010004@acm.org>
	<CE4607F5-5223-4936-AB4F-5A9E78D38277@toast.net>
	<5502E8EF.8030308@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThmeZJPthWyGNGK7gFNeVAdwngRuys2Od0+X0HrDjxJX=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13B403FC-4E4D-485B-B91F-3CAC06B76A4B@gmail.com>

+1 from the peanut gallery

> On Mar 13, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi ,
> 
> I support the statement to be submitted as NCSG comment
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2015-03-13 22:41 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
> 
> hi,
> 
> I am fine with submitting it as NCSG comment.
> 
> I recommend one minor change, remove
>> , even bizarre,
> 
> from para 2, as it sets a different tone than the rest of the writing presents.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 13-Mar-15 09:00, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Full support for Kathy's statement. I would encourage all PC members to indicate support immediately so this can be submitted as a NCSG endorsed document. Very important issue.
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:	Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>> Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:02:22 +0100
>>> From:	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> To:	Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> <mailto:robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Could one of you kindly fwd this message to the PC list. My messages can?t seem to get through a junk filter.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>>> Subject: Fwd: Identity Validation Comments
>>>> Date: March 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM GMT+1
>>>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>>>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>>
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> The deadline to submit a comment on the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report is today at UTC 23:59. My understanding is that no extensions will be granted, as the public comment period has already been extended at least once.
>>>> 
>>>> I had gone through this report, and found it extremely disturbing, particularly because of work that is being proposed on registrant identity validation and widespread checking of registrant physical addresses. To me, this goes far beyond the RAA requirements in assuring contactability of domain name registrants. If I was paranoid, I?d suspect that this is a staff-driven effort aimed at influencing future policies and bypassing the bottom-up policy development process.
>>>> 
>>>> Kathy?s drafted, what I believe to be, an excellent comment in response. I know time is really tight on this. If the PC can?t endorse this today, I will ask her to submit the statement herself, and see if the NCSG can support the statement after its submission.
>>>> 
>>>> I also encourage Kathy to circulate this the NCSG-DISCUSS list.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>>>> Subject: Identity Validation Comments
>>>>> Date: March 12, 2015 at 10:45:49 PM GMT+1
>>>>> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>> Here they are -- a set of comments for NCSG PC Evaluation of the pending Whois Accuracy Pilot Report by NORC - with far too many buried issues deeply impacting speech and freedom of expression. If you could kindly take a fast look and quick cleanup, I would appreciate it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Deadline is tomorrow, but due to initial comments I received last week, I took these back to keep working on them. There are many more citations and quotes now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to be copied on the discussion if at all possible. It's an important discussion!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Because the deadline of this rather critically important proceeding is tomorrow, you may want to put a placeholder in that our comments are "coming."
>>>>> Best and tx,
>>>>> Kathy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   <http://www.avast.com/>	
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>> <Opposing Comments to Identity Validatiion and NORC Plans (00767287xB3D1E).DOCX>
>>> <Attached Message Part>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> 
> 
>   <http://www.avast.com/>	
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

*********************************************************
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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150314/f47cd164/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Sat Mar 14 15:06:09 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:06:09 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5
 ICANN Enterprise Risks
In-Reply-To: <3258DCEE-7B05-4D2C-AC77-EC21972D1C6D@gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=ZO8N1GaZujS9hUAMDqXsHAtk1YKTf3-o3zUgODAUiKg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThmapXsez-AT8SMhX0ygJ8Z6cOF2tpDzyNH7BVYJtNgQCQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54D2466A.4030801@mail.utoronto.ca>	<3E2B7085-2C3E-4E77-8DF9-B6CF9980B0C6@isoc.be>	<54D3C7FA.3000808@yorku.ca>	<6EB202BF-9E98-4989-8782-82DABE2A66B6@gmail.com>	<CAH5sTh==PsGo9XdfEE=WozMrpa+u8YAaEpT64ULtf1nCuLWJhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CCC0B0AB-AAF6-4968-994D-2A42D3EC05D6@difference.com.au>
	<3258DCEE-7B05-4D2C-AC77-EC21972D1C6D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55043241.5090903@yorku.ca>

All,

This is slightly off the target but I would like to put it on the table, 
not so much for action, but as just food for thought.

One of my complaints about ICANN as a corporation is that it acts too 
much like a "walled city" and pays too little attention to what is going 
on with regard to its perceived remit, but taking place outside it 
walls. Much of its "outreach" involved recruiting engagement within the 
walls, as opposed to joint awareness raising, and its engagements 
frequently involve turf defense. As an example, ICANN is probably the 
best example of a multistakeholder process attached to governance. 
However, given the number and scope of stakeholder constituencies within 
the Internet ecosystem, some of the actual constituency structures 
within ICANN are very anemic and stand on a very thin constituency base.

Given this state of affairs ICANN, again as a corporation, seems 
oblivious of what is going on in the multistakeholder area outside its 
walls. For example, there is universal skepticism around how the World 
Economic Forum approaches its own narrow notion of multistakeholderism 
within the WEF, and how it uses "expertise". ICANN ignored those 
concerns when it teamed up with WEF. There is a grave risk there. There 
are political and business players out there who go so far as to argue 
that some form of multistakeholder process is a replacement for 
democratic processes. That is most evident at the moment in the pending 
trade agreements where much of policy (including intellectual property 
and probably Internet governance issues) takes place in a 
non-transparent black box outside democratic political processes. I see 
an enterprise risk here, where ICANN is put in a box because of its 
association with (and silence about) collaborators who have very 
different takes on what they mean by multistakeholderism, how they use 
expertise in policy and implementation processes, and -in some cases- 
how they view democracy.

In some quarters this leaves ICANN with a label identifying it as a 
self-serving elite and also leaves the non-contract stakeholder groups 
at risk, no matter how hard they work or dedicated they are, as been 
seen as part of a self-serving elite. However ICANN as a corporation 
responds to these corporate risks, the non-contract stakeholder groups 
need to respond not out of anger, but with renewed collaborative 
outreach. For one, making sure that there is not a wedge between 
multistakeholder processes and democratic processes.

Sam L.





From avri  Sun Mar 15 12:08:55 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 06:08:55 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Task Force proposal for CCWG Accountability - sanity check
Message-ID: <55055A37.6000102@acm.org>

Hi,

I volunteered to write up a CWG-IANA task force plan for

N: Periodic Review of IANA functions. 

I have a drive doc I am working on and will be sending a draft to the
CWG  list tonight or tomorrow morning.  Any comments on
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc7K6w/edit?usp=sharing> 
would be welcome. 

I have comments turned on, so feel free to suggest edits, comment or
whatever.

Thanks

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150315/15fa9586/attachment.html>


From avri  Sun Mar 15 12:22:49 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 06:22:49 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Task Force proposal for CWG IANA - sanity check -
	Correction
In-Reply-To: <55055A37.6000102@acm.org>
References: <55055A37.6000102@acm.org>
Message-ID: <55055D79.1000602@acm.org>


previous subject was wrong.  working on two things, or more, at the same
time at 6am not recommend.

On 15-Mar-15 06:08, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I volunteered to write up a CWG-IANA task force plan for
>
> N: Periodic Review of IANA functions. 
>
> I have a drive doc I am working on and will be sending a draft to the
> CWG  list tonight or tomorrow morning.  Any comments on
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjRsvePXLHrK0zzFmMcavzvSXehds5FTCEUPPcc7K6w/edit?usp=sharing> 
> would be welcome. 
>
> I have comments turned on, so feel free to suggest edits, comment or
> whatever.
>
> Thanks
>
> avri
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150315/f93fd46e/attachment.html>


From mshears  Mon Mar 16 11:33:57 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:33:57 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A working group to develop recommendations on new
 gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <1B865815-50F9-444C-BA5B-2B7F827BA69C@gmail.com>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>	<5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThmYiZLRqpnrTANXFBa0SsypFet-4qXo9KAvR4uAK3srmg@mail.gmail.com>	<B310215D-0FB9-4E10-BBA4-DD50125D1CCB@egyptig.org>	<550198A3.2090804@acm.org>
	<1B865815-50F9-444C-BA5B-2B7F827BA69C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5506A385.2070401@cdt.org>


I am also happy to contribute.

On 3/14/2015 4:51 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Sounds right to me
>
> Bill
>
>> On Mar 12, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG 
>> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As a starter position.
>>
>> I support the idea of a CWG that includes GNSO & ALAC and possibly GAC.
>>
>> I think the group should:
>>
>> - collect the various nputs on what should be done
>> - should gain consensus on the top n possibilities for further 
>> exploration and implementation.
>>
>> Whether it is a CWG or a GNSO WG, I will volunteer to be involved.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 12-Mar-15 08:11, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I?ve unintentionally neglected this discussion, but would like to 
>>> pick it up again. We only have a couple of days to send a response, 
>>> but I don?t think it would hurt to let Glen know we?ll be a few days 
>>> late on this one. It isn?t on the agenda for the next Council 
>>> meeting, so maybe asking her for an extra week won?t be too disruptive.
>>>
>>> Remember, we?re being asked whether or not the NCSG would be willing 
>>> to participate in a CCWG on this topic. Other SOs/ACs are getting 
>>> this same question. If there is no support from outside the GNSO to 
>>> do this (which I very much doubt), the GNSO will create its own 
>>> working group to address the issue. This WG will, of course, be open 
>>> to participation by anyone.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM 
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi ,
>>>>
>>>> if it is cross-community WG, I guess that may make sense to have it 
>>>> with ALAC and less with GAC.
>>>> seeing all statements to get involved in the working group, I guess 
>>>> we have to wait for th idea of group to get traction and to have it 
>>>> formed first :) but I would that such group will be open to 
>>>> everybody to participate.
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2015-03-04 20:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>
>>>>     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>     I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences
>>>>     on this being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>     Amr
>>>>
>>>>     On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>     I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or
>>>>>     energy to dive back into this swamp.
>>>>>
>>>>>     avri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and
>>>>>>>     have no baggage from previous resource wars. I also have
>>>>>>>     considerable budget planning experience.
>>>>>>>     cheers SP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     we should give an initial response for this : forming a
>>>>>>>>     working group on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>>>>>>>>     I think there were positive comments from our side during
>>>>>>>>     Singapore meeting and it is something we advocated for for
>>>>>>>>     years.
>>>>>>>>     can we get a short statement to express our support for
>>>>>>>>     such effort?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>     From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>     Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>>>>>>>>     Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new
>>>>>>>>     gTLD auction proceeds
>>>>>>>>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>     Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, Marika Konings
>>>>>>>>     <marika.konings at icann.org
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     *A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD
>>>>>>>>     auction proceeds*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore,
>>>>>>>>     the GNSO discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds.
>>>>>>>>     As you know, new gTLD auction proceeds have been building
>>>>>>>>     up and there is no current plan in place for the use or
>>>>>>>>     allocation of these funds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of
>>>>>>>>     new gTLD auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a
>>>>>>>>     working group to develop recommendations on this topic. As
>>>>>>>>     such, I am reaching out to you to see whether there is an
>>>>>>>>     interest to form a cross-community working group on this
>>>>>>>>     topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to
>>>>>>>>     form a cross-community working group at this stage, the
>>>>>>>>     GNSO plans to form a GNSO working group on this topic which
>>>>>>>>     will be open to anyone interested to participate in.
>>>>>>>>     Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s
>>>>>>>>     expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted
>>>>>>>>     through an open and consultative process allowing everyone
>>>>>>>>     interested to participate and provide their perspectives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     In order to determine the interest from the different
>>>>>>>>     communities in this topic, I would like to ask you to
>>>>>>>>     provide an initial response to me by *14 March 2015* at the
>>>>>>>>     latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>     will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19
>>>>>>>>     March 2015.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Jonathan Robinson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150316/859b7b92/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 16 14:18:12 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:18:12 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
	and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?ve attached an updated version of the NCSG response to the public comment period for the Policy and Implementation WG initial report to this email. In it, I?ve tried to consolidate the excellent feedback provided from last week?s NCSG webinar.

There is some text that can?t be read on page 4 of the document, so I?m adding it here. You can only find it if you save the whole document as free text. This text is particularly important because it includes a somewhat contentious issue we discussed last Tuesday.

> Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) is provisional to the same 
> change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the process as the GGP, and for the same reasons. Additionally, Annex E #4 of the report states that "At the request of any Council member duly and timely submitted and seconded as a motion, the Council may initiate the EPDP by a Supermajority vote of the Council in favor of initiating the EPDP. A motion which fails to carry a Supermajority vote of Council may be resubmitted at the same Council meeting as a motion to 
> initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote confirming the initiation of an EPDP 
> fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required to initiate a GGP be a supermajority 
> vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above.
> 
> Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used to reopen a policy that had 
> previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a discussion on a previously rejected policy, an issue scoping phase of a PDP (not included in the EPDP) should be included to scope the policy issue in order to determine wether or not there are new circumstances that have been recognized that require that a policy issue be revisited and reversed. This additional criteria for applicability does not conflict with those already being recommended in Annex E of the report.


For clarification, we had agreed to include input addressing this issue in the ?Principles? section of the report. I was, at the time, in agreement on this. However, on review of the report, I found this difficult to do considering that the principles are very general in their nature, and do not specifically address any of the new processes being suggested by the WG. I hope the language I added addresses this in a satisfactory manner, but please let me know if there are any thoughts to the contrary.

Thanks.

Amr


On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Please find below participation details for the NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group call on Tuesday 10th March at 19:00 UTC.
> 
> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
> 
> Time Zones: http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21
> 
> Public Comment link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
> 
> Draft Response: Attached
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 55-11-3958-0779
> 
> 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
> 
> CROATIA
> 
> 
> 
> 080-08-06-309
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 36-1-700-8856
> 
> 06-800-12755
> 
> INDIA
> 
> BANGALORE:
> 
> 91-80-61275204
> 
> INDIA
> 
> MUMBAI:
> 
> 91-22-61501629
> 
> 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
> 
> ITALY
> 
> ROME:
> 
> 39-06-8751-6018
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> ITALY
> 
> TORINO:
> 
> 39-011-510-0118
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> JAPAN
> 
> OSAKA:
> 
> 81-6-7878-2631
> 
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> JAPAN
> 
> TOKYO:
> 
> 81-3-6868-2631
> 
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> LATVIA
> 
> 
> 
> 8000-3185
> 
> LUXEMBOURG
> 
> 
> 352-27-000-1364
> 
> 8002-9246
> 
> MALAYSIA
> 
> 
> 
> 1-800-81-3065
> 
> MEXICO
> 
> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
> 
> 52-33-3208-7310
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> MEXICO
> 
> MEXICO CITY:
> 
> 52-55-5062-9110
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> MEXICO
> 
> MONTERREY:
> 
> 52-81-2482-0610
> 
> 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
> 
> 1800-111-42453
> 
> POLAND
> 
> 
> 
> 00-800-1212572
> 
> PORTUGAL
> 
> 
> 
> 8008-14052
> 
> ROMANIA
> 
> 
> 40-31-630-01-79
> 
> RUSSIA
> 
> 
> 
> 8-10-8002-0144011
> 
> SAUDI ARABIA
> 
> 
> 
> 800-8-110087
> 
> SINGAPORE
> 
> 
> 65-6883-9230
> 
> 800-120-4663
> 
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
> 
> 
> 421-2-322-422-25
> 
> 0800-002066
> 
> 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
> 
> TURKEY
> 
> 
> 
> 00-800-151-0516
> 
> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
> 
> 
> 
> 8000-35702370
> 
> 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.
> 
> <Mail Attachment.ics><NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey questions - Draft.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150316/4c342faf/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to the Initial Report and Recommendations of the GNSO Policy and Implementation WG.txt
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150316/4c342faf/attachment-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150316/4c342faf/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to the Initial Report and Recommendations of the GNSO Policy and Implementation WG.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 294280 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150316/4c342faf/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150316/4c342faf/attachment-0005.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 16 14:21:25 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:21:25 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
	and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <49DBAF93-3C4A-480D-BC04-FC519947B5B6@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

It is particularly important to get feedback on this from the PC. We need to submit the comment before tomorrow?s deadline.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 16, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I?ve attached an updated version of the NCSG response to the public comment period for the Policy and Implementation WG initial report to this email. In it, I?ve tried to consolidate the excellent feedback provided from last week?s NCSG webinar.
> 
> There is some text that can?t be read on page 4 of the document, so I?m adding it here. You can only find it if you save the whole document as free text. This text is particularly important because it includes a somewhat contentious issue we discussed last Tuesday.
> 
>> Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) is provisional to the same 
>> change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the process as the GGP, and for the same reasons. Additionally, Annex E #4 of the report states that "At the request of any Council member duly and timely submitted and seconded as a motion, the Council may initiate the EPDP by a Supermajority vote of the Council in favor of initiating the EPDP. A motion which fails to carry a Supermajority vote of Council may be resubmitted at the same Council meeting as a motion to 
>> initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote confirming the initiation of an EPDP 
>> fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required to initiate a GGP be a supermajority 
>> vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above.
>> 
>> Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used to reopen a policy that had 
>> previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a discussion on a previously rejected policy, an issue scoping phase of a PDP (not included in the EPDP) should be included to scope the policy issue in order to determine wether or not there are new circumstances that have been recognized that require that a policy issue be revisited and reversed. This additional criteria for applicability does not conflict with those already being recommended in Annex E of the report.
> 
> 
> For clarification, we had agreed to include input addressing this issue in the ?Principles? section of the report. I was, at the time, in agreement on this. However, on review of the report, I found this difficult to do considering that the principles are very general in their nature, and do not specifically address any of the new processes being suggested by the WG. I hope the language I added addresses this in a satisfactory manner, but please let me know if there are any thoughts to the contrary.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> <NCSG Response to the Initial Report and Recommendations of the GNSO Policy and Implementation WG.txt>
> <NCSG Response to the Initial Report and Recommendations of the GNSO Policy and Implementation WG.pdf>
> 
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Please find below participation details for the NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group call on Tuesday 10th March at 19:00 UTC.
>> 
>> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
>> 
>> Time Zones: http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21
>> 
>> Public Comment link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
>> 
>> Draft Response: Attached
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 55-11-3958-0779
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> CROATIA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 080-08-06-309
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 36-1-700-8856
>> 
>> 06-800-12755
>> 
>> INDIA
>> 
>> BANGALORE:
>> 
>> 91-80-61275204
>> 
>> INDIA
>> 
>> MUMBAI:
>> 
>> 91-22-61501629
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> ITALY
>> 
>> ROME:
>> 
>> 39-06-8751-6018
>> 
>> 800-986-383
>> 
>> ITALY
>> 
>> TORINO:
>> 
>> 39-011-510-0118
>> 
>> 800-986-383
>> 
>> JAPAN
>> 
>> OSAKA:
>> 
>> 81-6-7878-2631
>> 
>> 0066-33-132439
>> 
>> JAPAN
>> 
>> TOKYO:
>> 
>> 81-3-6868-2631
>> 
>> 0066-33-132439
>> 
>> LATVIA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 8000-3185
>> 
>> LUXEMBOURG
>> 
>> 
>> 352-27-000-1364
>> 
>> 8002-9246
>> 
>> MALAYSIA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1-800-81-3065
>> 
>> MEXICO
>> 
>> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>> 
>> 52-33-3208-7310
>> 
>> 001-866-376-9696
>> 
>> MEXICO
>> 
>> MEXICO CITY:
>> 
>> 52-55-5062-9110
>> 
>> 001-866-376-9696
>> 
>> MEXICO
>> 
>> MONTERREY:
>> 
>> 52-81-2482-0610
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 1800-111-42453
>> 
>> POLAND
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 00-800-1212572
>> 
>> PORTUGAL
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 8008-14052
>> 
>> ROMANIA
>> 
>> 
>> 40-31-630-01-79
>> 
>> RUSSIA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 8-10-8002-0144011
>> 
>> SAUDI ARABIA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 800-8-110087
>> 
>> SINGAPORE
>> 
>> 
>> 65-6883-9230
>> 
>> 800-120-4663
>> 
>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>> 
>> 
>> 421-2-322-422-25
>> 
>> 0800-002066
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> TURKEY
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 00-800-151-0516
>> 
>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 8000-35702370
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> <Mail Attachment.ics><NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey questions - Draft.pdf>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150316/efa0ed99/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Mon Mar 16 18:41:36 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:41:36 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
 and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <550707C0.9030401@acm.org>


Hi,

I can support.

avri


On 16-Mar-15 08:18, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I?ve attached an updated version of the NCSG response to the public
> comment period for the Policy and Implementation WG initial report to
> this email. In it, I?ve tried to consolidate the excellent feedback
> provided from last week?s NCSG webinar.
>
> There is some text that can?t be read on page 4 of the document, so
> I?m adding it here. You can only find it if you save the whole
> document as free text. This text is particularly important because it
> includes a somewhat contentious issue we discussed last Tuesday.
>
>> Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) is
>> provisional to the same 
>> change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the
>> process as the GGP, and for the same reasons. Additionally, Annex E
>> #4 of the report states that "At the request of any Council member
>> duly and timely submitted and seconded as a motion, the Council may
>> initiate the EPDP by a Supermajority vote of the Council in favor of
>> initiating the EPDP. A motion which fails to carry a Supermajority
>> vote of Council may be resubmitted at the same Council meeting as a
>> motion to 
>> initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote
>> confirming the initiation of an EPDP 
>> fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required to
>> initiate a GGP be a supermajority 
>> vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above.
>>
>> Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used to
>> reopen a policy that had 
>> previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a
>> discussion on a previously rejected policy, an issue scoping phase of
>> a PDP (not included in the EPDP) should be included to scope the
>> policy issue in order to determine wether or not there are new
>> circumstances that have been recognized that require that a policy
>> issue be revisited and reversed. This additional criteria for
>> applicability does not conflict with those already being recommended
>> in Annex E of the report.
>
> For clarification, we had agreed to include input addressing this
> issue in the ?Principles? section of the report. I was, at the time,
> in agreement on this. However, on review of the report, I found this
> difficult to do considering that the principles are very general in
> their nature, and do not specifically address any of the new processes
> being suggested by the WG. I hope the language I added addresses this
> in a satisfactory manner, but please let me know if there are any
> thoughts to the contrary.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
> <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Please find below participation details for the NCSG Webinar on the
>> Initial Report of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group
>> call on *Tuesday 10th March at 19:00 UTC*.
>>
>> *Adobe Connect: *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
>>
>> *Time Zones:*
>> http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21
>>
>> *Public Comment link:*
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
>>
>> *Draft Response: *Attached
>>
>> *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
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 55-11-3958-0779
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 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
>>
>> CROATIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 080-08-06-309
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 36-1-700-8856
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 06-800-12755
>>
>> INDIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> BANGALORE:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 91-80-61275204
>>
>> 	
>>
>> INDIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> MUMBAI:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 91-22-61501629
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ITALY
>>
>> 	
>>
>> ROME:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 39-06-8751-6018
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-986-383
>>
>> ITALY
>>
>> 	
>>
>> TORINO:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 39-011-510-0118
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-986-383
>>
>> JAPAN
>>
>> 	
>>
>> OSAKA:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 81-6-7878-2631
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0066-33-132439
>>
>> JAPAN
>>
>> 	
>>
>> TOKYO:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 81-3-6868-2631
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0066-33-132439
>>
>> LATVIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 8000-3185
>>
>> LUXEMBOURG
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 352-27-000-1364
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 8002-9246
>>
>> MALAYSIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 1-800-81-3065
>>
>> MEXICO
>>
>> 	
>>
>> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 52-33-3208-7310
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 001-866-376-9696
>>
>> MEXICO
>>
>> 	
>>
>> MEXICO CITY:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 52-55-5062-9110
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 001-866-376-9696
>>
>> MEXICO
>>
>> 	
>>
>> MONTERREY:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 52-81-2482-0610
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 1800-111-42453
>>
>> POLAND
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 00-800-1212572
>>
>> PORTUGAL
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 8008-14052
>>
>> ROMANIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 40-31-630-01-79
>>
>> 	
>>
>> RUSSIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 8-10-8002-0144011
>>
>> SAUDI ARABIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-8-110087
>>
>> SINGAPORE
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 65-6883-9230
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-120-4663
>>
>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 421-2-322-422-25
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-002066
>>
>> 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
>>
>> TURKEY
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 00-800-151-0516
>>
>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 8000-35702370
>>
>> 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.*
>>
>> <Mail Attachment.ics><NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey
>> questions - Draft.pdf>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150316/d004bcf6/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 16 18:54:36 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:54:36 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
	and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <550707C0.9030401@acm.org>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>
	<550707C0.9030401@acm.org>
Message-ID: <365852CC-93CE-4830-B1D0-A83FE5DFC048@egyptig.org>

Thanks Avri. Anyone else have an opinion on this? It?s on the agenda for tomorrow?s NCSG open policy call, so we?ll probably have a few minutes to discuss it then, but would be good to start getting PC input before this.

Also, in case this wasn?t clear, I had also attached a free text version of the document to my original email. It makes the text a little messy, but will allow anyone to go through the missing part in the PDF version.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 16, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I can support.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 16-Mar-15 08:18, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I?ve attached an updated version of the NCSG response to the public comment period for the Policy and Implementation WG initial report to this email. In it, I?ve tried to consolidate the excellent feedback provided from last week?s NCSG webinar.
>> 
>> There is some text that can?t be read on page 4 of the document, so I?m adding it here. You can only find it if you save the whole document as free text. This text is particularly important because it includes a somewhat contentious issue we discussed last Tuesday.
>> 
>>> Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) is provisional to the same 
>>> change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the process as the GGP, and for the same reasons. Additionally, Annex E #4 of the report states that "At the request of any Council member duly and timely submitted and seconded as a motion, the Council may initiate the EPDP by a Supermajority vote of the Council in favor of initiating the EPDP. A motion which fails to carry a Supermajority vote of Council may be resubmitted at the same Council meeting as a motion to 
>>> initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote confirming the initiation of an EPDP 
>>> fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required to initiate a GGP be a supermajority 
>>> vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used to reopen a policy that had 
>>> previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a discussion on a previously rejected policy, an issue scoping phase of a PDP (not included in the EPDP) should be included to scope the policy issue in order to determine wether or not there are new circumstances that have been recognized that require that a policy issue be revisited and reversed. This additional criteria for applicability does not conflict with those already being recommended in Annex E of the report.
>> 
>> 
>> For clarification, we had agreed to include input addressing this issue in the ?Principles? section of the report. I was, at the time, in agreement on this. However, on review of the report, I found this difficult to do considering that the principles are very general in their nature, and do not specifically address any of the new processes being suggested by the WG. I hope the language I added addresses this in a satisfactory manner, but please let me know if there are any thoughts to the contrary.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Please find below participation details for the NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group call on Tuesday 10th March at 19:00 UTC.
>>> 
>>> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
>>> 
>>> Time Zones: http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21
>>> 
>>> Public Comment link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
>>> 
>>> Draft Response: Attached
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 55-11-3958-0779
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> CROATIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 080-08-06-309
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 36-1-700-8856
>>> 
>>> 06-800-12755
>>> 
>>> INDIA
>>> 
>>> BANGALORE:
>>> 
>>> 91-80-61275204
>>> 
>>> 
>>> INDIA
>>> 
>>> MUMBAI:
>>> 
>>> 91-22-61501629
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> ITALY
>>> 
>>> ROME:
>>> 
>>> 39-06-8751-6018
>>> 
>>> 800-986-383
>>> 
>>> ITALY
>>> 
>>> TORINO:
>>> 
>>> 39-011-510-0118
>>> 
>>> 800-986-383
>>> 
>>> JAPAN
>>> 
>>> OSAKA:
>>> 
>>> 81-6-7878-2631
>>> 
>>> 0066-33-132439
>>> 
>>> JAPAN
>>> 
>>> TOKYO:
>>> 
>>> 81-3-6868-2631
>>> 
>>> 0066-33-132439
>>> 
>>> LATVIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8000-3185
>>> 
>>> LUXEMBOURG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 352-27-000-1364
>>> 
>>> 8002-9246
>>> 
>>> MALAYSIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1-800-81-3065
>>> 
>>> MEXICO
>>> 
>>> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>>> 
>>> 52-33-3208-7310
>>> 
>>> 001-866-376-9696
>>> 
>>> MEXICO
>>> 
>>> MEXICO CITY:
>>> 
>>> 52-55-5062-9110
>>> 
>>> 001-866-376-9696
>>> 
>>> MEXICO
>>> 
>>> MONTERREY:
>>> 
>>> 52-81-2482-0610
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 1800-111-42453
>>> 
>>> POLAND
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 00-800-1212572
>>> 
>>> PORTUGAL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8008-14052
>>> 
>>> ROMANIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 40-31-630-01-79
>>> 
>>> 
>>> RUSSIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8-10-8002-0144011
>>> 
>>> SAUDI ARABIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 800-8-110087
>>> 
>>> SINGAPORE
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 65-6883-9230
>>> 
>>> 800-120-4663
>>> 
>>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 421-2-322-422-25
>>> 
>>> 0800-002066
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> TURKEY
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 00-800-151-0516
>>> 
>>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8000-35702370
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> <Mail Attachment.ics><NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey questions - Draft.pdf>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150316/bceec9a6/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Tue Mar 17 11:00:13 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:00:13 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
	and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <365852CC-93CE-4830-B1D0-A83FE5DFC048@egyptig.org>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>
	<550707C0.9030401@acm.org>
	<365852CC-93CE-4830-B1D0-A83FE5DFC048@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <A338539C-BFCD-4801-923B-41D77CF5589B@gmail.com>

There is support from the peanut gallery as well.

Bill

> On Mar 16, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Avri. Anyone else have an opinion on this? It?s on the agenda for tomorrow?s NCSG open policy call, so we?ll probably have a few minutes to discuss it then, but would be good to start getting PC input before this.
> 
> Also, in case this wasn?t clear, I had also attached a free text version of the document to my original email. It makes the text a little messy, but will allow anyone to go through the missing part in the PDF version.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 16, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I can support.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 16-Mar-15 08:18, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I?ve attached an updated version of the NCSG response to the public comment period for the Policy and Implementation WG         initial report to this email. In it, I?ve tried to consolidate the excellent feedback provided from last week?s NCSG webinar.
>>> 
>>> There is some text that can?t be read on page 4 of the document, so I?m adding it here. You can only find it if you save the whole document as free text. This text is particularly important because it includes a somewhat contentious issue we discussed last Tuesday.
>>> 
>>>> Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) is provisional to the same 
>>>> change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the process as the GGP, and for the same reasons. Additionally, Annex E #4 of the report states that "At the request of any Council member duly and timely submitted and seconded as a motion, the Council may initiate the EPDP by a Supermajority vote of the Council in favor of initiating the EPDP. A motion which fails to carry a Supermajority vote of Council may be resubmitted at the same Council meeting as a motion to 
>>>> initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote confirming the initiation of an EPDP 
>>>> fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required to initiate a GGP be a supermajority 
>>>> vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above.
>>>> 
>>>> Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used to reopen a policy that had 
>>>> previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a discussion on a previously rejected policy, an issue scoping phase of a PDP (not included in the EPDP) should be included to scope the policy issue in order to determine wether or not there are new circumstances that have been recognized that require that a policy issue be revisited and reversed. This additional criteria for applicability does not conflict with those already being recommended in Annex E of the report.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For clarification, we had agreed to include input addressing this issue in the ?Principles? section of the report. I was, at the time, in agreement on this. However, on review of the report, I found this difficult to do considering that the principles are very general in their nature, and do not specifically address any of the new processes being suggested by the WG. I hope the language I added addresses this in a satisfactory manner, but please let me know if there are any thoughts to the contrary.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> Please find below participation details for the NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group call on Tuesday 10th March at 19:00 UTC.
>>>> 
>>>> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg>/
>>>> 
>>>> Time Zones: http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21 <http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21>
>>>> 
>>>> Public Comment link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en>
>>>> 
>>>> Draft Response: Attached
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 55-11-3958-0779
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> CROATIA
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 080-08-06-309
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 36-1-700-8856
>>>> 
>>>> 06-800-12755
>>>> 
>>>> INDIA
>>>> 
>>>> BANGALORE:
>>>> 
>>>> 91-80-61275204
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> INDIA
>>>> 
>>>> MUMBAI:
>>>> 
>>>> 91-22-61501629
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> ITALY
>>>> 
>>>> ROME:
>>>> 
>>>> 39-06-8751-6018
>>>> 
>>>> 800-986-383
>>>> 
>>>> ITALY
>>>> 
>>>> TORINO:
>>>> 
>>>> 39-011-510-0118
>>>> 
>>>> 800-986-383
>>>> 
>>>> JAPAN
>>>> 
>>>> OSAKA:
>>>> 
>>>> 81-6-7878-2631
>>>> 
>>>> 0066-33-132439
>>>> 
>>>> JAPAN
>>>> 
>>>> TOKYO:
>>>> 
>>>> 81-3-6868-2631
>>>> 
>>>> 0066-33-132439
>>>> 
>>>> LATVIA
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 8000-3185
>>>> 
>>>> LUXEMBOURG
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 352-27-000-1364
>>>> 
>>>> 8002-9246
>>>> 
>>>> MALAYSIA
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 1-800-81-3065
>>>> 
>>>> MEXICO
>>>> 
>>>> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>>>> 
>>>> 52-33-3208-7310
>>>> 
>>>> 001-866-376-9696
>>>> 
>>>> MEXICO
>>>> 
>>>> MEXICO CITY:
>>>> 
>>>> 52-55-5062-9110
>>>> 
>>>> 001-866-376-9696
>>>> 
>>>> MEXICO
>>>> 
>>>> MONTERREY:
>>>> 
>>>> 52-81-2482-0610
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 1800-111-42453
>>>> 
>>>> POLAND
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 00-800-1212572
>>>> 
>>>> PORTUGAL
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 8008-14052
>>>> 
>>>> ROMANIA
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 40-31-630-01-79
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> RUSSIA
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 8-10-8002-0144011
>>>> 
>>>> SAUDI ARABIA
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 800-8-110087
>>>> 
>>>> SINGAPORE
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 65-6883-9230
>>>> 
>>>> 800-120-4663
>>>> 
>>>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 421-2-322-422-25
>>>> 
>>>> 0800-002066
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> TURKEY
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 00-800-151-0516
>>>> 
>>>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 8000-35702370
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> <Mail Attachment.ics><NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey questions - Draft.pdf>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150317/97884350/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 17 12:30:06 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:30:06 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A working group to develop recommendations on new
 gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <5506A385.2070401@cdt.org>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
	<5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmYiZLRqpnrTANXFBa0SsypFet-4qXo9KAvR4uAK3srmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B310215D-0FB9-4E10-BBA4-DD50125D1CCB@egyptig.org>
	<550198A3.2090804@acm.org>
	<1B865815-50F9-444C-BA5B-2B7F827BA69C@gmail.com>
	<5506A385.2070401@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkwffFoMhQBEoN7f9yt--jtZGoc=28xAt1vWbBg6KyzUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

I think we got enough expression of support for setting a working group. I
can send the response to Glen and Jonathan to say yes we are in favor of
the initiative.

Best,

Rafik

2015-03-16 18:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>:

>
> I am also happy to contribute.
>
>
> On 3/14/2015 4:51 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Sounds right to me
>
>  Bill
>
>  On Mar 12, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> As a starter position.
>
> I support the idea of a CWG that includes GNSO & ALAC and possibly GAC.
>
> I think the group should:
>
> - collect the various nputs on what should be done
> - should gain consensus on the top n possibilities for further exploration
> and implementation.
>
> Whether it is a CWG or a GNSO WG, I will volunteer to be involved.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 12-Mar-15 08:11, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>  I?ve unintentionally neglected this discussion, but would like to pick
> it up again. We only have a couple of days to send a response, but I don?t
> think it would hurt to let Glen know we?ll be a few days late on this one.
> It isn?t on the agenda for the next Council meeting, so maybe asking her
> for an extra week won?t be too disruptive.
>
>  Remember, we?re being asked whether or not the NCSG would be willing to
> participate in a CCWG on this topic. Other SOs/ACs are getting this same
> question. If there is no support from outside the GNSO to do this (which I
> very much doubt), the GNSO will create its own working group to address the
> issue. This WG will, of course, be open to participation by anyone.
>
>  Thoughts?
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
>  On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>  Hi ,
>
>  if it is cross-community WG, I guess that may make sense to have it with
> ALAC and less with GAC.
> seeing all statements to get involved in the working group, I guess we
> have to wait for th idea of group to get traction and to have it formed
> first :) but I would that such group will be open to everybody to
> participate.
>
>  Rafik
>
> 2015-03-04 20:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences on this
>> being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.
>>
>>  Thanks.
>>
>>  Amr
>>
>>  On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>  hi,
>>
>> I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or energy to
>> dive back into this swamp.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>   Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no
>> baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget
>> planning experience.
>> cheers SP
>>
>> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group
>> on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore
>> meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>>
>>  Best,
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction
>> proceeds
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <
>> marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>
>>
>> *A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds*
>>
>>
>> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO
>> discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new gTLD
>> auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current plan in
>> place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>>
>>
>> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD
>> auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to develop
>> recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to you to see
>> whether there is an interest to form a cross-community working group on
>> this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to form a
>> cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO
>> working group on this topic which will be open to anyone interested to
>> participate in.  Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s
>> expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through an open
>> and consultative process allowing everyone interested to participate and
>> provide their perspectives.
>>
>>
>> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in this
>> topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to me by *14
>> March 2015* at the latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO
>> Council will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March
>> 2015.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Robinson
>>
>> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150317/6d8a103f/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 17 12:57:15 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:57:15 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
 and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <550707C0.9030401@acm.org>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>
	<550707C0.9030401@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmMUBu43zdU7TXPmiuo0D5mf3SnCcoS+j5Xfg90N0kRjg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

I support the response

Rafik

2015-03-17 1:41 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>
> Hi,
>
> I can support.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 16-Mar-15 08:18, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>  I?ve attached an updated version of the NCSG response to the public
> comment period for the Policy and Implementation WG initial report to this
> email. In it, I?ve tried to consolidate the excellent feedback provided
> from last week?s NCSG webinar.
>
>  There is some text that can?t be read on page 4 of the document, so I?m
> adding it here. You can only find it if you save the whole document as free
> text. This text is particularly important because it includes a somewhat
> contentious issue we discussed last Tuesday.
>
>   Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) is
> provisional to the same
> change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the process as
> the GGP, and for the same reasons. Additionally, Annex E #4 of the report
> states that "At the request of any Council member duly and timely submitted
> and seconded as a motion, the Council may initiate the EPDP by a
> Supermajority vote of the Council in favor of initiating the EPDP. A motion
> which fails to carry a Supermajority vote of Council may be resubmitted at
> the same Council meeting as a motion to
> initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote confirming the
> initiation of an EPDP
> fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required to initiate
> a GGP be a supermajority
> vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above.
>
>  Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used to reopen
> a policy that had
> previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a discussion
> on a previously rejected policy, an issue scoping phase of a PDP (not
> included in the EPDP) should be included to scope the policy issue in order
> to determine wether or not there are new circumstances that have been
> recognized that require that a policy issue be revisited and reversed. This
> additional criteria for applicability does not conflict with those already
> being recommended in Annex E of the report.
>
>
>  For clarification, we had agreed to include input addressing this issue
> in the ?Principles? section of the report. I was, at the time, in agreement
> on this. However, on review of the report, I found this difficult to do
> considering that the principles are very general in their nature, and do
> not specifically address any of the new processes being suggested by the
> WG. I hope the language I added addresses this in a satisfactory manner,
> but please let me know if there are any thoughts to the contrary.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>  Dear All,
>
>  Please find below participation details for the NCSG Webinar on the
> Initial Report of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group call on *Tuesday
> 10th March at 19:00 UTC*.
>
> *Adobe Connect: *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
>
>  *Time Zones:*
> http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21
>
>  *Public Comment link:*
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
>
> *Draft Response: *Attached
>
>    *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
>
>
>   55-11-3958-0779
>
> 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
>
> CROATIA
>
>
>
>   080-08-06-309
>
> 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
>
>
>   36-1-700-8856
>
> 06-800-12755
>
> INDIA
>
> BANGALORE:
>
> 91-80-61275204
>
>    INDIA
>
> MUMBAI:
>
> 91-22-61501629
>
>    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
>
> ITALY
>
> ROME:
>
> 39-06-8751-6018
>
> 800-986-383
>
> ITALY
>
> TORINO:
>
> 39-011-510-0118
>
> 800-986-383
>
> JAPAN
>
> OSAKA:
>
> 81-6-7878-2631
>
> 0066-33-132439
>
> JAPAN
>
> TOKYO:
>
> 81-3-6868-2631
>
> 0066-33-132439
>
> LATVIA
>
>
>
>   8000-3185
>
> LUXEMBOURG
>
>
>   352-27-000-1364
>
> 8002-9246
>
> MALAYSIA
>
>
>
>   1-800-81-3065
>
> MEXICO
>
> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>
> 52-33-3208-7310
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> MEXICO
>
> MEXICO CITY:
>
> 52-55-5062-9110
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> MEXICO
>
> MONTERREY:
>
> 52-81-2482-0610
>
> 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
>
> 1800-111-42453
>
> POLAND
>
>
>
>   00-800-1212572
>
> PORTUGAL
>
>
>
>   8008-14052
>
> ROMANIA
>
>
>   40-31-630-01-79
>
>    RUSSIA
>
>
>
>   8-10-8002-0144011
>
> SAUDI ARABIA
>
>
>
>   800-8-110087
>
> SINGAPORE
>
>
>   65-6883-9230
>
> 800-120-4663
>
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>
>
>   421-2-322-422-25
>
> 0800-002066
>
> 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
>
> TURKEY
>
>
>
>   00-800-151-0516
>
> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>
>
>
>   8000-35702370
>
> 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.*
>    <Mail Attachment.ics><NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey
> questions - Draft.pdf>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150317/5fea851b/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Mar 17 13:19:57 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:19:57 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <E0A09E65-583D-4D05-A0C1-86B6C80C5CF2@egyptig.org>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
	<9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>
	<54F86C23.6060706@yorku.ca>
	<7A378F35-3641-48FE-9664-E0C7DA344121@egyptig.org>
	<97EC7C7E-DFA0-48FE-9CA9-E842439480D3@toast.net>
	<7A7F6C92-D899-469B-86F7-3F25A9A92890@gmail.com>
	<E0A09E65-583D-4D05-A0C1-86B6C80C5CF2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <21AD3232-131A-4D7C-B653-839ACF1CD3CE@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Apologies for not following this up more promptly. There were no objections to my suggestion below, so I will consider this issue settled.

Rafik, could you please inform Glen that you are the NCSG?s representative the new ICANN meeting strategy?s drafting team?

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi again,
> 
> The original email by Glen asked that we notify the GNSO Secretariat of the NCSG?s representative to the drafting team by March 13th, which is tomorrow. We now have only one nominee (Rafik), and support to this nomination was provided by Sam, Ed and myself. So if there are no objections to this appointment voiced between now and tomorrow at UTC 12:00, I will request that Rafik be the designated representative of the NCSG on the drafting team.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:02 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> From the peanut gallery?
>> 
>> Again, I think it?s a pretty logistical thing and it?s sensible for chairs who are responsible for organizing their groups? meetings to represent their groups in discussions about how to organize their groups? meetings.  Of course any substantive issues that rise to a level meriting discussion would be brought back to the groups.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As Chair of the NCSG, with loads of experience on Council and elsewhere. Rafik would be the ideal candidate. I support that choice and thank him for volunteering.
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> As interesting as this conversation is, I would like to use my prerogative as PC Chair to shift focus to what the PC needs to do; the appointment of an NCSG representative to the drafting team. Rafik volunteered to do this. I would appreciate views on this, including if others feel there is another candidate who would be willing and appropriate for consideration.
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to make clear that it is the duty of the PC to make this appointment on behalf of the full NCSG, and not on behalf of any of its constituencies. I suggest that NCUC and NPOC take up the matter of their own appointments directly with staff, if they so wish.
>>>> 
>>>> This discussion certainly has value, and perhaps can be taken up on another thread. I think it would be ideally take place on NCSG-DISCUSS, not here.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Ed,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just a short response to "folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the Board", while I am not against that in principle, how it how happens is generally unsatisfactory, based on my conversations with the "local folk" who do confront the board.     Many come away with a feeling that it was ritual and that all the board is doing is looking accessible..and little more. There is little evidence to counter that impression. Some come away bruised. I spent 30 minutes with the highly esteemed medical professor who "confronted" the board on .health in Los Angeles. He walked out of there bruised and confused. There of course those who confront the board as "part of their job", i.e., some commercial and non-contract people at the event, and others doing it as career capital. Fine, but it all falls short on the "voice of the local folk" part.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This would work if we (the SG's) better engaged the "local folk" prior to the meetings and prior to the public forum. ICANN underestimates the extent to which it is a "walled city" from the outside. After Singapore I was in Bangkok and looking at DNS awareness and issues in Myanmar and Laos. There should/could have been targeted pre-Conference outreach there. ICANN has little presence there, little evidence of effort, or of any impact. Last year, in Buenos Aires, the only major local coverage of ICANN was basically a pre-conference Sunday Clarion article based on an interview with me. The CEOs local appearances are seen more as PR than outreach. For Buenos Aires this time, are their pot boiler DNS issues in Latin America? As far as the NPOC constituency group members are concerned, there are, but they don't view  "a chance to confront the Board" as even a card in their DNS strategy deck of playing cards for dealing with the issues.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sam 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2015-03-05 8:44 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>> Save the public forum, which I'd prefer be held even in the shorter meeting (folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the Board...happy with a smaller public forum at those meetings restricted to residents of the region), I agree with David's comments. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:39 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at first glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, including the time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think through both of those as we plan. The synchronous/f2f                   should build on, and not substitute for, preconference work focused on the best use of conference time. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the minimal marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that savings and marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two core issues that are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to schedual meeings in a more representative pattern of venues around the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and not just in the convention capitals of those regions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a year, are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO contain a lot of the "same old same old" with respect to content and positions. One can listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and find it a lot like the audio from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year would be enough. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  And some of us have no problem with that aspect of the meeting proposal, but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work. 
>>>>>>>  I?d love a middle meeting that is somewhat shorter than the current, by dumping the opening ceremony, public forum in whole or part, the big picture sessions etc. and that by skipping a lot of the business focussed items, social events, etc allows us to focus on getting work done. 
>>>>>>>  The real problem is that ICANN has a large number of people who attend but have very little to do with SOAC work, and that makes the meetings, especially the big plenary sessions, very big. The real problem is size, not length, so I don?t know why they are being so defensive on length. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter schedual there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal across SGs in more productive ways, and -very important- have greater engagement with their constituencies in the new meeting regions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  Indeed, and thats all fine. The problem is that rather than a meeting schedule that has a shorter non-SO/AC agenda allowing more time for SOAC work, we have a meeting that has a shorter non-SOAC agenda, and a shorter SOAC agenda too. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  SOAC 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  David
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller shoe. It is  a  major opportunity on the table.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, won?t it?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
>>>>>>>>>>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Sam L. 
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150317/44799a62/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Mar 17 13:23:10 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:23:10 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A working group to develop recommendations on new
	gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkwffFoMhQBEoN7f9yt--jtZGoc=28xAt1vWbBg6KyzUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
	<5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmYiZLRqpnrTANXFBa0SsypFet-4qXo9KAvR4uAK3srmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B310215D-0FB9-4E10-BBA4-DD50125D1CCB@egyptig.org>
	<550198A3.2090804@acm.org>
	<1B865815-50F9-444C-BA5B-2B7F827BA69C@gmail.com>
	<5506A385.2070401@cdt.org>
	<CAH5sThkwffFoMhQBEoN7f9yt--jtZGoc=28xAt1vWbBg6KyzUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CD4E19FF-FEBD-40E5-AE0D-C306DB84E97F@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Yes. I believe so. There have been no objections to a CCWG taking this on. When communicating this to Jonathan, it may also be noteworthy to explain that although the NCSG is supportive of a CCWG being established, we would also participate in a GNSO working group if it comes to that for any reason.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> I think we got enough expression of support for setting a working group. I can send the response to Glen and Jonathan to say yes we are in favor of the initiative.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2015-03-16 18:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>:
> 
> I am also happy to contribute.
> 
> 
> On 3/14/2015 4:51 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> Sounds right to me
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>>> On Mar 12, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> As a starter position.
>>> 
>>> I support the idea of a CWG that includes GNSO & ALAC and possibly GAC.
>>> 
>>> I think the group should:
>>> 
>>> - collect the various nputs on what should be done
>>> - should gain consensus on the top n possibilities for further exploration and implementation.
>>> 
>>> Whether it is a CWG or a GNSO WG, I will volunteer to be involved.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12-Mar-15 08:11, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve unintentionally neglected this discussion, but would like to pick it up again. We only have a couple of days to send a response, but I don?t think it would hurt to let Glen know we?ll be a few days late on this one. It isn?t on the agenda for the next Council meeting, so maybe asking her for an extra week won?t be too disruptive.
>>>> 
>>>> Remember, we?re being asked whether or not the NCSG would be willing to participate in a CCWG on this topic. Other SOs/ACs are getting this same question. If there is no support from outside the GNSO to do this (which I very much doubt), the GNSO will create its own working group to address the issue. This WG will, of course, be open to participation by anyone.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi ,
>>>>> 
>>>>> if it is cross-community WG, I guess that may make sense to have it with ALAC and less with GAC.
>>>>> seeing all statements to get involved in the working group, I guess we have to wait for th idea of group to get traction and to have it formed first :) but I would that such group will be open to everybody to participate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2015-03-04 20:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences on this being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or energy to dive back into this swamp.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>                                                 wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget planning experience. 
>>>>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>>>>>>>>> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>>>>>>>>> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>>>>>>>>> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new gTLD auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current plan in place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to develop recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to you to see whether there is an interest to form a cross-community working group on this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to form a cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO working group on this topic which will be open to anyone interested to participate in.  Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through an open and consultative process allowing everyone interested to participate and provide their perspectives.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in this topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to me by 14 March 2015 at the latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO Council will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March 2015.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,   
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150317/5e3697bd/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Mar 17 14:07:54 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:07:54 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
	and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmMUBu43zdU7TXPmiuo0D5mf3SnCcoS+j5Xfg90N0kRjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>
	<550707C0.9030401@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThmMUBu43zdU7TXPmiuo0D5mf3SnCcoS+j5Xfg90N0kRjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F38C2DBE-84C4-4B15-8AD2-46E5EED5A3AE@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks to those who?ve responded. Anyone else? This needs to be submitted today. The working group will begin discussing the comments submitted tomorrow.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> I support the response
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-03-17 1:41 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I can support.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 16-Mar-15 08:18, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I?ve attached an updated version of the NCSG response to the public comment period for the Policy and Implementation WG initial report to this email. In it, I?ve tried to consolidate the excellent feedback provided from last week?s NCSG webinar.
>> 
>> There is some text that can?t be read on page 4 of the document, so I?m adding it here. You can only find it if you save the whole document as free text. This text is particularly important because it includes a somewhat contentious issue we discussed last Tuesday.
>> 
>>> Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) is provisional to the same 
>>> change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the process as the GGP, and for the same reasons. Additionally, Annex E #4 of the report states that "At the request of any Council member duly and timely submitted and seconded as a motion, the Council may initiate the EPDP by a Supermajority vote of the Council in favor of initiating the EPDP. A motion which fails to carry a Supermajority vote of Council may be resubmitted at the same Council meeting as a motion to 
>>> initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote confirming the initiation of an EPDP 
>>> fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required to initiate a GGP be a supermajority 
>>> vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used to reopen a policy that had 
>>> previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a discussion on a previously rejected policy, an issue scoping phase of a PDP (not included in the EPDP) should be included to scope the policy issue in order to determine wether or not there are new circumstances that have been recognized that require that a policy issue be revisited and reversed. This additional criteria for applicability does not conflict with those already being recommended in Annex E of the report.
>> 
>> 
>> For clarification, we had agreed to include input addressing this issue in the ?Principles? section of the report. I was, at the time, in agreement on this. However, on review of the report, I found this difficult to do considering that the principles are very general in their nature, and do not specifically address any of the new processes being suggested by the WG. I hope the language I added addresses this in a satisfactory manner, but please let me know if there are any thoughts to the contrary.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Please find below participation details for the NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group call on Tuesday 10th March at 19:00 UTC.
>>> 
>>> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
>>> 
>>> Time Zones: http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21
>>> 
>>> Public Comment link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
>>> 
>>> Draft Response: Attached
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 55-11-3958-0779
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> CROATIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 080-08-06-309
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 36-1-700-8856
>>> 
>>> 06-800-12755
>>> 
>>> INDIA
>>> 
>>> BANGALORE:
>>> 
>>> 91-80-61275204
>>> 
>>> 
>>> INDIA
>>> 
>>> MUMBAI:
>>> 
>>> 91-22-61501629
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> ITALY
>>> 
>>> ROME:
>>> 
>>> 39-06-8751-6018
>>> 
>>> 800-986-383
>>> 
>>> ITALY
>>> 
>>> TORINO:
>>> 
>>> 39-011-510-0118
>>> 
>>> 800-986-383
>>> 
>>> JAPAN
>>> 
>>> OSAKA:
>>> 
>>> 81-6-7878-2631
>>> 
>>> 0066-33-132439
>>> 
>>> JAPAN
>>> 
>>> TOKYO:
>>> 
>>> 81-3-6868-2631
>>> 
>>> 0066-33-132439
>>> 
>>> LATVIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8000-3185
>>> 
>>> LUXEMBOURG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 352-27-000-1364
>>> 
>>> 8002-9246
>>> 
>>> MALAYSIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1-800-81-3065
>>> 
>>> MEXICO
>>> 
>>> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>>> 
>>> 52-33-3208-7310
>>> 
>>> 001-866-376-9696
>>> 
>>> MEXICO
>>> 
>>> MEXICO CITY:
>>> 
>>> 52-55-5062-9110
>>> 
>>> 001-866-376-9696
>>> 
>>> MEXICO
>>> 
>>> MONTERREY:
>>> 
>>> 52-81-2482-0610
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 1800-111-42453
>>> 
>>> POLAND
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 00-800-1212572
>>> 
>>> PORTUGAL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8008-14052
>>> 
>>> ROMANIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 40-31-630-01-79
>>> 
>>> 
>>> RUSSIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8-10-8002-0144011
>>> 
>>> SAUDI ARABIA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 800-8-110087
>>> 
>>> SINGAPORE
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 65-6883-9230
>>> 
>>> 800-120-4663
>>> 
>>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 421-2-322-422-25
>>> 
>>> 0800-002066
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> TURKEY
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 00-800-151-0516
>>> 
>>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8000-35702370
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> <Mail Attachment.ics><NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey questions - Draft.pdf>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150317/3c069664/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Mar 17 15:55:14 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:55:14 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
 and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <F38C2DBE-84C4-4B15-8AD2-46E5EED5A3AE@egyptig.org>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>	<550707C0.9030401@acm.org>	<CAH5sThmMUBu43zdU7TXPmiuo0D5mf3SnCcoS+j5Xfg90N0kRjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F38C2DBE-84C4-4B15-8AD2-46E5EED5A3AE@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <55083242.8060700@mail.utoronto.ca>

I support it too.  Thanks!
Stephanie
On 15-03-17 8:07 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to those who've responded. Anyone else? This needs to be 
> submitted today. The working group will begin discussing the comments 
> submitted tomorrow.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Amr,
>>
>> I support the response
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-03-17 1:41 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org 
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     I can support.
>>
>>     avri
>>
>>
>>     On 16-Mar-15 08:18, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     I've attached an updated version of the NCSG response to the
>>>     public comment period for the Policy and Implementation WG
>>>     initial report to this email. In it, I've tried to consolidate
>>>     the excellent feedback provided from last week's NCSG webinar.
>>>
>>>     There is some text that can't be read on page 4 of the document,
>>>     so I'm adding it here. You can only find it if you save the
>>>     whole document as free text. This text is particularly important
>>>     because it includes a somewhat contentious issue we discussed
>>>     last Tuesday.
>>>
>>>>     Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)
>>>>     is provisional to the same
>>>>     change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the
>>>>     process as the GGP, and for the same reasons. Additionally,
>>>>     Annex E #4 of the report states that "At the request of any
>>>>     Council member duly and timely submitted and seconded as a
>>>>     motion, the Council may initiate the EPDP by a Supermajority
>>>>     vote of the Council in favor of initiating the EPDP. A motion
>>>>     which fails to carry a Supermajority vote of Council may be
>>>>     resubmitted at the same Council meeting as a motion to
>>>>     initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote
>>>>     confirming the initiation of an EPDP
>>>>     fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required
>>>>     to initiate a GGP be a supermajority
>>>>     vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>>     Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used
>>>>     to reopen a policy that had
>>>>     previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a
>>>>     discussion on a previously rejected policy, an issue scoping
>>>>     phase of a PDP (not included in the EPDP) should be included to
>>>>     scope the policy issue in order to determine wether or not
>>>>     there are new circumstances that have been recognized that
>>>>     require that a policy issue be revisited and reversed. This
>>>>     additional criteria for applicability does not conflict with
>>>>     those already being recommended in Annex E of the report.
>>>
>>>     For clarification, we had agreed to include input addressing
>>>     this issue in the "Principles" section of the report. I was, at
>>>     the time, in agreement on this. However, on review of the
>>>     report, I found this difficult to do considering that the
>>>     principles are very general in their nature, and do not
>>>     specifically address any of the new processes being suggested by
>>>     the WG. I hope the language I added addresses this in a
>>>     satisfactory manner, but please let me know if there are any
>>>     thoughts to the contrary.
>>>
>>>     Thanks.
>>>
>>>     Amr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Maryam Bakoshi
>>>     <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>     Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>     Please find below participation details for the NCSG Webinar on
>>>>     the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy and Implementation
>>>>     Working Group call on *Tuesday 10th March at 19:00 UTC*.
>>>>
>>>>     *Adobe Connect: *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
>>>>
>>>>     *Time Zones:*
>>>>     http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21
>>>>
>>>>     *Public Comment link:*
>>>>     https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
>>>>
>>>>     *Draft Response: *Attached
>>>>
>>>>     *Passcodes/Pin codes:*
>>>>     Participant passcode: NCSG PC
>>>>
>>>>     *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join
>>>>     the conference.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *Dial in numbers:*
>>>>     *Country*
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>     *Toll Numbers*
>>>>     	
>>>>     *Freephone/
>>>>     Toll Free Number*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>     	
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     ARGENTINA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0800-777-0519 <tel:0800-777-0519>
>>>>
>>>>     AUSTRALIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     ADELAIDE:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     61-8-8121-4842
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     1-800-657-260
>>>>
>>>>     AUSTRALIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     BRISBANE:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     61-7-3102-0944
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     1-800-657-260
>>>>
>>>>     AUSTRALIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     CANBERRA:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     61-2-6100-1944
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     1-800-657-260
>>>>
>>>>     AUSTRALIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     MELBOURNE:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     61-3-9010-7713
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     1-800-657-260
>>>>
>>>>     AUSTRALIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     PERTH:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     61-8-9467-5223
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     1-800-657-260
>>>>
>>>>     AUSTRALIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     SYDNEY:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     61-2-8205-8129
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     1-800-657-260
>>>>
>>>>     AUSTRIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     43-1-92-81-113
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0800-005-259
>>>>
>>>>     BELGIUM
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     32-2-400-9861
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0800-3-8795
>>>>
>>>>     BRAZIL
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     55-11-3958-0779
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0800-7610651 <tel:0800-7610651>
>>>>
>>>>     CHILE
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     1230-020-2863
>>>>
>>>>     CHINA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     CHINA A:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     86-400-810-4789
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     10800-712-1670
>>>>
>>>>     CHINA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     CHINA B:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     86-400-810-4789
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     10800-120-1670
>>>>
>>>>     COLOMBIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     01800-9-156474
>>>>
>>>>     CROATIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     080-08-06-309
>>>>
>>>>     CZECH REPUBLIC
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     420-2-25-98-56-64
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     800-700-177
>>>>
>>>>     DENMARK
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     45-7014-0284
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     8088-8324
>>>>
>>>>     ESTONIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     800-011-1093
>>>>
>>>>     FINLAND
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     358-9-5424-7162
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0-800-9-14610
>>>>
>>>>     FRANCE
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     LYON:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     33-4-26-69-12-85
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     080-511-1496
>>>>
>>>>     FRANCE
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     MARSEILLE:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     33-4-86-06-00-85
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     080-511-1496
>>>>
>>>>     FRANCE
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     PARIS:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     33-1-70-70-60-72
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     080-511-1496
>>>>
>>>>     GERMANY
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     49-69-2222-20362
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0800-664-4247 <tel:0800-664-4247>
>>>>
>>>>     GREECE
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     30-80-1-100-0687
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     00800-12-7312
>>>>
>>>>     HONG KONG
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     852-3001-3863
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     800-962-856
>>>>
>>>>     HUNGARY
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     36-1-700-8856
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     06-800-12755
>>>>
>>>>     INDIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     BANGALORE:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     91-80-61275204
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     INDIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     MUMBAI:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     91-22-61501629
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     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
>>>>
>>>>     ITALY
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     ROME:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     39-06-8751-6018
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     800-986-383
>>>>
>>>>     ITALY
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     TORINO:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     39-011-510-0118
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     800-986-383
>>>>
>>>>     JAPAN
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     OSAKA:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     81-6-7878-2631 <tel:81-6-7878-2631>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0066-33-132439
>>>>
>>>>     JAPAN
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     TOKYO:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     81-3-6868-2631 <tel:81-3-6868-2631>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0066-33-132439
>>>>
>>>>     LATVIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     8000-3185
>>>>
>>>>     LUXEMBOURG
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     352-27-000-1364
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     8002-9246
>>>>
>>>>     MALAYSIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     1-800-81-3065
>>>>
>>>>     MEXICO
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     52-33-3208-7310
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     001-866-376-9696
>>>>
>>>>     MEXICO
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     MEXICO CITY:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     52-55-5062-9110
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     001-866-376-9696
>>>>
>>>>     MEXICO
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     MONTERREY:
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     52-81-2482-0610
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     001-866-376-9696
>>>>
>>>>     NETHERLANDS
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     31-20-718-8588
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0800-023-4378 <tel:0800-023-4378>
>>>>
>>>>     NEW ZEALAND
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     64-9-970-4771
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0800-447-722
>>>>
>>>>     NORWAY
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     47-21-590-062
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     800-15157
>>>>
>>>>     PANAMA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     011-001-800-5072065
>>>>
>>>>     PERU
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0800-53713
>>>>
>>>>     PHILIPPINES
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     63-2-858-3716
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     1800-111-42453
>>>>
>>>>     POLAND
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     00-800-1212572
>>>>
>>>>     PORTUGAL
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     8008-14052
>>>>
>>>>     ROMANIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     40-31-630-01-79
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     RUSSIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     8-10-8002-0144011
>>>>
>>>>     SAUDI ARABIA
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     800-8-110087
>>>>
>>>>     SINGAPORE
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     65-6883-9230
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     800-120-4663
>>>>
>>>>     SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     421-2-322-422-25
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     0800-002066
>>>>
>>>>     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
>>>>
>>>>     TURKEY
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     00-800-151-0516
>>>>
>>>>     UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     8000-35702370
>>>>
>>>>     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.*
>>>>
>>>>     <Mail Attachment.ics><NCSG response to PI WG initial report
>>>>     survey questions - Draft.pdf>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150317/fc75ecce/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Tue Mar 17 15:59:51 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:59:51 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
 and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <55083242.8060700@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>	<550707C0.9030401@acm.org>	<CAH5sThmMUBu43zdU7TXPmiuo0D5mf3SnCcoS+j5Xfg90N0kRjg@mail.gmail.com>	<F38C2DBE-84C4-4B15-8AD2-46E5EED5A3AE@egyptig.org>
	<55083242.8060700@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <55083357.2090506@yorku.ca>

/Amr,//
//
//I endorse this as well.//
//
//Sam /

On 17/03/2015 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> I support it too.  Thanks!
> Stephanie
> On 15-03-17 8:07 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks to those who?ve responded. Anyone else? This needs to be 
>> submitted today. The working group will begin discussing the comments 
>> submitted tomorrow.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>

-- 
------------------------------------------------
"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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150317/78049154/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Mar 17 21:53:03 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:53:03 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy
	and Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <55083357.2090506@yorku.ca>
References: <b627b2758b274f0aa6b936f96e07bbd1@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<5A89F842-C21E-4DA6-BFF4-FBE3877D2696@egyptig.org>	<550707C0.9030401@acm.org>	<CAH5sThmMUBu43zdU7TXPmiuo0D5mf3SnCcoS+j5Xfg90N0kRjg@mail.gmail.com>	<F38C2DBE-84C4-4B15-8AD2-46E5EED5A3AE@egyptig.org>
	<55083242.8060700@mail.utoronto.ca> <55083357.2090506@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <250FFE1E-DD34-47A6-AFE1-2F69B1701916@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for the responses from all. I will note as well that Joy endorsed the response during the NCSG monthly policy call earlier today. So we have endorsements from Joy, Rafik, Sam, Avri, Stephanie and myself on the PC. Having heard no objections from the rest, I will consider these comments endorsed by the NCSG.

I will go ahead and send in our response in the PDF format, as well as copy and paste the answers to the surveymonkey link provided.

Thanks again to all.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Sam Lanfranco <Lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Amr,
> 
> I endorse this as well.
> 
> Sam 
> 
> On 17/03/2015 9:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> I support it too.  Thanks!
>> Stephanie
>> On 15-03-17 8:07 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Thanks to those who?ve responded. Anyone else? This needs to be submitted today. The working group will begin discussing the comments submitted tomorrow.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150317/f830ca65/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 18 02:16:04 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:16:04 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
In-Reply-To: <21AD3232-131A-4D7C-B653-839ACF1CD3CE@egyptig.org>
References: <lle6wygjqyqdtv8ahr61fe5e.1425561912043@email.android.com>
	<2A337223-D248-4EE1-B3B5-66E11EAE7613@difference.com.au>
	<9E10162A-980F-46DA-8C17-4BB2BFCDA7CB@toast.net>
	<54F86C23.6060706@yorku.ca>
	<7A378F35-3641-48FE-9664-E0C7DA344121@egyptig.org>
	<97EC7C7E-DFA0-48FE-9CA9-E842439480D3@toast.net>
	<7A7F6C92-D899-469B-86F7-3F25A9A92890@gmail.com>
	<E0A09E65-583D-4D05-A0C1-86B6C80C5CF2@egyptig.org>
	<21AD3232-131A-4D7C-B653-839ACF1CD3CE@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=iJW8-A1tLtH7kE9yrLZj2mxWgwFhg9HF=V36sDzQg-w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

yes , done.

Rafik


2015-03-17 20:19 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Apologies for not following this up more promptly. There were no
> objections to my suggestion below, so I will consider this issue settled.
>
> Rafik, could you please inform Glen that you are the NCSG?s representative
> the new ICANN meeting strategy?s drafting team?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> The original email by Glen asked that we notify the GNSO Secretariat of
> the NCSG?s representative to the drafting team by March 13th, which is
> tomorrow. We now have only one nominee (Rafik), and support to this
> nomination was provided by Sam, Ed and myself. So if there are no
> objections to this appointment voiced between now and tomorrow at UTC
> 12:00, I will request that Rafik be the designated representative of the
> NCSG on the drafting team.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:02 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From the peanut gallery?
>
> Again, I think it?s a pretty logistical thing and it?s sensible for chairs
> who are responsible for organizing their groups? meetings to
> represent their groups in discussions about how to organize their groups?
> meetings.  Of course any substantive issues that rise to a level meriting
> discussion would be brought back to the groups.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
> As Chair of the NCSG, with loads of experience on Council and elsewhere.
> Rafik would be the ideal candidate. I support that choice and thank him for
> volunteering.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As interesting as this conversation is, I would like to use my prerogative
> as PC Chair to shift focus to what the PC needs to do; the appointment of
> an NCSG representative to the drafting team. Rafik volunteered to do this.
> I would appreciate views on this, including if others feel there is another
> candidate who would be willing and appropriate for consideration.
>
> I would like to make clear that it is the duty of the PC to make this
> appointment on behalf of the full NCSG, and not on behalf of any of its
> constituencies. I suggest that NCUC and NPOC take up the matter of their
> own appointments directly with staff, if they so wish.
>
> This discussion certainly has value, and perhaps can be taken up on
> another thread. I think it would be ideally take place on NCSG-DISCUSS, not
> here.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>  Ed,
>
> Just a short response to "*folks in smaller cities should have the chance
> to confront the Board"*, while I am not against that in principle, how it
> how happens is generally unsatisfactory, based on my conversations with the
> "local folk" who do confront the board. Many come away with a feeling that
> it was ritual and that all the board is doing is looking accessible..and
> little more. There is little evidence to counter that impression. Some come
> away bruised. I spent 30 minutes with the highly esteemed medical professor
> who "confronted" the board on .health in Los Angeles. He walked out of
> there bruised and confused. There of course those who confront the board as
> "part of their job", i.e., some commercial and non-contract people at the
> event, and others doing it as career capital. Fine, but it all falls short
> on the "voice of the local folk" part.
>
> This would work if we (the SG's) better engaged the "local folk" prior to
> the meetings and prior to the public forum. ICANN underestimates the extent
> to which it is a "walled city" from the outside. After Singapore I was in
> Bangkok and looking at DNS awareness and issues in Myanmar and Laos. There
> should/could have been targeted pre-Conference outreach there. ICANN has
> little presence there, little evidence of effort, or of any impact. Last
> year, in Buenos Aires, the only major local coverage of ICANN was basically
> a pre-conference Sunday Clarion article based on an interview with me. The
> CEOs local appearances are seen more as PR than outreach. For Buenos Aires
> this time, are their pot boiler DNS issues in Latin America? As far as the
> NPOC constituency group members are concerned, there are, but they don't
> view  "a chance to confront the Board" as even a card in their DNS strategy
> deck of playing cards for dealing with the issues.
>
> Sam
>
>
> On 2015-03-05 8:44 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> Save the public forum, which I'd prefer be held even in the shorter
> meeting (folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront the
> Board...happy with a smaller public forum at those meetings restricted to
> residents of the region), I agree with David's comments.
>
>  Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:39 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>  On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>  Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at first
> glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, including the
> time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think through both of those
> as we plan. The synchronous/f2f should build on, and not substitute for,
> preconference work focused on the best use of conference time.
>
>  When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the minimal
> marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that savings and
> marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two core issues that
> are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to schedual meeings in a more
> representative pattern of venues around the globe, in Africa, Asia, and
> Latin America, and not just in the convention capitals of those regions.
>
>
>   Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a year,
> are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO contain a lot of
> the "same old same old" with respect to content and positions. One can
> listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and find it a lot like the audio
> from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year would be enough.
>
>
>  And some of us have no problem with that aspect of the meeting proposal,
> but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be the SO/AC
> focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work.
>  I?d love a middle meeting that is somewhat shorter than the current, by
> dumping the opening ceremony, public forum in whole or part, the big
> picture sessions etc. and that by skipping a lot of the business focussed
> items, social events, etc allows us to focus on getting work done.
>  The real problem is that ICANN has a large number of people who attend
> but have very little to do with SOAC work, and that makes the meetings,
> especially the big plenary sessions, very big. The real problem is size,
> not length, so I don?t know why they are being so defensive on length.
>
>   Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter schedual
> there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal across SGs in
> more productive ways, and -very important- have greater engagement with
> their constituencies in the new meeting regions.
>
>
>  Indeed, and thats all fine. The problem is that rather than a meeting
> schedule that has a shorter non-SO/AC agenda allowing more time for SOAC
> work, we have a meeting that has a shorter non-SOAC agenda, and a shorter
> SOAC agenda too.
>
>  SOAC
>
>  David
>
>
>  This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller shoe.
> It is  a  major opportunity on the table.
>
>  Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
>
>
>  Sent from Samsung Mobile
>
> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs,
> SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical
> coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it.
> I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to
> normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running
> simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a
> bit of an issue, won?t it?
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
>  On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi
>
>  Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling,
> and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said
> sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this
> to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from
> NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is
> informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
>
>  Bill
>
>
>
>   On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>
>  I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded.
> One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own
> meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This
> does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG
> level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the
> traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
>
>  Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
>  On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>  All,
>
> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute
> one member".
> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and
> NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group
> / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>
> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC
> position on the idea.
>
> Sam L.
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
> *********************************************************
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
> *********************************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150318/678c624c/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 18 02:48:48 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:48:48 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A working group to develop recommendations on new
 gTLD auction proceeds
In-Reply-To: <CD4E19FF-FEBD-40E5-AE0D-C306DB84E97F@egyptig.org>
References: <92e9c13d426d4aabb91877510088121a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sTh=SZX8giOdc13EZY0cb2N1=cQWw2zdT2hPo9P-zY7Sbhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54F698A7.1010000@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<DD12D0BC-454E-408B-B780-1A4123F8F312@toast.net>
	<54F6E1E3.3040902@acm.org>
	<5EEF66C1-A44F-4F17-9796-874BFECE9672@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmYiZLRqpnrTANXFBa0SsypFet-4qXo9KAvR4uAK3srmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B310215D-0FB9-4E10-BBA4-DD50125D1CCB@egyptig.org>
	<550198A3.2090804@acm.org>
	<1B865815-50F9-444C-BA5B-2B7F827BA69C@gmail.com>
	<5506A385.2070401@cdt.org>
	<CAH5sThkwffFoMhQBEoN7f9yt--jtZGoc=28xAt1vWbBg6KyzUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD4E19FF-FEBD-40E5-AE0D-C306DB84E97F@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmO5vrQU_aW2t9SaJp14BtqrC7+AHfajTzmKucw+aqOFQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

thanks, I sent our response.

Rafik

2015-03-17 20:23 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Yes. I believe so. There have been no objections to a CCWG taking this on.
> When communicating this to Jonathan, it may also be noteworthy to explain
> that although the NCSG is supportive of a CCWG being established, we would
> also participate in a GNSO working group if it comes to that for any reason.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> I think we got enough expression of support for setting a working group. I
> can send the response to Glen and Jonathan to say yes we are in favor of
> the initiative.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-03-16 18:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>:
>
>>
>> I am also happy to contribute.
>>
>>
>> On 3/14/2015 4:51 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>> Sounds right to me
>>
>>  Bill
>>
>>  On Mar 12, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> As a starter position.
>>
>> I support the idea of a CWG that includes GNSO & ALAC and possibly GAC.
>>
>> I think the group should:
>>
>> - collect the various nputs on what should be done
>> - should gain consensus on the top n possibilities for further
>> exploration and implementation.
>>
>> Whether it is a CWG or a GNSO WG, I will volunteer to be involved.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 12-Mar-15 08:11, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  I?ve unintentionally neglected this discussion, but would like to pick
>> it up again. We only have a couple of days to send a response, but I don?t
>> think it would hurt to let Glen know we?ll be a few days late on this one.
>> It isn?t on the agenda for the next Council meeting, so maybe asking her
>> for an extra week won?t be too disruptive.
>>
>>  Remember, we?re being asked whether or not the NCSG would be willing to
>> participate in a CCWG on this topic. Other SOs/ACs are getting this same
>> question. If there is no support from outside the GNSO to do this (which I
>> very much doubt), the GNSO will create its own working group to address the
>> issue. This WG will, of course, be open to participation by anyone.
>>
>>  Thoughts?
>>
>>  Thanks.
>>
>>  Amr
>>
>>  On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi ,
>>
>>  if it is cross-community WG, I guess that may make sense to have it
>> with ALAC and less with GAC.
>> seeing all statements to get involved in the working group, I guess we
>> have to wait for th idea of group to get traction and to have it formed
>> first :) but I would that such group will be open to everybody to
>> participate.
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>> 2015-03-04 20:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>  I feel the same as Avri. I wonder if anyone has any preferences on
>>> this being a CCWG or a GNSO WG.
>>>
>>>  Thanks.
>>>
>>>  Amr
>>>
>>>  On Mar 4, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  hi,
>>>
>>> I am interested but just don't know if i have the bandwidth or energy to
>>> dive back into this swamp.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04-Mar-15 10:31, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Yes and I want to volunteer for that group.  I am new and have no
>>> baggage from previous resource wars.  I also have considerable budget
>>> planning experience.
>>> cheers SP
>>>
>>> On 2015-03-04 0:19, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>  we should give an initial response for this : forming a working group
>>> on new gTLD auctions proceeds.
>>> I think there were positive comments from our side during Singapore
>>> meeting and it is something we advocated for for years.
>>> can we get a short statement to express our support for such effort?
>>>
>>>  Best,
>>>
>>>  Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>> Date: 2015-03-02 19:14 GMT+09:00
>>> Subject: A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction
>>> proceeds
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Marika Konings <
>>> marika.konings at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>>>
>>>
>>> *A working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds*
>>>
>>>
>>> During the GNSO weekend sessions at ICANN 52 in Singapore, the GNSO
>>> discussed the issue of new gTLD auction proceeds. As you know, new gTLD
>>> auction proceeds have been building up and there is no current plan in
>>> place for the use or allocation of these funds.
>>>
>>>
>>> In order to commence discussions on a plan for the use of new gTLD
>>> auction proceeds, the GNSO would like to form a working group to develop
>>> recommendations on this topic. As such, I am reaching out to you to see
>>> whether there is an interest to form a cross-community working group on
>>> this topic. Note, should there not be sufficient interest to form a
>>> cross-community working group at this stage, the GNSO plans to form a GNSO
>>> working group on this topic which will be open to anyone interested to
>>> participate in.  Regardless of which approach is chosen, it is the GNSO?s
>>> expectation that any work on this topic will be conducted through an open
>>> and consultative process allowing everyone interested to participate and
>>> provide their perspectives.
>>>
>>>
>>> In order to determine the interest from the different communities in
>>> this topic, I would like to ask you to provide an initial response to me by *14
>>> March 2015* at the latest. Based on the feedback received, the GNSO
>>> Council will initially discuss how to proceed at its meeting on 19 March
>>> 2015.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>>
>>> For and on behalf of the ICANN GNSO Council
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150318/8a43c668/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Wed Mar 18 18:51:19 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:51:19 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council attendance
Message-ID: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>

	I won?t be able to attend GNSO Council this week - I?ve just realised I?ll be travelling then (heading to Manila for RightsCon). So I?ll need a proxy.
	My apologies for the late notice.

	Regards

		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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150319/afd62e3a/attachment.sig>


From mariliamaciel  Wed Mar 18 19:00:06 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:00:06 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council attendance
In-Reply-To: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
References: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3e0N9=yV5sTTNRF00DzUAb6brt7+Lm1v1OyRuXLab-9A@mail.gmail.com>

I will not be able to attend the call this week either, due to a work
meeting that I am obliged to attend and that has been scheduled only
yesterday. I have communicated with Rafik about the need for a proxy.

I also apologize for the late notice.
Best
Mar?lia

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

>         I won?t be able to attend GNSO Council this week - I?ve just
> realised I?ll be travelling then (heading to Manila for RightsCon). So I?ll
> need a proxy.
>         My apologies for the late notice.
>
>         Regards
>
>                 David
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
*Mar?lia Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150318/6ca93cab/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Mar 18 20:29:19 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:29:19 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council attendance
In-Reply-To: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
References: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <5509C3FF.6070900@mail.utoronto.ca>

I will be there.
Steph

On 2015-03-18 12:51, David Cake wrote:
> 	I won?t be able to attend GNSO Council this week - I?ve just realised I?ll be travelling then (heading to Manila for RightsCon). So I?ll need a proxy.
> 	My apologies for the late notice.
>
> 	Regards
>
> 		David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150318/efdf880e/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Mar 18 20:38:59 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:38:59 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council attendance
In-Reply-To: <5509C3FF.6070900@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
	<5509C3FF.6070900@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <FE4A4E4F-88B8-4969-B410-32C34AD86898@toast.net>

As will I.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 18, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> I will be there.
> Steph
> 
>> On 2015-03-18 12:51, David Cake wrote:
>> 	I won?t be able to attend GNSO Council this week - I?ve just realised I?ll be travelling then (heading to Manila for RightsCon). So I?ll need a proxy.
>> 	My apologies for the late notice.
>> 
>> 	Regards
>> 
>> 		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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150318/7fa22a88/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Mar 18 20:52:14 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:52:14 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council attendance
In-Reply-To: <FE4A4E4F-88B8-4969-B410-32C34AD86898@toast.net>
References: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
	<5509C3FF.6070900@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<FE4A4E4F-88B8-4969-B410-32C34AD86898@toast.net>
Message-ID: <6D2C98B7-E0A9-4018-9508-30B934175FF2@egyptig.org>

I have already been appointed as a proxy for Marilia. We still need one for David.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 18, 2015, at 7:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> As will I.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
>> I will be there.
>> Steph
>> 
>> On 2015-03-18 12:51, David Cake wrote:
>>> 	I won?t be able to attend GNSO Council this week - I?ve just realised I?ll be travelling then (heading to Manila for RightsCon). So I?ll need a proxy.
>>> 	My apologies for the late notice.
>>> 
>>> 	Regards
>>> 
>>> 		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
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150318/ea6e1353/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Wed Mar 18 22:52:00 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:52:00 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council attendance
In-Reply-To: <6D2C98B7-E0A9-4018-9508-30B934175FF2@egyptig.org>
References: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
	<5509C3FF.6070900@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<FE4A4E4F-88B8-4969-B410-32C34AD86898@toast.net>
	<6D2C98B7-E0A9-4018-9508-30B934175FF2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2UgAU6C0+U5+K4y==o8GwbCwLh1fiO8Q6teqC4rswPFA@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you very much, Amr.
Mar?lia

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> I have already been appointed as a proxy for Marilia. We still need one
> for David.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 7:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
> As will I.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> I will be there.
> Steph
>
> On 2015-03-18 12:51, David Cake wrote:
>
> 	I won?t be able to attend GNSO Council this week - I?ve just realised I?ll be travelling then (heading to Manila for RightsCon). So I?ll need a proxy.
> 	My apologies for the late notice.
>
> 	Regards
>
> 		David
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
*Mar?lia Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150318/b2854caf/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Mar 18 23:02:08 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:02:08 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council attendance
In-Reply-To: <6D2C98B7-E0A9-4018-9508-30B934175FF2@egyptig.org>
References: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
	<5509C3FF.6070900@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<FE4A4E4F-88B8-4969-B410-32C34AD86898@toast.net>
	<6D2C98B7-E0A9-4018-9508-30B934175FF2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5509E7D0.20308@mail.utoronto.ca>

happy to volunteer...
SP

On 2015-03-18 14:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> I have already been appointed as a proxy for Marilia. We still need 
> one for David.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 7:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>
>> As will I.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Stephanie Perrin 
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>> I will be there.
>>> Steph
>>>
>>> On 2015-03-18 12:51, David Cake wrote:
>>>> 	I won?t be able to attend GNSO Council this week - I?ve just realised I?ll be travelling then (heading to Manila for RightsCon). So I?ll need a proxy.
>>>> 	My apologies for the late notice.
>>>>
>>>> 	Regards
>>>>
>>>> 		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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150318/1d2b377e/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Mar 19 03:10:47 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:10:47 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council attendance
In-Reply-To: <5509E7D0.20308@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
	<5509C3FF.6070900@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<FE4A4E4F-88B8-4969-B410-32C34AD86898@toast.net>
	<6D2C98B7-E0A9-4018-9508-30B934175FF2@egyptig.org>
	<5509E7D0.20308@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn5ijF2A6UfEE0P4-+3-dFBuesPOwGiT+Q++JzFqb-Svg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi ,

the proxy vote form for David was submitted.

Rafik

2015-03-19 6:02 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

>  happy to volunteer...
> SP
>
>
> On 2015-03-18 14:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> I have already been appointed as a proxy for Marilia. We still need one
> for David.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
>  On Mar 18, 2015, at 7:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
>  As will I.
>
>  Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>  I will be there.
> Steph
>
> On 2015-03-18 12:51, David Cake wrote:
>
> 	I won?t be able to attend GNSO Council this week - I?ve just realised I?ll be travelling then (heading to Manila for RightsCon). So I?ll need a proxy.
> 	My apologies for the late notice.
>
> 	Regards
>
> 		David
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>  _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150319/dc86dec9/attachment.html>


From dave  Thu Mar 19 09:39:25 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:39:25 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council attendance
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3e0N9=yV5sTTNRF00DzUAb6brt7+Lm1v1OyRuXLab-9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9D227A96-95BE-47E8-AA5A-9F2F841BD37A@difference.com.au>
	<CACpVkK3e0N9=yV5sTTNRF00DzUAb6brt7+Lm1v1OyRuXLab-9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5F71F276-13D1-4D8B-9ABB-AB1C68313F41@difference.com.au>

Actually, turns out I may be able to attend after all. I shouldn?t send email last thing before going to sleep, I make mistakes. Admittedly it will be at 2am my time, so if a proxy can be organised I?d accepted it gratefully, but I will do my best to attend the meeting.

David


> On 19 Mar 2015, at 1:00 am, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I will not be able to attend the call this week either, due to a work meeting that I am obliged to attend and that has been scheduled only yesterday. I have communicated with Rafik about the need for a proxy.
> 
> I also apologize for the late notice.
> Best
> Mar?lia
> 
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>         I won?t be able to attend GNSO Council this week - I?ve just realised I?ll be travelling then (heading to Manila for RightsCon). So I?ll need a proxy.
>         My apologies for the late notice.
> 
>         Regards
> 
>                 David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>
> 
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu/>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en <http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150319/a312aaad/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150319/a312aaad/attachment-0001.sig>


From aelsadr  Thu Mar 19 15:09:42 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:09:42 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Formatting of the NCSG Response to the Policy and
	Implementation Working Group Initial Report
Message-ID: <8B975AB5-9068-4C6B-B121-8E5E3230AF1A@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?m sending this email to the PC list along with Marika and Mary from ICANN Policy Staff to clear something up regarding the NCSG response to the Policy and Implementation WG initial report.

If you all recall, a PDF version of the NCSG input was circulated and presented during last week?s webinar. A later draft was circulated, in which input provided by NCSG members was added to the answers of the survey questions. This created a problem, because some of the text provided in the file wasn?t viewable because of the insufficient size of the text box.

To manage this, I did two things:

1. I copied the NCSG responses to the Web-based survey to ensure that the WG would have access to them in their entirety.
2. I also sent the PDF version with the ?unviewable? text using what I believe to be a secure File Transfer Protocol embedded in the file to the public comment forum. I did this, so that there would be a readily available reference to the NCSG response that anyone could access, and also hoped that the formatting would somehow change to make all the answers viewable. I thought this possible, because there were other submissions on the public comment forum in which the formatting was different.

Anyway?, it didn?t work the way I hoped, and this is what we ended up with:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-policy-implementation-initial-19jan15/msg00003.html

The WG had its first call to review the public comment submission yesterday, and the NCSG response is included in the public comment review tool, so there is no need to be concerned about our input not being submitted and considered. However, Marika was kind enough to provide a PDF extract of the NCSG response to the Web-based survey. I?ve attached it to this email.

Marika and Mary, could you please arrange to have this file be listed on the public comment forum as the NCSG response to the working group?s initial report, and have the email already posted be removed. The current NCSG submission on the public comment forum appears to be nothing but random lines of code that aren?t really very helpful to anyone who would like to look them up.

To be clear, I am asking ICANN Policy Staff to take an action on our behalf. There is no action required on the part of the Policy Committee, but thought it would be a good idea to have everyone on the same page to avoid any confusion. Certainly don?t want anyone to think that staff tampered with our response in any way.

The attached version with the amended formatting has already been uploaded to the NCSG Wiki space as well.

So thanks to all, and my apologies about all the confusion.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to the Initial Report and Recommendations of the GNSO Policy and Implementation WG + Adjusted Formatting.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 58031 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150319/86adc323/attachment-0001.pdf>


From aelsadr  Thu Mar 19 16:48:17 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:48:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Formatting of the NCSG Response to the Policy
	and Implementation Working Group Initial Report
In-Reply-To: <8B975AB5-9068-4C6B-B121-8E5E3230AF1A@egyptig.org>
References: <8B975AB5-9068-4C6B-B121-8E5E3230AF1A@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <54D62CA3-4E2E-417D-B921-41A65A43AC14@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

The adjusted format has been submitted, and available here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-policy-implementation-initial-19jan15/msg00006.html

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 19, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I?m sending this email to the PC list along with Marika and Mary from ICANN Policy Staff to clear something up regarding the NCSG response to the Policy and Implementation WG initial report.
> 
> If you all recall, a PDF version of the NCSG input was circulated and presented during last week?s webinar. A later draft was circulated, in which input provided by NCSG members was added to the answers of the survey questions. This created a problem, because some of the text provided in the file wasn?t viewable because of the insufficient size of the text box.
> 
> To manage this, I did two things:
> 
> 1. I copied the NCSG responses to the Web-based survey to ensure that the WG would have access to them in their entirety.
> 2. I also sent the PDF version with the ?unviewable? text using what I believe to be a secure File Transfer Protocol embedded in the file to the public comment forum. I did this, so that there would be a readily available reference to the NCSG response that anyone could access, and also hoped that the formatting would somehow change to make all the answers viewable. I thought this possible, because there were other submissions on the public comment forum in which the formatting was different.
> 
> Anyway?, it didn?t work the way I hoped, and this is what we ended up with:
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-policy-implementation-initial-19jan15/msg00003.html
> 
> The WG had its first call to review the public comment submission yesterday, and the NCSG response is included in the public comment review tool, so there is no need to be concerned about our input not being submitted and considered. However, Marika was kind enough to provide a PDF extract of the NCSG response to the Web-based survey. I?ve attached it to this email.
> 
> Marika and Mary, could you please arrange to have this file be listed on the public comment forum as the NCSG response to the working group?s initial report, and have the email already posted be removed. The current NCSG submission on the public comment forum appears to be nothing but random lines of code that aren?t really very helpful to anyone who would like to look them up.
> 
> To be clear, I am asking ICANN Policy Staff to take an action on our behalf. There is no action required on the part of the Policy Committee, but thought it would be a good idea to have everyone on the same page to avoid any confusion. Certainly don?t want anyone to think that staff tampered with our response in any way.
> 
> The attached version with the amended formatting has already been uploaded to the NCSG Wiki space as well.
> 
> So thanks to all, and my apologies about all the confusion.
> 
> Amr
> 
> <NCSG Response to the Initial Report and Recommendations of the GNSO Policy and Implementation WG + Adjusted Formatting.pdf>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From rafik.dammak  Sat Mar 28 00:08:54 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 07:08:54 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Info] IPC Letter to ICANN regarding .SUCKS
In-Reply-To: <CA+aOHURwy84VYa6HEbE4g+0DC-jfNhxwWG8jf0OpVWsQ3Q0B7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aOHUT936KeHsraKWhw80Hk2n4mr=R1WZtFy3OnkchKaYd2yA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+aOHURwy84VYa6HEbE4g+0DC-jfNhxwWG8jf0OpVWsQ3Q0B7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmVeTRSb_vpt8mzTkKLfsw56dxuH1UdwSkXUfK4LqhM6w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone

Please find attached the letter sent by IPC to ICANN about .sucks .

Best Regards.

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150328/c56d16d6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Intellectual Property Constituency Communication to ICANN Regarding dot-SUCKS.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 241041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150328/c56d16d6/attachment-0001.pdf>


From avri  Sat Mar 28 00:47:21 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 00:47:21 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EWG-Process-WG] Updated Framework and 20 March Call
	Notes
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20150323125637.095f8248@mail.corecom.com>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20150323125637.095f8248@mail.corecom.com>
Message-ID: <5515DDF9.6070403@acm.org>

hi,

please let me know if you have comments
we are supposed to finalize it next week.

avri


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[EWG-Process-WG] Updated Framework and 20 March Call Notes
Date: 	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:26:03 -0600
From: 	Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com>
To: 	ewg-process-wg at icann.org



Dear all,

Attached please notes from Friday's EP-WG call, along with an updated
draft of your framework that includes changes suggested during that call.

Changes introduced in draft 6 are marked with orange text, including:

pages 1, 6-9 & especially 10: Added Coexistence as new area & Phase 3b
pages 1, 6, 8: Added IF to phase 1
page 5: Added cost note per report from James
page 6: Clarified time sequencing notation
page 12: GNSO Decision Point & Questions expanded

In particular, please note that Page 12 offers new draft text for your
consideration, capturing Friday's discussion on meta issues that should
be considered at each GNSO Council Decision Point.

At this juncture, EP-WG members are encouraged to raise any further
changes to this framework that must be addressed now, before this draft
is transmitted to the Board and GNSO Council.

*Please raise any suggested changes to this framework via email no later
than March 30th*. Charla will be sending out a Doodle poll for your next
call to finalize those changes.

Once this draft is transmitted to the Board and GNSO Council, a new
Draft Issue Report and public comment period will follow. Please note
that EP-WG members will still have a chance to review any public
comments on this draft framework and make any needed revisions before
the Final Issue Report is published.

Best,
Lisa



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150328/6319604c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EWG PROCESS WG Mar 20 call notes.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 249933 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150328/6319604c/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RDS-PDP-Process-Draft6-23Mar2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 928545 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150328/6319604c/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ewg-process-wg mailing list
Ewg-process-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ewg-process-wg



From aelsadr  Mon Mar 30 13:34:42 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:34:42 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EWG-Process-WG] Updated Framework and 20 March Call
	Notes
In-Reply-To: <5515DDF9.6070403@acm.org>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20150323125637.095f8248@mail.corecom.com>
	<5515DDF9.6070403@acm.org>
Message-ID: <3D20D40E-885E-4B3C-BB29-B7BA1A3F41D4@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for this Avri, especially your participation in the call that lead to the inclusion of ?Clarifying that the PDP should examine IF a new system is needed?,?.

I do have one question, though. The last call didn?t address the process so much as the framework the PDP would be scoped around. Is there any update on the plans/suggestions for parallelism in tackling the framework when this goes to a PDP?

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:47 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> hi,
> 
> please let me know if you have comments
> we are supposed to finalize it next week.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	[EWG-Process-WG] Updated Framework and 20 March Call Notes
> Date:	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:26:03 -0600
> From:	Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com>
> To:	ewg-process-wg at icann.org
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Attached please notes from Friday's EP-WG call, along with an updated draft of your framework that includes changes suggested during that call. 
> 
> Changes introduced in draft 6 are marked with orange text, including:
> 
> pages 1, 6-9 & especially 10: Added Coexistence as new area & Phase 3b
> pages 1, 6, 8: Added IF to phase 1
> page 5: Added cost note per report from James
> page 6: Clarified time sequencing notation
> page 12: GNSO Decision Point & Questions expanded
> 
> In particular, please note that Page 12 offers new draft text for your consideration, capturing Friday's discussion on meta issues that should be considered at each GNSO Council Decision Point.
> 
> At this juncture, EP-WG members are encouraged to raise any further changes to this framework that must be addressed now, before this draft is transmitted to the Board and GNSO Council. 
> 
> Please raise any suggested changes to this framework via email no later than March 30th. Charla will be sending out a Doodle poll for your next call to finalize those changes.
> 
> Once this draft is transmitted to the Board and GNSO Council, a new Draft Issue Report and public comment period will follow. Please note that EP-WG members will still have a chance to review any public comments on this draft framework and make any needed revisions before the Final Issue Report is published.
> 
> Best, 
> Lisa 
> 
> 
> 
>  	
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> <EWG PROCESS WG Mar 20 call notes.pdf><RDS-PDP-Process-Draft6-23Mar2015.pdf><Attached Message Part.txt>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150330/32220571/attachment.html>