From dave Mon Nov 2 05:45:07 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:45:07 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Soac-infoalert] Reminder: Call for Volunteers for the AoC Review Team on Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) Open Until 30 October 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <8d24c3708d54424b8b2ef736889627c5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <562385B0.3020508@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <3F386309-0515-4ADD-8756-0D7FAA53A3D9@difference.com.au> Do we know of anyone who has so far applied from NCSG? This is potentially a disaster if we don?t have anyone who has applied. > On 30 Oct 2015, at 2:41 pm, David Cake wrote: > > And we are already way behind schedule, as the due date is today. If anyone is interested in applying, do it now. If you know someone you think would be a good choice, encourage them to apply right now. > > We then have roughly month to decide who gets NCSG endorsement, and whoever that is will probably get endorsed as a GNSO candidate. > >> On 18 Oct 2015, at 7:42 pm, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >> All, >> This is an important one for us because the word "consumer" has two different meanings at ICANN. For the intellectual property community, "consumer" means those purchasing their goods and services from websites. For them, "consumer trust" is inextricably tied to the increased protection of trademarks and copyrights (as "identifiers" to consumers of their goods). >> >> We (NCSG) has often used the word "consumer" as those who purchase domain names -- namely Registrants. "Consumers" are the people who buy and sell the goods provided by Registries and Registrars. These consumers/registrants (us!) need fair policies for domain name registrations, transfers, revocations -- all policies for gTLDs created by and through ICANN. >> >> For better or worse, those representing these two types of "consumers" often clash. >> I think it is key that NCSG have a really good person on this Review Team. >> >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> : >>> hi everyone, >>> >>> as you are aware, that was raised at GNSO working session. >>> can we initiate the discussion on how we should proceed? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Charla Shambley > >>> Date: 2015-10-17 21:20 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Reminder: Call for Volunteers for the AoC Review Team on Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) Open Until 30 October 2015 >>> To: "soac-infoalert at icann.org " > >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> As part of its Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) requirements, ICANN is seeking volunteers to serve on the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT). Candidates are asked to submit their applications to reviews at icann.org by 30 October 2015, 23:59 UTC. >>> >>> >>> The CCT Review Team?s mandate under the AoC is to ?examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion.? >>> >>> >>> This call is intended for individuals interested in applying for a position of Volunteer Review Team Member, in representation of a Supporting Organization (S0) or Advisory Committee (AC), and/or as an Independent Expert. Please kindly note that we will be soliciting endorsements from the SO/ACs of the applicants that have expressed an interest in representing an SO/AC in November as part of the selection process. >>> >>> >>> Selection of the members of the Review Teams will be made jointly by the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and by the CEO of ICANN, as mandated by section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments. The names of the Review Team members will be publicly posted once the review team is constituted. >>> >>> >>> The key dates to keep in mind are: >>> >>> >>> Call for volunteers published - 1 October 2015 >>> >>> Deadline to apply for Review Team- 30 October 2015 >>> >>> Publication of Applicants- 2 November 2015 >>> >>> Deadline for SO/AC Endorsements- 30 November 2015 >>> >>> Review Team selected and announced- Early December 2015 >>> >>> 1st Review Team meeting- Early January 2016 >>> >>> Final report issued- estimated December 2016 >>> >>> >>> For more information on the CCT RT, we invite you to join us at our session on Wednesday morning at 10:45 in the Auditorium. Additional information is available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en . >>> >>> >>> Please feel free to email us at reviews at icann.org should you have any questions related to this call for volunteers or the CCT-RT. >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> >>> Margie >>> >>> >>> __________ >>> >>> >>> Margie Milam >>> >>> Senior Director- Strategic Initiatives >>> >>> ICANN >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> soac-infoalert mailing list >>> soac-infoalert at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Mon Nov 2 10:15:32 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:15:32 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Soac-infoalert] Reminder: Call for Volunteers for the AoC Review Team on Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) Open Until 30 October 2015 In-Reply-To: <3F386309-0515-4ADD-8756-0D7FAA53A3D9@difference.com.au> References: <8d24c3708d54424b8b2ef736889627c5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <562385B0.3020508@kathykleiman.com> <3F386309-0515-4ADD-8756-0D7FAA53A3D9@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <20151102081532.GE23518@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> As far as I know two people from NCSG have applied: Klaus Stoll and Remmy Nweke. Given the way applications are handled it is probably good to have multiple applications from NCSG. At least two others have expressed interest, Jo?o Carlos Caribe and Zuan Zhang (Peter Green), but I don't believe they have actually applied yet. The deadline was fortunately postponed by two weeks until November 13, so there's still time for others who might be willing and able to take this on. Tapani On Nov 02 11:45, David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) wrote: > Do we know of anyone who has so far applied from NCSG? This is potentially a disaster if we don?t have anyone who has applied. > > > > On 30 Oct 2015, at 2:41 pm, David Cake wrote: > > > > And we are already way behind schedule, as the due date is today. If anyone is interested in applying, do it now. If you know someone you think would be a good choice, encourage them to apply right now. > > > > We then have roughly month to decide who gets NCSG endorsement, and whoever that is will probably get endorsed as a GNSO candidate. > > > >> On 18 Oct 2015, at 7:42 pm, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> > >> All, > >> This is an important one for us because the word "consumer" has two different meanings at ICANN. For the intellectual property community, "consumer" means those purchasing their goods and services from websites. For them, "consumer trust" is inextricably tied to the increased protection of trademarks and copyrights (as "identifiers" to consumers of their goods). > >> > >> We (NCSG) has often used the word "consumer" as those who purchase domain names -- namely Registrants. "Consumers" are the people who buy and sell the goods provided by Registries and Registrars. These consumers/registrants (us!) need fair policies for domain name registrations, transfers, revocations -- all policies for gTLDs created by and through ICANN. > >> > >> For better or worse, those representing these two types of "consumers" often clash. > >> I think it is key that NCSG have a really good person on this Review Team. > >> > >> Best, > >> Kathy > >> > >> : > >>> hi everyone, > >>> > >>> as you are aware, that was raised at GNSO working session. > >>> can we initiate the discussion on how we should proceed? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: Charla Shambley > > >>> Date: 2015-10-17 21:20 GMT+09:00 > >>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Reminder: Call for Volunteers for the AoC Review Team on Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) Open Until 30 October 2015 > >>> To: "soac-infoalert at icann.org " > > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> > >>> As part of its Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) requirements, ICANN is seeking volunteers to serve on the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT). Candidates are asked to submit their applications to reviews at icann.org by 30 October 2015, 23:59 UTC. > >>> > >>> > >>> The CCT Review Team?s mandate under the AoC is to ?examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion.? > >>> > >>> > >>> This call is intended for individuals interested in applying for a position of Volunteer Review Team Member, in representation of a Supporting Organization (S0) or Advisory Committee (AC), and/or as an Independent Expert. Please kindly note that we will be soliciting endorsements from the SO/ACs of the applicants that have expressed an interest in representing an SO/AC in November as part of the selection process. > >>> > >>> > >>> Selection of the members of the Review Teams will be made jointly by the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and by the CEO of ICANN, as mandated by section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments. The names of the Review Team members will be publicly posted once the review team is constituted. > >>> > >>> > >>> The key dates to keep in mind are: > >>> > >>> > >>> Call for volunteers published - 1 October 2015 > >>> > >>> Deadline to apply for Review Team- 30 October 2015 > >>> > >>> Publication of Applicants- 2 November 2015 > >>> > >>> Deadline for SO/AC Endorsements- 30 November 2015 > >>> > >>> Review Team selected and announced- Early December 2015 > >>> > >>> 1st Review Team meeting- Early January 2016 > >>> > >>> Final report issued- estimated December 2016 > >>> > >>> > >>> For more information on the CCT RT, we invite you to join us at our session on Wednesday morning at 10:45 in the Auditorium. Additional information is available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en . > >>> > >>> > >>> Please feel free to email us at reviews at icann.org should you have any questions related to this call for volunteers or the CCT-RT. > >>> > >>> > >>> Sincerely, > >>> > >>> > >>> Margie > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ > >>> > >>> > >>> Margie Milam > >>> > >>> Senior Director- Strategic Initiatives > >>> > >>> ICANN > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> soac-infoalert mailing list > >>> soac-infoalert at icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert From joy Mon Nov 2 10:16:42 2015 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:16:42 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Soac-infoalert] Reminder: Call for Volunteers for the AoC Review Team on Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) Open Until 30 October 2015 In-Reply-To: <3F386309-0515-4ADD-8756-0D7FAA53A3D9@difference.com.au> References: <8d24c3708d54424b8b2ef736889627c5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <562385B0.3020508@kathykleiman.com> <3F386309-0515-4ADD-8756-0D7FAA53A3D9@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <010e01d11546$cebb2400$6c316c00$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Hi David ? I don?t know if anyone has applied. Would be great if it was one of our members from Africa or Latin America ? Joy From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Monday, 2 November 2015 4:45 p.m. To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Soac-infoalert] Reminder: Call for Volunteers for the AoC Review Team on Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) Open Until 30 October 2015 Do we know of anyone who has so far applied from NCSG? This is potentially a disaster if we don?t have anyone who has applied. On 30 Oct 2015, at 2:41 pm, David Cake wrote: And we are already way behind schedule, as the due date is today. If anyone is interested in applying, do it now. If you know someone you think would be a good choice, encourage them to apply right now. We then have roughly month to decide who gets NCSG endorsement, and whoever that is will probably get endorsed as a GNSO candidate. On 18 Oct 2015, at 7:42 pm, Kathy Kleiman wrote: All, This is an important one for us because the word "consumer" has two different meanings at ICANN. For the intellectual property community, "consumer" means those purchasing their goods and services from websites. For them, "consumer trust" is inextricably tied to the increased protection of trademarks and copyrights (as "identifiers" to consumers of their goods). We (NCSG) has often used the word "consumer" as those who purchase domain names -- namely Registrants. "Consumers" are the people who buy and sell the goods provided by Registries and Registrars. These consumers/registrants (us!) need fair policies for domain name registrations, transfers, revocations -- all policies for gTLDs created by and through ICANN. For better or worse, those representing these two types of "consumers" often clash. I think it is key that NCSG have a really good person on this Review Team. Best, Kathy : hi everyone, as you are aware, that was raised at GNSO working session. can we initiate the discussion on how we should proceed? Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Charla Shambley Date: 2015-10-17 21:20 GMT+09:00 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Reminder: Call for Volunteers for the AoC Review Team on Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) Open Until 30 October 2015 To: "soac-infoalert at icann.org" Dear All, As part of its Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) requirements, ICANN is seeking volunteers to serve on the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT). Candidates are asked to submit their applications to reviews at icann.org by 30 October 2015, 23:59 UTC. The CCT Review Team?s mandate under the AoC is to ?examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion.? This call is intended for individuals interested in applying for a position of Volunteer Review Team Member, in representation of a Supporting Organization (S0) or Advisory Committee (AC), and/or as an Independent Expert. Please kindly note that we will be soliciting endorsements from the SO/ACs of the applicants that have expressed an interest in representing an SO/AC in November as part of the selection process. Selection of the members of the Review Teams will be made jointly by the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and by the CEO of ICANN, as mandated by section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments. The names of the Review Team members will be publicly posted once the review team is constituted. The key dates to keep in mind are: Call for volunteers published - 1 October 2015 Deadline to apply for Review Team- 30 October 2015 Publication of Applicants- 2 November 2015 Deadline for SO/AC Endorsements- 30 November 2015 Review Team selected and announced- Early December 2015 1st Review Team meeting- Early January 2016 Final report issued- estimated December 2016 For more information on the CCT RT, we invite you to join us at our session on Wednesday morning at 10:45 in the Auditorium. Additional information is available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en. Please feel free to email us at reviews at icann.org should you have any questions related to this call for volunteers or the CCT-RT. Sincerely, Margie __________ Margie Milam Senior Director- Strategic Initiatives ICANN _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Mon Nov 2 10:57:23 2015 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:57:23 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Follow-up on Council Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017001d1154c$7d620a50$78261ef0$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Like-wise from the gallery ? thanks for this work Joy From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Friday, 23 October 2015 8:24 p.m. To: Amr Elsadr Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Follow-up on Council Chair Elections +1 to this approach from the peanut gallery Bill On Oct 23, 2015, at 12:48 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: 3. Members of the NCSG PC present at today?s meeting agreed to only support David Cake continuing as an interim council VC pending a resolution to the council leadership void we are dealing with. Part of the motivation of doing this is to provide incentive to the CSG not to continue to block a council chair being elected. Another is the rationale that since we have failed to elect a new council chair (also impacting the NCPH?s ability to select a new VC), it would make sense to continue with the previously selected NCPH VC until a more permanent change in leadership is achieved. As we had a majority of our councillors present, as well as at least one representative from each constituency, I will consider this a consensus decision of the NCSG PC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Mon Nov 2 12:10:57 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:10:57 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Soac-infoalert] Reminder: Call for Volunteers for the AoC Review Team on Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) Open Until 30 October 2015 In-Reply-To: <20151102081532.GE23518@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <8d24c3708d54424b8b2ef736889627c5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <562385B0.3020508@kathykleiman.com> <3F386309-0515-4ADD-8756-0D7FAA53A3D9@difference.com.au> <20151102081532.GE23518@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <98391348-485B-4FB1-AE3E-6F31DC835828@difference.com.au> Great. I gather we were not the only group that was late organising members to apply. I would encourage other members to apply. We may be able to have more than one GNSO endorsed representative, it is certainly possible (though unlikely going on past rounds), but it is also possible for members with significant expertise. It is particularly worth members from outside North America applying, as there are geographical diversity requirements that other stakeholder groups are not always good at taking into account. David > On 2 Nov 2015, at 4:15 pm, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > As far as I know two people from NCSG have applied: Klaus Stoll and > Remmy Nweke. > > Given the way applications are handled it is probably good to > have multiple applications from NCSG. > > At least two others have expressed interest, Jo?o Carlos Caribe and > Zuan Zhang (Peter Green), but I don't believe they have actually > applied yet. > > The deadline was fortunately postponed by two weeks until November 13, > so there's still time for others who might be willing and able to take > this on. > > Tapani > > > On Nov 02 11:45, David Cake (dave at difference.com.au ) wrote: > >> Do we know of anyone who has so far applied from NCSG? This is potentially a disaster if we don?t have anyone who has applied. >> >> >>> On 30 Oct 2015, at 2:41 pm, David Cake wrote: >>> >>> And we are already way behind schedule, as the due date is today. If anyone is interested in applying, do it now. If you know someone you think would be a good choice, encourage them to apply right now. >>> >>> We then have roughly month to decide who gets NCSG endorsement, and whoever that is will probably get endorsed as a GNSO candidate. >>> >>>> On 18 Oct 2015, at 7:42 pm, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>> >>>> All, >>>> This is an important one for us because the word "consumer" has two different meanings at ICANN. For the intellectual property community, "consumer" means those purchasing their goods and services from websites. For them, "consumer trust" is inextricably tied to the increased protection of trademarks and copyrights (as "identifiers" to consumers of their goods). >>>> >>>> We (NCSG) has often used the word "consumer" as those who purchase domain names -- namely Registrants. "Consumers" are the people who buy and sell the goods provided by Registries and Registrars. These consumers/registrants (us!) need fair policies for domain name registrations, transfers, revocations -- all policies for gTLDs created by and through ICANN. >>>> >>>> For better or worse, those representing these two types of "consumers" often clash. >>>> I think it is key that NCSG have a really good person on this Review Team. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Kathy >>>> >>>> : >>>>> hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> as you are aware, that was raised at GNSO working session. >>>>> can we initiate the discussion on how we should proceed? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Charla Shambley >> >>>>> Date: 2015-10-17 21:20 GMT+09:00 >>>>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Reminder: Call for Volunteers for the AoC Review Team on Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) Open Until 30 October 2015 >>>>> To: "soac-infoalert at icann.org >" >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As part of its Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) requirements, ICANN is seeking volunteers to serve on the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT). Candidates are asked to submit their applications to reviews at icann.org > by 30 October 2015, 23:59 UTC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The CCT Review Team?s mandate under the AoC is to ?examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This call is intended for individuals interested in applying for a position of Volunteer Review Team Member, in representation of a Supporting Organization (S0) or Advisory Committee (AC), and/or as an Independent Expert. Please kindly note that we will be soliciting endorsements from the SO/ACs of the applicants that have expressed an interest in representing an SO/AC in November as part of the selection process. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Selection of the members of the Review Teams will be made jointly by the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and by the CEO of ICANN, as mandated by section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments. The names of the Review Team members will be publicly posted once the review team is constituted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The key dates to keep in mind are: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Call for volunteers published - 1 October 2015 >>>>> >>>>> Deadline to apply for Review Team- 30 October 2015 >>>>> >>>>> Publication of Applicants- 2 November 2015 >>>>> >>>>> Deadline for SO/AC Endorsements- 30 November 2015 >>>>> >>>>> Review Team selected and announced- Early December 2015 >>>>> >>>>> 1st Review Team meeting- Early January 2016 >>>>> >>>>> Final report issued- estimated December 2016 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For more information on the CCT RT, we invite you to join us at our session > on Wednesday morning at 10:45 in the Auditorium. Additional information is available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en >. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please feel free to email us at >reviews at icann.org > should you have any questions related to this call for volunteers or the CCT-RT. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Margie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Margie Milam >>>>> >>>>> Senior Director- Strategic Initiatives >>>>> >>>>> ICANN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> soac-infoalert mailing list >>>>> soac-infoalert at icann.org > >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From aelsadr Mon Nov 2 17:16:56 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:16:56 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take Message-ID: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> Hi all, The NCPH Leadership list should be up and running by now, and I wanted to follow up on the NCSG position regarding the upcoming council chair and VC elections. We only have until November 5th to propose a NCPH candidate for the chair elections. There has been no formal discussion with the CSG?s leadership yet, but there has been an indication that Heather may possibly seek to be selected by the NCPH as a council VC instead of chair. I was hoping to gauge the thoughts of others here on Heather as a council VC, and whether or not we would like to (along with the CSG) propose a candidate for the chair elections. Again?, we do not have confirmation from the CPH as to who they will be nominating as a candidate for the council chair job. However, in Dublin, I was told that they would stick with James Bladel. I will try to confirm this. Thanks again to everyone for being helpful in this process. Amr From aelsadr Mon Nov 2 19:13:30 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 19:13:30 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi again, I just got confirmation from the registrars and registries that they plan on running James again. During the council development session, there was a suggestion to try to achieve consensus for the council chair before resorting to voting against two candidates. I would still like to hear thoughts from others on this list, but believe it may be a good idea to also begin a parallel discussion on the NCPH list. Would really like to know what folks here are thinking. Thanks again. Amr > On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi all, > > The NCPH Leadership list should be up and running by now, and I wanted to follow up on the NCSG position regarding the upcoming council chair and VC elections. We only have until November 5th to propose a NCPH candidate for the chair elections. There has been no formal discussion with the CSG?s leadership yet, but there has been an indication that Heather may possibly seek to be selected by the NCPH as a council VC instead of chair. > > I was hoping to gauge the thoughts of others here on Heather as a council VC, and whether or not we would like to (along with the CSG) propose a candidate for the chair elections. > > Again?, we do not have confirmation from the CPH as to who they will be nominating as a candidate for the council chair job. However, in Dublin, I was told that they would stick with James Bladel. I will try to confirm this. > > Thanks again to everyone for being helpful in this process. > > Amr > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From Stefania.Milan Mon Nov 2 19:17:53 2015 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:17:53 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org>, Message-ID: Thanks Amr for starting the discussion. Time is indeed tight. Do we have any clue as to what the house more in general wants to do? everyone silent? I remain in favor of James but...that said, I have no clue as to the alternatives. In your experience, who is supposed to do the next move within our House? Thanks, Stefania ________________________________________ Da: PC-NCSG per conto di Amr Elsadr Inviato: luned? 2 novembre 2015 18.13 A: Amr Elsadr Cc: NCSG-Policy Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take Hi again, I just got confirmation from the registrars and registries that they plan on running James again. During the council development session, there was a suggestion to try to achieve consensus for the council chair before resorting to voting against two candidates. I would still like to hear thoughts from others on this list, but believe it may be a good idea to also begin a parallel discussion on the NCPH list. Would really like to know what folks here are thinking. Thanks again. Amr > On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi all, > > The NCPH Leadership list should be up and running by now, and I wanted to follow up on the NCSG position regarding the upcoming council chair and VC elections. We only have until November 5th to propose a NCPH candidate for the chair elections. There has been no formal discussion with the CSG?s leadership yet, but there has been an indication that Heather may possibly seek to be selected by the NCPH as a council VC instead of chair. > > I was hoping to gauge the thoughts of others here on Heather as a council VC, and whether or not we would like to (along with the CSG) propose a candidate for the chair elections. > > Again?, we do not have confirmation from the CPH as to who they will be nominating as a candidate for the council chair job. However, in Dublin, I was told that they would stick with James Bladel. I will try to confirm this. > > Thanks again to everyone for being helpful in this process. > > Amr > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From aelsadr Mon Nov 2 19:30:57 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 19:30:57 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi, I just sent an email to the NCPH list. I hope we can have a discussion there as well as here. > On Nov 2, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote: [SNIP] > Do we have any clue as to what the house more in general wants to do? everyone silent? Not sure about the house position on a chair, but my understanding is that they would like Heather to serve as vice chair. > I remain in favor of James but...that said, I have no clue as to the alternatives. Same here. > In your experience, who is supposed to do the next move within our House? I preemptively made the ?next move?. I hope I get some sort of response. If any of our PC members are not receiving emails from the NCPH list, please let me know. Thanks. Amr From dave Mon Nov 2 20:05:31 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 02:05:31 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> Message-ID: If the CPH run James, and the CSG are already talking Heather for Vice-Chair, then it sounds as if they may not be planning to run a candidate against James. If that is the case, we should support Heather if they run her. I think she?ll be a fine Vice-chair. We?ve had VC for two years, its their turn as agreed. We?ve been gradually moving towards a more consultative, if not quite consensus, process on vice-chair, and I think we?ve more or less been through that for chair. While I do not think we should simply endorse whoever the CSG VC candidate is, if its Heather I think it would be reasonable (and a gesture of goodwill) to simply endorse her based on prior endorsement of her as chair candidate? Or would anyone like to go through an interview process again? ff it is someone else, then we do the discussion again, and it could get awkward - there are some choices I would support (e.g. I think many of those who have served with him on council would have no problem with Wolf-Ulrich again, not that I think he is likely to run), some I would not. David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Mon Nov 2 20:09:20 2015 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:09:20 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A35A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> David?s advice is reasonable and has my full support. wolfgang -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: PC-NCSG im Auftrag von David Cake Gesendet: Mo 02.11.2015 19:05 An: Amr Elsadr Cc: NCSG-Policy Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take If the CPH run James, and the CSG are already talking Heather for Vice-Chair, then it sounds as if they may not be planning to run a candidate against James. If that is the case, we should support Heather if they run her. I think she'll be a fine Vice-chair. We've had VC for two years, its their turn as agreed. We've been gradually moving towards a more consultative, if not quite consensus, process on vice-chair, and I think we've more or less been through that for chair. While I do not think we should simply endorse whoever the CSG VC candidate is, if its Heather I think it would be reasonable (and a gesture of goodwill) to simply endorse her based on prior endorsement of her as chair candidate? Or would anyone like to go through an interview process again? ff it is someone else, then we do the discussion again, and it could get awkward - there are some choices I would support (e.g. I think many of those who have served with him on council would have no problem with Wolf-Ulrich again, not that I think he is likely to run), some I would not. David From kathy Tue Nov 3 06:24:10 2015 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 23:24:10 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <563836EA.8080809@kathykleiman.com> I like the idea that David Cake floated earlier today - James B. for Chair and Heather for Vice-Chair, NCPH. I think David's words of explanation were nice and could be shared with CSG. It seems good to let them know we are trying to be fair and let the Vice-Chair position rotate back and forth between the NCPH sectors. Best, Kathy On 11/2/2015 12:13 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi again, > > I just got confirmation from the registrars and registries that they plan on running James again. During the council development session, there was a suggestion to try to achieve consensus for the council chair before resorting to voting against two candidates. > > I would still like to hear thoughts from others on this list, but believe it may be a good idea to also begin a parallel discussion on the NCPH list. > > Would really like to know what folks here are thinking. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > >> On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> The NCPH Leadership list should be up and running by now, and I wanted to follow up on the NCSG position regarding the upcoming council chair and VC elections. We only have until November 5th to propose a NCPH candidate for the chair elections. There has been no formal discussion with the CSG?s leadership yet, but there has been an indication that Heather may possibly seek to be selected by the NCPH as a council VC instead of chair. >> >> I was hoping to gauge the thoughts of others here on Heather as a council VC, and whether or not we would like to (along with the CSG) propose a candidate for the chair elections. >> >> Again?, we do not have confirmation from the CPH as to who they will be nominating as a candidate for the council chair job. However, in Dublin, I was told that they would stick with James Bladel. I will try to confirm this. >> >> Thanks again to everyone for being helpful in this process. >> >> Amr >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wjdrake Tue Nov 3 11:05:15 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:05:15 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> Message-ID: > On Nov 2, 2015, at 7:05 PM, David Cake wrote: > > If the CPH run James, and the CSG are already talking Heather for Vice-Chair, then it sounds as if they may not be planning to run a candidate against James. > If that is the case, we should support Heather if they run her. I think she?ll be a fine Vice-chair. We?ve had VC for two years, its their turn as agreed. This sounds like a reasonable solution to me. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Tue Nov 3 11:24:12 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:24:12 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <20151103092412.GC3814@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> On Nov 03 10:05, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2015, at 7:05 PM, David Cake wrote: > > > > If the CPH run James, and the CSG are already talking Heather for Vice-Chair, then it sounds as if they may not be planning to run a candidate against James. > > If that is the case, we should support Heather if they run her. I think she?ll be a fine Vice-chair. We?ve had VC for two years, its their turn as agreed. > > This sounds like a reasonable solution to me. Agreed. -- Tapani Tarvainen From aelsadr Tue Nov 3 16:58:58 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 16:58:58 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> Yeah?, me too. Thanks for this, David, and thanks to everyone else who?s weighed in. Would be great to hear from some of our other PC members, especially councillors. Thanks again to all. Amr > On Nov 3, 2015, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: > > >> On Nov 2, 2015, at 7:05 PM, David Cake wrote: >> >> If the CPH run James, and the CSG are already talking Heather for Vice-Chair, then it sounds as if they may not be planning to run a candidate against James. >> If that is the case, we should support Heather if they run her. I think she?ll be a fine Vice-chair. We?ve had VC for two years, its their turn as agreed. > > This sounds like a reasonable solution to me. > > Bill From Stefania.Milan Tue Nov 3 19:02:19 2015 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:02:19 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> , <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> Message-ID: I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", provided we are interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the moves) of the other parts of our house. St. ________________________________________ Da: PC-NCSG per conto di Amr Elsadr Inviato: marted? 3 novembre 2015 15.58 A: William Drake Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take Yeah?, me too. Thanks for this, David, and thanks to everyone else who?s weighed in. Would be great to hear from some of our other PC members, especially councillors. Thanks again to all. Amr > On Nov 3, 2015, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: > > >> On Nov 2, 2015, at 7:05 PM, David Cake wrote: >> >> If the CPH run James, and the CSG are already talking Heather for Vice-Chair, then it sounds as if they may not be planning to run a candidate against James. >> If that is the case, we should support Heather if they run her. I think she?ll be a fine Vice-chair. We?ve had VC for two years, its their turn as agreed. > > This sounds like a reasonable solution to me. > > Bill _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From aelsadr Tue Nov 3 19:19:07 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:19:07 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi, > On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote: > > I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", provided we are interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the moves) of the other parts of our house. Yes. I hope we aren?t misinterpreting their intent. So far, apart from a private email from Tony Holmes, they?ve been quiet. Not sure why. Waiting for some kind of activity on the NCPH list. Thanks. Amr From lanfran Wed Nov 4 08:29:27 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:29:27 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> All, I too am pretty much in agreement here but am also waiting for a bit of clarity so I am sure that we agree about what we are agreeing to. Sam L On 2015-11-03 9:19 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > >> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote: >> >> I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", provided we are interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the moves) of the other parts of our house. > Yes. I hope we aren?t misinterpreting their intent. So far, apart from a private email from Tony Holmes, they?ve been quiet. Not sure why. Waiting for some kind of activity on the NCPH list. > > 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 YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 From dave Wed Nov 4 10:35:57 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:35:57 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> Message-ID: I think we all want that Sam, but I think its only the CSG who can provide it at this point. Cheers David > On 4 Nov 2015, at 2:29 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > All, > > I too am pretty much in agreement here but am also waiting for a bit of clarity so I am sure that we agree about what we are agreeing to. > > Sam L > > On 2015-11-03 9:19 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote: >>> >>> I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", provided we are interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the moves) of the other parts of our house. >> Yes. I hope we aren?t misinterpreting their intent. So far, apart from a private email from Tony Holmes, they?ve been quiet. Not sure why. Waiting for some kind of activity on the NCPH list. >> >> 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 > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From aelsadr Thu Nov 5 14:33:16 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 14:33:16 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi again, Thanks for the thoughts that have been expressed so far. You should all be subscribed to the NCPH Leadership list, so you should have seen Greg?s response to my email. If you?re not getting emails from the NCPH list, please let me know. Anyway?, it looks like the CSG thoughts on Heather VCing the council are consistent with what has been discussed on this list. If there are no objections, I will communicate this to the CSG. Anyone else should feel free to speak up on the NCPH list as well. It?s obviously desirable that we have a coordinated consensus position on this issue, but the NCPH list is to facilitate discussion among the two non-contracted SGs, so please, use it. The other point Greg made was electing James by acclamation. We haven?t really discussed whether or not our councillors would like to support James in a new round of council chair elections. Personally, I am glad he is still willing to run, and plan on supporting him. It?d be helpful to know whether or not, we can get him elected by acclamation, or if we would need to vote. We probably will anyway. I?m not sure there is a procedure that allows for no vote to take place, but I guess we?ll see. It has also been recently pointed out to me that another call with James may be helpful for those who still have questions for him. Would folks here like to have another interview set up with him, or with Heather for that matter? Let me know. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Cake wrote: > > I think we all want that Sam, but I think its only the CSG who can provide it at this point. > > Cheers > > David > >> On 4 Nov 2015, at 2:29 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> All, >> >> I too am pretty much in agreement here but am also waiting for a bit of clarity so I am sure that we agree about what we are agreeing to. >> >> Sam L >> >> On 2015-11-03 9:19 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote: >>>> >>>> I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", provided we are interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the moves) of the other parts of our house. >>> Yes. I hope we aren?t misinterpreting their intent. So far, apart from a private email from Tony Holmes, they?ve been quiet. Not sure why. Waiting for some kind of activity on the NCPH list. >>> >>> 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 >> 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 From lanfran Thu Nov 5 18:54:30 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:54:30 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <563B89C6.3020204@yorku.ca> I have no objections here, and will support this. Sam L. /On 05/11/2015 7:33 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:// Anyway?, it looks like the CSG thoughts on Heather VCing the council are consistent with what has been discussed on this list. If there are no objections, I will communicate this to the CSG. / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan Fri Nov 6 01:24:17 2015 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:24:17 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> , Message-ID: HI there, thank Amr and David for the analysis and efforts. I have planning to support (and vote for) James. But why by acclamation? to show that the Council can get its act together? As for me, no specific need for a interview with either James and Heather. On an unrelated but related issue, I need your advice. I am scheduled to appear in an ICANN-sponsored panel at the Council of Europe on November 19, same time as the council call, which means I would miss the first part of the call. I am trying to bail out, and waiting to hear from Adam/JJ (the organizers). What do you think? It feels weird to miss part of my first call ever... especially with the chair election. best, st. ________________________________________ Da: PC-NCSG per conto di Amr Elsadr Inviato: gioved? 5 novembre 2015 13.33 A: David Cake Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take Hi again, Thanks for the thoughts that have been expressed so far. You should all be subscribed to the NCPH Leadership list, so you should have seen Greg?s response to my email. If you?re not getting emails from the NCPH list, please let me know. Anyway?, it looks like the CSG thoughts on Heather VCing the council are consistent with what has been discussed on this list. If there are no objections, I will communicate this to the CSG. Anyone else should feel free to speak up on the NCPH list as well. It?s obviously desirable that we have a coordinated consensus position on this issue, but the NCPH list is to facilitate discussion among the two non-contracted SGs, so please, use it. The other point Greg made was electing James by acclamation. We haven?t really discussed whether or not our councillors would like to support James in a new round of council chair elections. Personally, I am glad he is still willing to run, and plan on supporting him. It?d be helpful to know whether or not, we can get him elected by acclamation, or if we would need to vote. We probably will anyway. I?m not sure there is a procedure that allows for no vote to take place, but I guess we?ll see. It has also been recently pointed out to me that another call with James may be helpful for those who still have questions for him. Would folks here like to have another interview set up with him, or with Heather for that matter? Let me know. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Cake wrote: > > I think we all want that Sam, but I think its only the CSG who can provide it at this point. > > Cheers > > David > >> On 4 Nov 2015, at 2:29 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> All, >> >> I too am pretty much in agreement here but am also waiting for a bit of clarity so I am sure that we agree about what we are agreeing to. >> >> Sam L >> >> On 2015-11-03 9:19 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote: >>>> >>>> I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", provided we are interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the moves) of the other parts of our house. >>> Yes. I hope we aren?t misinterpreting their intent. So far, apart from a private email from Tony Holmes, they?ve been quiet. Not sure why. Waiting for some kind of activity on the NCPH list. >>> >>> 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 >> YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco >> blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From mariliamaciel Fri Nov 6 02:00:12 2015 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:00:12 -0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hello all, i am sorry for not having been more active on this, but completely taken by IGF follie. I support this approach too, although i would prefer the traditional voting instead of acclamation, and i see no need for a second call with neither candidate. See some of you soon! Marilia Em 05/11/2015 21:24, "Milan, Stefania" escreveu: > HI there, thank Amr and David for the analysis and efforts. > I have planning to support (and vote for) James. > > But why by acclamation? to show that the Council can get its act together? > > As for me, no specific need for a interview with either James and Heather. > > On an unrelated but related issue, I need your advice. I am scheduled to > appear in an ICANN-sponsored panel at the Council of Europe on November 19, > same time as the council call, which means I would miss the first part of > the call. I am trying to bail out, and waiting to hear from Adam/JJ (the > organizers). What do you think? It feels weird to miss part of my first > call ever... especially with the chair election. > > best, st. > > > > ________________________________________ > Da: PC-NCSG per conto di Amr Elsadr < > aelsadr at egyptig.org> > Inviato: gioved? 5 novembre 2015 13.33 > A: David Cake > Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy > Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take > > Hi again, > > Thanks for the thoughts that have been expressed so far. You should all be > subscribed to the NCPH Leadership list, so you should have seen Greg?s > response to my email. If you?re not getting emails from the NCPH list, > please let me know. > > Anyway?, it looks like the CSG thoughts on Heather VCing the council are > consistent with what has been discussed on this list. If there are no > objections, I will communicate this to the CSG. > > Anyone else should feel free to speak up on the NCPH list as well. It?s > obviously desirable that we have a coordinated consensus position on this > issue, but the NCPH list is to facilitate discussion among the two > non-contracted SGs, so please, use it. > > The other point Greg made was electing James by acclamation. We haven?t > really discussed whether or not our councillors would like to support James > in a new round of council chair elections. Personally, I am glad he is > still willing to run, and plan on supporting him. It?d be helpful to know > whether or not, we can get him elected by acclamation, or if we would need > to vote. We probably will anyway. I?m not sure there is a procedure that > allows for no vote to take place, but I guess we?ll see. > > It has also been recently pointed out to me that another call with James > may be helpful for those who still have questions for him. Would folks here > like to have another interview set up with him, or with Heather for that > matter? > > Let me know. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Cake wrote: > > > > I think we all want that Sam, but I think its only the CSG who can > provide it at this point. > > > > Cheers > > > > David > > > >> On 4 Nov 2015, at 2:29 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > >> > >> All, > >> > >> I too am pretty much in agreement here but am also waiting for a bit of > clarity so I am sure that we agree about what we are agreeing to. > >> > >> Sam L > >> > >> On 2015-11-03 9:19 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Milan, Stefania > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", provided we are > interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the moves) of the other parts of > our house. > >>> Yes. I hope we aren?t misinterpreting their intent. So far, apart from > a private email from Tony Holmes, they?ve been quiet. Not sure why. Waiting > for some kind of activity on the NCPH list. > >>> > >>> 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 > >> YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco > >> blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > >> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, > forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is > prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received > this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the > material from any computer. > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Nov 6 06:09:07 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:09:07 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <563C27E3.3000905@mail.utoronto.ca> I too agree on the proposed approach. Although not Greg's slogan....:-) Steph P On 2015-11-05 19:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hello all, i am sorry for not having been more active on this, but > completely taken by IGF follie. I support this approach too, although > i would prefer the traditional voting instead of acclamation, and i > see no need for a second call with neither candidate. > See some of you soon! > Marilia > > Em 05/11/2015 21:24, "Milan, Stefania" > escreveu: > > HI there, thank Amr and David for the analysis and efforts. > I have planning to support (and vote for) James. > > But why by acclamation? to show that the Council can get its act > together? > > As for me, no specific need for a interview with either James and > Heather. > > On an unrelated but related issue, I need your advice. I am > scheduled to appear in an ICANN-sponsored panel at the Council of > Europe on November 19, same time as the council call, which means > I would miss the first part of the call. I am trying to bail out, > and waiting to hear from Adam/JJ (the organizers). What do you > think? It feels weird to miss part of my first call ever... > especially with the chair election. > > best, st. > > > > ________________________________________ > Da: PC-NCSG > per conto di Amr Elsadr > > > Inviato: gioved? 5 novembre 2015 13.33 > A: David Cake > Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy > Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - > Second Take > > Hi again, > > Thanks for the thoughts that have been expressed so far. You > should all be subscribed to the NCPH Leadership list, so you > should have seen Greg?s response to my email. If you?re not > getting emails from the NCPH list, please let me know. > > Anyway?, it looks like the CSG thoughts on Heather VCing the > council are consistent with what has been discussed on this list. > If there are no objections, I will communicate this to the CSG. > > Anyone else should feel free to speak up on the NCPH list as well. > It?s obviously desirable that we have a coordinated consensus > position on this issue, but the NCPH list is to facilitate > discussion among the two non-contracted SGs, so please, use it. > > The other point Greg made was electing James by acclamation. We > haven?t really discussed whether or not our councillors would like > to support James in a new round of council chair elections. > Personally, I am glad he is still willing to run, and plan on > supporting him. It?d be helpful to know whether or not, we can get > him elected by acclamation, or if we would need to vote. We > probably will anyway. I?m not sure there is a procedure that > allows for no vote to take place, but I guess we?ll see. > > It has also been recently pointed out to me that another call with > James may be helpful for those who still have questions for him. > Would folks here like to have another interview set up with him, > or with Heather for that matter? > > Let me know. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Cake > wrote: > > > > I think we all want that Sam, but I think its only the CSG who > can provide it at this point. > > > > Cheers > > > > David > > > >> On 4 Nov 2015, at 2:29 pm, Sam Lanfranco > wrote: > >> > >> All, > >> > >> I too am pretty much in agreement here but am also waiting for > a bit of clarity so I am sure that we agree about what we are > agreeing to. > >> > >> Sam L > >> > >> On 2015-11-03 9:19 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Milan, Stefania > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", > provided we are interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the > moves) of the other parts of our house. > >>> Yes. I hope we aren?t misinterpreting their intent. So far, > apart from a private email from Tony Holmes, they?ve been quiet. > Not sure why. Waiting for some kind of activity on the NCPH list. > >>> > >>> 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 > >> YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco > >> blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > >> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 > > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or > entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential > and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited > without the express permission of the sender. If you received this > communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the > material from any computer. > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Fri Nov 6 10:38:08 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:38:08 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: <563C27E3.3000905@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> <563C27E3.3000905@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <24C5AF87-BFFE-4F90-80F2-AF471A4E01CB@egyptig.org> Hahaha. Yeah?, although I?m all for the intent of the slogan, I?m not too crazy about it either. :) Thanks to everyone for the responses provided so far. I will communicate to Greg that: 1. We agree to Heather VCing the GNSO Council. 2. We support the renomination of James as the Council Chair. Not sure that acclamation will work from a procedural perspective. The GNSO OP seem pretty straight forward on this; that a chair needs to be elected with 60% of votes from each house. I will bring it up. 3. After discussion, the NCSG agrees to the content of the short statement Greg has circulated. I will ask him to make Tapani the NCSG signatory, but would appreciate hearing from Tapani on this. Is he on a plane headed to Brazil right now? Thanks again to everyone for engaging on this on short notice. Amr > On Nov 6, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I too agree on the proposed approach. Although not Greg's slogan.... :-) > Steph P > > On 2015-11-05 19:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Hello all, i am sorry for not having been more active on this, but completely taken by IGF follie. I support this approach too, although i would prefer the traditional voting instead of acclamation, and i see no need for a second call with neither candidate. >> See some of you soon! >> Marilia >> >> Em 05/11/2015 21:24, "Milan, Stefania" escreveu: >> HI there, thank Amr and David for the analysis and efforts. >> I have planning to support (and vote for) James. >> >> But why by acclamation? to show that the Council can get its act together? >> >> As for me, no specific need for a interview with either James and Heather. >> >> On an unrelated but related issue, I need your advice. I am scheduled to appear in an ICANN-sponsored panel at the Council of Europe on November 19, same time as the council call, which means I would miss the first part of the call. I am trying to bail out, and waiting to hear from Adam/JJ (the organizers). What do you think? It feels weird to miss part of my first call ever... especially with the chair election. >> >> best, st. >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> Da: PC-NCSG per conto di Amr Elsadr >> Inviato: gioved? 5 novembre 2015 13.33 >> A: David Cake >> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy >> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take >> >> Hi again, >> >> Thanks for the thoughts that have been expressed so far. You should all be subscribed to the NCPH Leadership list, so you should have seen Greg?s response to my email. If you?re not getting emails from the NCPH list, please let me know. >> >> Anyway?, it looks like the CSG thoughts on Heather VCing the council are consistent with what has been discussed on this list. If there are no objections, I will communicate this to the CSG. >> >> Anyone else should feel free to speak up on the NCPH list as well. It?s obviously desirable that we have a coordinated consensus position on this issue, but the NCPH list is to facilitate discussion among the two non-contracted SGs, so please, use it. >> >> The other point Greg made was electing James by acclamation. We haven?t really discussed whether or not our councillors would like to support James in a new round of council chair elections. Personally, I am glad he is still willing to run, and plan on supporting him. It?d be helpful to know whether or not, we can get him elected by acclamation, or if we would need to vote. We probably will anyway. I?m not sure there is a procedure that allows for no vote to take place, but I guess we?ll see. >> >> It has also been recently pointed out to me that another call with James may be helpful for those who still have questions for him. Would folks here like to have another interview set up with him, or with Heather for that matter? >> >> Let me know. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Cake wrote: >> > >> > I think we all want that Sam, but I think its only the CSG who can provide it at this point. >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > David >> > >> >> On 4 Nov 2015, at 2:29 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> I too am pretty much in agreement here but am also waiting for a bit of clarity so I am sure that we agree about what we are agreeing to. >> >> >> >> Sam L >> >> >> >> On 2015-11-03 9:19 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", provided we are interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the moves) of the other parts of our house. >> >>> Yes. I hope we aren?t misinterpreting their intent. So far, apart from a private email from Tony Holmes, they?ve been quiet. Not sure why. Waiting for some kind of activity on the NCPH list. >> >>> >> >>> 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 >> >> YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco >> >> blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >> >> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Fri Nov 6 10:41:08 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:41:08 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <75A6144C-293C-46A0-8687-79010ABA450D@egyptig.org> Hi Stefania, > On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:24 AM, Milan, Stefania wrote: > [SNIP] > On an unrelated but related issue, I need your advice. I am scheduled to appear in an ICANN-sponsored panel at the Council of Europe on November 19, same time as the council call, which means I would miss the first part of the call. I am trying to bail out, and waiting to hear from Adam/JJ (the organizers). What do you think? It feels weird to miss part of my first call ever... especially with the chair election. I wouldn?t bail if I were you. These sessions with JJ and Adam could be very useful. You could end up recruiting some very helpful CS friendlies, so who knows? Just make sure that you give your proxy to someone. You need to coordinate this with Tapani. And don?t worry. I suspect that there will be more council calls for you to attend in the future. :) Thanks. Amr From mshears Fri Nov 6 10:46:53 2015 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 08:46:53 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <563C68FD.7070409@cdt.org> Hi - I am comfortable with the proposed candidates. On 06/11/2015 00:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hello all, i am sorry for not having been more active on this, but > completely taken by IGF follie. I support this approach too, although > i would prefer the traditional voting instead of acclamation, and i > see no need for a second call with neither candidate. > See some of you soon! > Marilia > > Em 05/11/2015 21:24, "Milan, Stefania" > escreveu: > > HI there, thank Amr and David for the analysis and efforts. > I have planning to support (and vote for) James. > > But why by acclamation? to show that the Council can get its act > together? > > As for me, no specific need for a interview with either James and > Heather. > > On an unrelated but related issue, I need your advice. I am > scheduled to appear in an ICANN-sponsored panel at the Council of > Europe on November 19, same time as the council call, which means > I would miss the first part of the call. I am trying to bail out, > and waiting to hear from Adam/JJ (the organizers). What do you > think? It feels weird to miss part of my first call ever... > especially with the chair election. > > best, st. > > > > ________________________________________ > Da: PC-NCSG > per conto di Amr Elsadr > > > Inviato: gioved? 5 novembre 2015 13.33 > A: David Cake > Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy > Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - > Second Take > > Hi again, > > Thanks for the thoughts that have been expressed so far. You > should all be subscribed to the NCPH Leadership list, so you > should have seen Greg?s response to my email. If you?re not > getting emails from the NCPH list, please let me know. > > Anyway?, it looks like the CSG thoughts on Heather VCing the > council are consistent with what has been discussed on this list. > If there are no objections, I will communicate this to the CSG. > > Anyone else should feel free to speak up on the NCPH list as well. > It?s obviously desirable that we have a coordinated consensus > position on this issue, but the NCPH list is to facilitate > discussion among the two non-contracted SGs, so please, use it. > > The other point Greg made was electing James by acclamation. We > haven?t really discussed whether or not our councillors would like > to support James in a new round of council chair elections. > Personally, I am glad he is still willing to run, and plan on > supporting him. It?d be helpful to know whether or not, we can get > him elected by acclamation, or if we would need to vote. We > probably will anyway. I?m not sure there is a procedure that > allows for no vote to take place, but I guess we?ll see. > > It has also been recently pointed out to me that another call with > James may be helpful for those who still have questions for him. > Would folks here like to have another interview set up with him, > or with Heather for that matter? > > Let me know. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:35 AM, David Cake > wrote: > > > > I think we all want that Sam, but I think its only the CSG who > can provide it at this point. > > > > Cheers > > > > David > > > >> On 4 Nov 2015, at 2:29 pm, Sam Lanfranco > wrote: > >> > >> All, > >> > >> I too am pretty much in agreement here but am also waiting for > a bit of clarity so I am sure that we agree about what we are > agreeing to. > >> > >> Sam L > >> > >> On 2015-11-03 9:19 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Milan, Stefania > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I, too, agree with the proposed "consensus solution", > provided we are interpreting correctly the thoughts (and the > moves) of the other parts of our house. > >>> Yes. I hope we aren?t misinterpreting their intent. So far, > apart from a private email from Tony Holmes, they?ve been quiet. > Not sure why. Waiting for some kind of activity on the NCPH list. > >>> > >>> 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 > >> YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco > >> blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > >> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 > > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or > entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential > and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited > without the express permission of the sender. If you received this > communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the > material from any computer. > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Fri Nov 6 11:09:42 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:09:42 +1100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: <75A6144C-293C-46A0-8687-79010ABA450D@egyptig.org> References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> <75A6144C-293C-46A0-8687-79010ABA450D@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <71AEC870-B30C-4032-BCC9-4753943679A2@difference.com.au> Of course it is very important to let people know if you can?t make it so a proxy etc can be arranged. But if you have done so, you can handle conflicts as you wish and if you think you are needed elsewhere you should do it. David > On 6 Nov 2015, at 7:41 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi Stefania, > >> On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:24 AM, Milan, Stefania wrote: >> > > [SNIP] > >> On an unrelated but related issue, I need your advice. I am scheduled to appear in an ICANN-sponsored panel at the Council of Europe on November 19, same time as the council call, which means I would miss the first part of the call. I am trying to bail out, and waiting to hear from Adam/JJ (the organizers). What do you think? It feels weird to miss part of my first call ever... especially with the chair election. > > I wouldn?t bail if I were you. These sessions with JJ and Adam could be very useful. You could end up recruiting some very helpful CS friendlies, so who knows? Just make sure that you give your proxy to someone. You need to coordinate this with Tapani. > > And don?t worry. I suspect that there will be more council calls for you to attend in the future. :) > > Thanks. > > Amr -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ncsg Fri Nov 6 12:58:59 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:58:59 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: <24C5AF87-BFFE-4F90-80F2-AF471A4E01CB@egyptig.org> References: <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> <563C27E3.3000905@mail.utoronto.ca> <24C5AF87-BFFE-4F90-80F2-AF471A4E01CB@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <20151106105857.GA31862@roller.tarvainen.info> Hi Amr, I'm fine with being NCSG signatory. I also like the decision but don't like the slogan. :-) And yes, I was on plane headed to Brazil when you asked, now at GRU airport waiting for flight to Jo?o Pessoa (landing there 14:00, if the flight is on time). And I'll be staying at Littoral Express hotel - anybody else there? Tapani On Nov 06 10:38, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: > Hahaha. Yeah?, although I?m all for the intent of the slogan, I?m not too crazy about it either. :) > > Thanks to everyone for the responses provided so far. I will communicate to Greg that: > > 1. We agree to Heather VCing the GNSO Council. > > 2. We support the renomination of James as the Council Chair. Not sure that acclamation will work from a procedural perspective. The GNSO OP seem pretty straight forward on this; that a chair needs to be elected with 60% of votes from each house. I will bring it up. > > 3. After discussion, the NCSG agrees to the content of the short statement Greg has circulated. I will ask him to make Tapani the NCSG signatory, but would appreciate hearing from Tapani on this. Is he on a plane headed to Brazil right now? > > Thanks again to everyone for engaging on this on short notice. > > Amr From stephanie.perrin Fri Nov 6 18:42:46 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:42:46 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Chair and Vice Chair Elections - Second Take In-Reply-To: <71AEC870-B30C-4032-BCC9-4753943679A2@difference.com.au> References: <943FE311-43BA-4F06-9847-4DFDE480E987@egyptig.org> <182CB33F-7332-4E1B-B6A8-3E9C32720C2E@egyptig.org> <5639A5C7.40103@yorku.ca> <75A6144C-293C-46A0-8687-79010ABA450D@egyptig.org> <71AEC870-B30C-4032-BCC9-4753943679A2@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <563CD886.70400@mail.utoronto.ca> Totally agree, and if it is of any use we can backchannel to you via skype to keep you informed of what is going on. cheers steph On 2015-11-06 4:09, David Cake wrote: > Of course it is very important to let people know if you can?t make it so a proxy etc can be arranged. > But if you have done so, you can handle conflicts as you wish and if you think you are needed elsewhere you should do it. > > David > >> On 6 Nov 2015, at 7:41 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi Stefania, >> >>> On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:24 AM, Milan, Stefania wrote: >>> >> [SNIP] >> >>> On an unrelated but related issue, I need your advice. I am scheduled to appear in an ICANN-sponsored panel at the Council of Europe on November 19, same time as the council call, which means I would miss the first part of the call. I am trying to bail out, and waiting to hear from Adam/JJ (the organizers). What do you think? It feels weird to miss part of my first call ever... especially with the chair election. >> I wouldn?t bail if I were you. These sessions with JJ and Adam could be very useful. You could end up recruiting some very helpful CS friendlies, so who knows? Just make sure that you give your proxy to someone. You need to coordinate this with Tapani. >> >> And don?t worry. I suspect that there will be more council calls for you to attend in the future. :) >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran Mon Nov 9 01:57:36 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:57:36 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query Message-ID: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> Policy Committee Colleagues, Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee membership has expired. Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? Data from:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg Sam L. Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check mark = still a member/observer. -- ------------------------------------------------ "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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ijidfjge.png Type: image/png Size: 67255 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Mon Nov 9 02:18:45 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 19:18:45 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <563FE665.3010406@mail.utoronto.ca> Very Interesting. I must confess I have never looked at that page. I think there is a mistake there....beyond the fact that the picture of me is 14 years old....I have a two year term so should be 2016 not 2015. I wonder who put that page together? And is Maria Farrell still on the policy cttee? Stephanie On 2015-11-08 18:57, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Policy Committee Colleagues, > > Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the > end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. > Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee > membership has expired. > Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi > Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. > > Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? > Data > from:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg > > Sam L. > > Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check > mark = still a member/observer. > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > "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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 67255 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mshears Mon Nov 9 01:39:01 2015 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 22:39:01 -0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <563FE665.3010406@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <563FE665.3010406@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <563FDD15.7010303@cdt.org> Oh no - am I expired and didn't know about it.....? Thought I might have been looking a little pale...... On 08/11/2015 23:18, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Very Interesting. I must confess I have never looked at that page. I > think there is a mistake there....beyond the fact that the picture of > me is 14 years old....I have a two year term so should be 2016 not > 2015. I wonder who put that page together? > And is Maria Farrell still on the policy cttee? > Stephanie > On 2015-11-08 18:57, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> Policy Committee Colleagues, >> >> Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the >> end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. >> Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy >> Committee membership has expired. >> Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi >> Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. >> >> Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? >> Data >> from:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg >> >> Sam L. >> >> Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check >> mark = still a member/observer. >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------ >> "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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 67255 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Mon Nov 9 05:04:33 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 00:04:33 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <563FDD15.7010303@cdt.org> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <563FE665.3010406@mail.utoronto.ca> <563FDD15.7010303@cdt.org> Message-ID: <56400D41.1040101@acm.org> hi, as an ex council member, i can be invited to hang on as an observer. it is up to the PC to decide which if any of us retreads they want to keep around. avri On 08-Nov-15 20:39, Matthew Shears wrote: > Oh no - am I expired and didn't know about it.....? Thought I might > have been looking a little pale...... > > On 08/11/2015 23:18, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Very Interesting. I must confess I have never looked at that page. >> I think there is a mistake there....beyond the fact that the picture >> of me is 14 years old....I have a two year term so should be 2016 not >> 2015. I wonder who put that page together? >> And is Maria Farrell still on the policy cttee? >> Stephanie >> On 2015-11-08 18:57, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> Policy Committee Colleagues, >>> >>> Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the >>> end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. >>> Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy >>> Committee membership has expired. >>> Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi >>> Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. >>> >>> Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? >>> Data >>> from:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg >>> >>> Sam L. >>> >>> Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check >>> mark = still a member/observer. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> "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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- > > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology > mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo > > 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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From maryam.bakoshi Mon Nov 9 10:19:52 2015 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:19:52 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> Hi Sam, All, I have asked for this page to be updated, but I am still waiting for it to be actioned. Below is the change request I made, please it would be helpful if corrections are made, then I can send an updated version/request to the team. ------------------------ Rafik Dammak: remove 'Chair' from front of name and also remove from Executive Committee and Finance Committee Avri Doria: Remove and replace with 'Stefania Milan' (SOI); picture attached; term: Oct 2015 - Oct 2017 David Cake - change end date to October 2016 Amr Elsadr - change end date to Oct 2017 Maria Farrel - change end date to Oct 2017 Sam Lanfranco - change end date to Oct 2016 Marilia Maciel - change end date to Oct 2017 Tapani Tarvainen - move to top of page; add 'Chair' in bold to front of name; change end date to Oct 2016; add to Executive Committee, Policy Committee and Finance Committee. Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann T: +44 7737698036 On 8 Nov 2015, at 23:58, Sam Lanfranco > wrote: Policy Committee Colleagues, Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee membership has expired. Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? Data from: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg Sam L. Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check mark = still a member/observer. [cid:part2.01050401.03000503 at yorku.ca] -- ------------------------------------------------ "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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ijidfjge.png Type: image/png Size: 67255 bytes Desc: ijidfjge.png URL: From aelsadr Mon Nov 9 17:09:48 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:09:48 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> Message-ID: <05B8C598-32E8-4439-A6EA-324AA7393B78@egyptig.org> Hi, Thanks for this Maryam, and thank you Sam for pointing this out. Yes?, the list of committee members needs to be updated on the GNSO page. Personally, I rely more on the info on this one: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-2016. Still?, that doesn?t mean the GNSO page doesn?t need to stay current. Some personal thoughts on the composition and leadership of the PC: 1. Not sure why the term on the GNSO page is listed as ending in October 2015. Probably because it is ?election season? in the various GNSO SGs/Cs. The NCUC elections are normally the last to take place (in November). 2. Once the NCUC elections are done, the new NCUC will need to either confirm that the constituency appointees are not being changed, or will need to communicate who the new appointee(s) is/are. Since NPOC?s annual elections have already taken place, NPOC may do this immediately. 3. Once all PC members for the year 2016 are confirmed, the PC will need to hold elections for the PC Chair job. If I recall correctly, last year, we did this in December. Thanks again. Amr > On Nov 9, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Maryam Bakoshi wrote: > > Hi Sam, All, > > I have asked for this page to be updated, but I am still waiting for it to be actioned. > > Below is the change request I made, please it would be helpful if corrections are made, then I can send an updated version/request to the team. > > ------------------------ > > Rafik Dammak: remove ?Chair? from front of name and also remove from Executive Committee and Finance Committee > Avri Doria: Remove and replace with 'Stefania Milan? (SOI); picture attached; term: Oct 2015 ? Oct 2017 > David Cake - change end date to October 2016 > Amr Elsadr - change end date to Oct 2017 > Maria Farrel ? change end date to Oct 2017 > Sam Lanfranco - change end date to Oct 2016 > Marilia Maciel - change end date to Oct 2017 > Tapani Tarvainen ? move to top of page; add ?Chair? in bold to front of name; change end date to Oct 2016; add to Executive Committee, Policy Committee and Finance Committee. > > Many thanks, > > Maryam Bakoshi > Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann > T: +44 7737698036 > > > On 8 Nov 2015, at 23:58, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > >> Policy Committee Colleagues, >> >> Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. >> Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee membership has expired. >> Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. >> >> Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? >> Data from: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg >> >> Sam L. >> >> Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check mark = still a member/observer. >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------ >> "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 > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From lanfran Mon Nov 9 17:59:46 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:59:46 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <05B8C598-32E8-4439-A6EA-324AA7393B78@egyptig.org> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> <05B8C598-32E8-4439-A6EA-324AA7393B78@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <5640C2F2.306@yorku.ca> Clearly the two pages need to be consistent with each other since that affects who can and who cannot vote. The GNSO page has a variety of durations for committee memberships: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg Whereas the ICANN page simply says annual membership: /Term //of Office: Annual Meeting October 2015 --> October 2016 Annual Meeting / https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-2016. Sam L. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Mon Nov 9 18:19:33 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:19:33 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> Message-ID: <5640C795.7000802@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks Maryam, please add: Stephanie Perrin - change end date to Oct 2016 Stephanie On 2015-11-09 3:19, Maryam Bakoshi wrote: > Hi Sam, All, > > I have asked for this page to be updated, but I am still waiting for > it to be actioned. > > Below is the change request I made, please it would be helpful if > corrections are made, then I can send an updated version/request to > the team. > > ------------------------ > > Rafik Dammak: remove ?Chair? from front of name and also remove from > Executive Committee and Finance Committee > Avri Doria: Remove and replace with 'Stefania Milan? (SOI > ); > picture attached; term: Oct 2015 ? Oct 2017 > David Cake - change end date to October 2016 > Amr Elsadr - change end date to Oct 2017 > Maria Farrel ? change end date to Oct 2017 > Sam Lanfranco - change end date to Oct 2016 > Marilia Maciel - change end date to Oct 2017 > Tapani Tarvainen ? move to top of page; add ?Chair? in bold to front > of name; change end date to Oct 2016; add to Executive Committee, > Policy Committee and Finance Committee. > > Many thanks, > > Maryam Bakoshi > Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann > T: +44 7737698036 > > > On 8 Nov 2015, at 23:58, Sam Lanfranco > wrote: > >> Policy Committee Colleagues, >> >> Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the >> end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. >> Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy >> Committee membership has expired. >> Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi >> Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. >> >> Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? >> Data >> from:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg >> >> Sam L. >> >> Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check >> mark = still a member/observer. >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------ >> "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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 67255 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Nov 9 19:21:45 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:21:45 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <5640C2F2.306@yorku.ca> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> <05B8C598-32E8-4439-A6EA-324AA7393B78@egyptig.org> <5640C2F2.306@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi, The wiki page is regular updated and should be used as a reference while we have no control on gnso page. I dont see a vote problem becausr it is quite clear: 6 councilors + ncsg chair + 2 representatives from each constituency. Term duration is different :1 year for chair while 2 years for councillor. Best, Rafik On Nov 9, 2015 2:02 PM, "Sam Lanfranco" wrote: > Clearly the two pages need to be consistent with each other since that > affects who can and who cannot vote. > > The GNSO page has a variety of durations for committee memberships: > http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg > > Whereas the ICANN page simply says annual membership: > *Term **of Office: Annual Meeting October 2015 --> October 2016 Annual > Meeting * > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-2016. > > 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: From ncsg Mon Nov 9 19:38:39 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:38:39 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> <05B8C598-32E8-4439-A6EA-324AA7393B78@egyptig.org> <5640C2F2.306@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <20151109173839.GA22333@roller.tarvainen.info> On Nov 10 02:21, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > Hi, > > The wiki page is regular updated and should be used as a reference while we > have no control on gnso page. > > I dont see a vote problem becausr it is quite clear: 6 councilors + ncsg > chair + 2 representatives from each constituency. > Term duration is different :1 year for chair while 2 years for councillor. Yes. Where it gets complicated is constituency appointees to various committees, whose term depends on the constituencies, and the policy committee chair Amr already pointed out. Unless I'm mistaken, they'll stay in office until successor is appointed, without having end of their term fixed in advance (although generally predictable within a month or two). I'm not quite sure what's the situation with observers, when do they need to be reappointed? -- Tapani Tarvainen From lanfran Mon Nov 9 19:41:26 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:41:26 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> <05B8C598-32E8-4439-A6EA-324AA7393B78@egyptig.org> <5640C2F2.306@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <5640DAC6.9080309@yorku.ca> Rafik, It would help if the other pages had a link to the NCSG Wiki Page with wording indicating that the NCSG Wiki Page was the Document of Record for committee memberships. Maybe we could negotiate that the gnso have a short statement about the committees and simply redirect to the Wiki Page. Having one site that is kept current is ideal and gnso would have to do nothing more. Sam On 09/11/2015 12:21 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > The wiki page is regular updated and should be used as a reference > while we have no control on gnso page. > > I dont see a vote problem becausr it is quite clear: 6 councilors + > ncsg chair + 2 representatives from each constituency. > Term duration is different :1 year for chair while 2 years for > councillor. > > Best, > Rafik > > On Nov 9, 2015 2:02 PM, "Sam Lanfranco" > wrote: > > Clearly the two pages need to be consistent with each other since > that affects who can and who cannot vote. > > The GNSO page has a variety of durations for committee memberships: > http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg > > Whereas the ICANN page simply says annual membership: > /Term //of Office: Annual Meeting October 2015 --> October 2016 > Annual Meeting / > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Committees-2016. > > Sam L. > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Mon Nov 9 20:17:01 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:17:01 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <20151109173839.GA22333@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> <05B8C598-32E8-4439-A6EA-324AA7393B78@egyptig.org> <5640C2F2.306@yorku.ca> <20151109173839.GA22333@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <4C6085D7-7EA8-4E62-A93F-CEFF02D4381A@egyptig.org> Hi, My understanding is that we?ve always kept former councillors on this list as observers. I?m not aware of one ever being removed. Personally, I would like to keep it that way. Makes the PC list a good place to go to for institutional memory, if the need arises. I believe that the list of observers listed on the NCSG wiki page is incomplete. There are also subject-matter experts the PC may wish to bring on board as observers, as we have recently done with Kathy for WHOIS issues. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 9, 2015, at 7:38 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > On Nov 10 02:21, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The wiki page is regular updated and should be used as a reference while we >> have no control on gnso page. >> >> I dont see a vote problem becausr it is quite clear: 6 councilors + ncsg >> chair + 2 representatives from each constituency. >> Term duration is different :1 year for chair while 2 years for councillor. > > Yes. Where it gets complicated is constituency appointees to various > committees, whose term depends on the constituencies, and the policy > committee chair Amr already pointed out. Unless I'm mistaken, they'll > stay in office until successor is appointed, without having end of > their term fixed in advance (although generally predictable within a > month or two). I'm not quite sure what's the situation with observers, > when do they need to be reappointed? > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From Stefania.Milan Mon Nov 9 20:18:21 2015 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:18:21 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <4C6085D7-7EA8-4E62-A93F-CEFF02D4381A@egyptig.org> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> <05B8C598-32E8-4439-A6EA-324AA7393B78@egyptig.org> <5640C2F2.306@yorku.ca> <20151109173839.GA22333@roller.tarvainen.info>, <4C6085D7-7EA8-4E62-A93F-CEFF02D4381A@egyptig.org> Message-ID: As a new addition to the Committee, I am particularly keen to have Avri and all the 'old guard' involved. For reference, help, historical memory, general fun (and I said fun). ________________________________________ Da: PC-NCSG per conto di Amr Elsadr Inviato: luned? 9 novembre 2015 19.17 A: Tapani Tarvainen Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query Hi, My understanding is that we?ve always kept former councillors on this list as observers. I?m not aware of one ever being removed. Personally, I would like to keep it that way. Makes the PC list a good place to go to for institutional memory, if the need arises. I believe that the list of observers listed on the NCSG wiki page is incomplete. There are also subject-matter experts the PC may wish to bring on board as observers, as we have recently done with Kathy for WHOIS issues. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 9, 2015, at 7:38 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > On Nov 10 02:21, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The wiki page is regular updated and should be used as a reference while we >> have no control on gnso page. >> >> I dont see a vote problem becausr it is quite clear: 6 councilors + ncsg >> chair + 2 representatives from each constituency. >> Term duration is different :1 year for chair while 2 years for councillor. > > Yes. Where it gets complicated is constituency appointees to various > committees, whose term depends on the constituencies, and the policy > committee chair Amr already pointed out. Unless I'm mistaken, they'll > stay in office until successor is appointed, without having end of > their term fixed in advance (although generally predictable within a > month or two). I'm not quite sure what's the situation with observers, > when do they need to be reappointed? > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > 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 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From kathy Tue Nov 10 15:06:44 2015 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:06:44 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] bank accounts Message-ID: <5641EBE4.2060607@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, FWIW, unincorporated associations in the US have bank accounts all the time -- and with co-signatories, too (multiple people with access to the account). We are very flexible that way... Best, Kathy From ncsg Tue Nov 10 15:29:44 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:29:44 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] bank accounts In-Reply-To: <5641EBE4.2060607@kathykleiman.com> References: <5641EBE4.2060607@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <20151110132944.GD31021@kusti.tarvainen.info> On Nov 10 08:06, Kathy Kleiman (kathy at kathykleiman.com) wrote: > Hi All, > FWIW, unincorporated associations in the US have bank accounts all > the time -- and with co-signatories, too (multiple people with > access to the account). We are very flexible that way... That's what I thought. Although I'm under the (possibly mistaken) impression that it's not as easy when foreigners are involved, and that in any case it needs a personal visit to the bank from everybody sharing the account. -- Tapani Tarvainen From lanfran Tue Nov 10 17:34:36 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:34:36 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] bank accounts In-Reply-To: <20151110132944.GD31021@kusti.tarvainen.info> References: <5641EBE4.2060607@kathykleiman.com> <20151110132944.GD31021@kusti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <56420E8C.8000909@yorku.ca> My experience here is that an organization, unincorporated or not, simply needs a copy of meeting minutes stating who will be the co-signers for the account, and the account is created. This can be a bit more difficult for foreigners with signing privileges (and getting more and more difficult). In many countries an organization cannot have a bank account unless it meets registration requirements by the government. In many cases it cannot receive foreign deposits without registration. In some cases governments revoke registration as a way of punishing activity the government does not like...an effective form of censorship. Sam L. On 10/11/2015 8:29 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Nov 10 08:06, Kathy Kleiman (kathy at kathykleiman.com) wrote: > >> Hi All, >> FWIW, unincorporated associations in the US have bank accounts all >> the time -- and with co-signatories, too (multiple people with >> access to the account). We are very flexible that way... > > That's what I thought. Although I'm under the (possibly mistaken) > impression that it's not as easy when foreigners are involved, > and that in any case it needs a personal visit to the bank > from everybody sharing the account. > -- ------------------------------------------------ "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 From ncsg Fri Nov 13 21:02:46 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:02:46 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] VC election Message-ID: <20151113190246.GC13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> All, Regarding the Vice Chair election, having spoken with David and others, my understanding at this point is that we could agree that (1) one major problem with the SG-based election system is indeed the exclusion of the NCA, and that (2) we want to come up with a better and well-documented procedure for the future, but (3) due to time constraints we'll now agree to Wolf-Ulrich's suggestion and ask for Helsingius' opinion in addition to our councillors. Any objections? -- Tapani Tarvainen From lanfran Fri Nov 13 21:07:31 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:07:31 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] VC election In-Reply-To: <20151113190246.GC13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> References: <20151113190246.GC13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <564634F3.8050802@yorku.ca> No objections from here. - Sam L. On 13/11/2015 2:02 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > All, > > Regarding the Vice Chair election, having spoken with David and > others, my understanding at this point is that we could agree that > > (1) one major problem with the SG-based election system is indeed the > exclusion of the NCA, and that > > (2) we want to come up with a better and well-documented procedure for > the future, but > > (3) due to time constraints we'll now agree to Wolf-Ulrich's > suggestion and ask for Helsingius' opinion in addition to our > councillors. > > Any objections? > -- ------------------------------------------------ "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 From dave Fri Nov 13 22:10:28 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:10:28 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] VC election In-Reply-To: <20151113190246.GC13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> References: <20151113190246.GC13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <06EB3E83-05B3-4A27-89EE-2E3117DD64FE@difference.com.au> Yes, I?m ok with any procedure that: - acknowledges that, unless we are explicitly bound, an NCSG PC decision does not bind our councillors, so we need to individually state our position and - includes the NCA. While its a fairly terrible recipe for a long term solution, Wolf-Ulrichs suggestion does provide a method for moving forward from here. David > On 13 Nov 2015, at 4:02 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > All, > > Regarding the Vice Chair election, having spoken with David and > others, my understanding at this point is that we could agree that > > (1) one major problem with the SG-based election system is indeed the > exclusion of the NCA, and that > > (2) we want to come up with a better and well-documented procedure for > the future, but > > (3) due to time constraints we'll now agree to Wolf-Ulrich's > suggestion and ask for Helsingius' opinion in addition to our > councillors. > > Any objections? > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ncsg Fri Nov 13 23:08:16 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:08:16 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] VC election In-Reply-To: <06EB3E83-05B3-4A27-89EE-2E3117DD64FE@difference.com.au> References: <20151113190246.GC13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> <06EB3E83-05B3-4A27-89EE-2E3117DD64FE@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <20151113210816.GG13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> On Nov 13 17:10, David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) wrote: > Yes, I?m ok with any procedure that: > - acknowledges that, unless we are explicitly bound, an NCSG PC decision does not bind our councillors, so we need to individually state our position and > - includes the NCA. Agreed. It is not a PC decision but councillors' decision. > While its a fairly terrible recipe for a long term solution, > Wolf-Ulrichs suggestion does provide a method for moving forward > from here. Yes. -- Tapani Tarvainen From egmorris1 Fri Nov 13 23:55:32 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:55:32 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 17 November 2015 | 1600 UTC Message-ID: Hello everybody, I'd like to ask that some time be reserved during the call, either as an agenda item or during any other business, to consider the idea of binding our Councillors during upcoming votes on CCWG - Accountability reports and approval. This obviously is not something we do very often but there are some circumstances that have recently arisen in the groups work that might make doing so to be in the best interest of the noncommercial community. I look forward to addressing the specific issues along with our procedures for binding, and how to call upon them quickly if needed, during the call. Thanks for considering, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Tapani Tarvainen" Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:24 PM To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 17 November 2015 | 1600 UTC Dear all, Next NCSG monthly conference call is on next Tuesday, 17th November 2015 at 16:00 UTC. (Please click http://bit.ly/1Q5e0UF to see the time in your timezone.) Everybody is encouraged to attend. What is it about? Generally: - Discussing the GNSO council call agenda items. Councillors and NCSG members involved in related working group will give more insight about the motions. - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements, open public comments and discussing how NCSG should act. - Other issues of interest to NCSG members. *Why should you attend?* It is good opportunity to catch-up with the ongoing policies and finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers it is a good way to get a snapshot of activities within NCSG, GNSO and ICANN, and to interact with GNSO councillors. *Below is a preliminary agenda. If you have suggestions for other items you'd like to add, please send them to me.* I will send a reminder again 24 hours prior to the call. Preliminary agenda: I. Roll call II. 19 November GNSO Meeting Preparation: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meeting +2015-11-19 A. GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership about the GNSO call agenda items. B. Discussion Items III. Quick Update on ICANN policies * Working Groups / Panels/ Expert groups, e.g., IANA Stewardship transition cross-community Working Group, ICANN accountability, Proxy and Privacy accreditation, Policy and Implementation WG, Board-GNSO group on RDS, Auctions proceeds Drafting team (non-exhaustive list). * Open Comment Periods See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public IV. Any other business I'm looking forward to interacting with our members in the call next week. If you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please send email off-list to Maryam (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) and she will assist you. Best regards, Tapani Tarvainen NCSG Chair *follow @NCSG_ICANN & ncsg.is* =========================================================================== Participation details for the call: Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1Q5e0UF Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: NCSG For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan Sat Nov 14 00:20:35 2015 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 22:20:35 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] VC election In-Reply-To: <20151113210816.GG13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> References: <20151113190246.GC13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> <06EB3E83-05B3-4A27-89EE-2E3117DD64FE@difference.com.au>, <20151113210816.GG13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <7276CD09-B6F8-4E6C-8951-2E0DEBE886ED@EUI.eu> fine with me. thanks all Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 13, 2015, at 18:09, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> On Nov 13 17:10, David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) wrote: >> >> Yes, I?m ok with any procedure that: >> - acknowledges that, unless we are explicitly bound, an NCSG PC decision does not bind our councillors, so we need to individually state our position and >> - includes the NCA. > > Agreed. > > It is not a PC decision but councillors' decision. > >> While its a fairly terrible recipe for a long term solution, >> Wolf-Ulrichs suggestion does provide a method for moving forward >> from here. > > Yes. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From avri Sat Nov 14 04:10:58 2015 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:10:58 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 17 November 2015 | 1600 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56469832.4050503@acm.org> Hi, I am only an observer, but i recommend against it. I think you should continue to rely on; - convincing the council members with your reasons - asking them to explain themselves if they go against. If it is the right thing to do, then all the council members will decide on their own to do the right thing. Further none of this has been discussed within the NCSG DISCUSS and it seems problematic to do so when you don't know that you have a uniform SG to back up your forcing decision. avri On 13-Nov-15 18:55, Edward Morris wrote: > Hello everybody, > > > I'd like to ask that some time be reserved during the call, either as > an agenda item or during any other business, to consider the idea of > binding our Councillors during upcoming votes on CCWG - Accountability > reports and approval. This obviously is not something we do very often > but there are some circumstances that have recently arisen in the > groups work that might make doing so to be in the best interest of the > noncommercial community. I look forward to addressing the specific > issues along with our procedures for binding, and how to call upon > them quickly if needed, during the call. > > Thanks for considering, > > Ed > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Tapani Tarvainen" > *Sent*: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:24 PM > *To*: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject*: NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 17 November 2015 | 1600 UTC > > Dear all, > > Next NCSG monthly conference call is on next Tuesday, 17th November > 2015 at 16:00 UTC. (Please click http://bit.ly/1Q5e0UF to see the > time in your timezone.) > > Everybody is encouraged to attend. > > What is it about? Generally: > > - Discussing the GNSO council call agenda items. Councillors and > NCSG members involved in related working group will give more insight > about > the motions. > > - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements, > open public comments and discussing how NCSG should act. > > - Other issues of interest to NCSG members. > > > *Why should you attend?* > > It is good opportunity to catch-up with the ongoing policies and > finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers it is > a good way to get a snapshot of activities within NCSG, GNSO and > ICANN, and to interact with GNSO councillors. > > *Below is a preliminary agenda. If you have suggestions for other > items you'd like to add, please send them to me.* > > I will send a reminder again 24 hours prior to the call. > > > Preliminary agenda: > > I. Roll call > > II. 19 November GNSO Meeting Preparation: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meeting+2015-11-19 > A. GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership > about the GNSO call agenda items. > B. Discussion Items > > III. Quick Update on ICANN policies > * Working Groups / Panels/ Expert groups, e.g., > IANA Stewardship transition cross-community Working Group, ICANN > accountability, Proxy and Privacy accreditation, Policy and > Implementation WG, Board-GNSO group on RDS, Auctions proceeds Drafting > team (non-exhaustive list). > * Open Comment Periods > See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public > > IV. Any other business > > > > I'm looking forward to interacting with our members in the call next > week. If you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed > below, please send email off-list to Maryam (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) > and she will assist you. > > Best regards, > > Tapani Tarvainen > > NCSG Chair > > > *follow @NCSG_ICANN & ncsg.is* > =========================================================================== > > Participation details for the call: > > Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ > > Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1Q5e0UF > > Passcodes/Pin codes: > Participant passcode: NCSG > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the > conference. > > Dial in numbers: > Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ > Toll Free Number > > > ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 > AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 > BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 > BRAZIL 0800-7610651 > CHILE 1230-020-2863 > CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 > CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 > COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 > CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 > DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 > ESTONIA 800-011-1093 > FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 > FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 > GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 > GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 > HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 > HUNGARY 06-800-12755 > INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 > INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 > INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 > INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 > IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 > ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 > ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 > JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 LATVIA 8000-3185 > LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 > MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 > MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 > NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 > NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 > NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 > PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 > PERU 0800-53713 > PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 > POLAND 00-800-1212572 > PORTUGAL 8008-14052 > RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 > SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 > SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 > SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 > SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 > SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 > SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 > SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 > SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 > TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 > THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 > UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 > URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 > USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 > VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 > > > Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers > using a mobile telephone. > > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From aelsadr Sat Nov 14 10:55:56 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 10:55:56 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] VC election In-Reply-To: <06EB3E83-05B3-4A27-89EE-2E3117DD64FE@difference.com.au> References: <20151113190246.GC13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> <06EB3E83-05B3-4A27-89EE-2E3117DD64FE@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Hi, While I agree with Tapani?s suggestion, I would like to make a couple of points: > On Nov 13, 2015, at 10:10 PM, David Cake wrote: > > Yes, I?m ok with any procedure that: > - acknowledges that, unless we are explicitly bound, an NCSG PC decision does not bind our councillors, so we need to individually state our position and Binding our councillors involves ballots and voting. That?s not what?s going on here. Voting for a NCPH VC to the council has never been a requirement, and to my knowledge, hasn?t been a common practice before either. It?s always been about SG position, and building a NCPH consensus. So saying that the PC is binding our councillors? positions is incorrect. Furthermore, if you all recall, the PC (and subsequently, the NCSG) position was based on feedback received on this topic from members of this committee. We heard back from reps of both constituencies as well as 5/6 of our councillors. One of our councillors did not indicate agreement or rejection on Heather?s selection as a VC. My point here is that nobody is forcing any of our councillor positions, even in the absence of a vote in which they are or are not bound. Most of the councillors have spoken up on this, and their views are what developed the PC position, not the other way around. > - includes the NCA. Yes?, this is a very good point, and should certainly be factored into whatever process we work out for the future. Thanks. Amr From aelsadr Sat Nov 14 11:08:50 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:08:50 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 17 November 2015 | 1600 UTC In-Reply-To: <56469832.4050503@acm.org> References: <56469832.4050503@acm.org> Message-ID: <7C587224-69D3-48AF-A842-AB6450F48ADC@egyptig.org> Hi, I am not opposed to adding this as an agenda item to the monthly NCSG policy meeting, as long as it is clear that it is only for the purpose of discussion, and that no decision on this issue will be made during the call. I, for one, am curious to hear why Ed believes it would be to the benefit of the NC community to bind our councillors votes on this topic. If we do hold a discussion on this on Tuesday, we should still have plenty of time to take the discussion to NCSG-DISCUSS. If I?m reading the timeline correctly, the GNSO Council will ?hopefully? not have to vote on the CCWG-ACCT final report and recommendations until its January meeting. Under less than ideal circumstances, the council may need to take the vote in December, which would still give us a month to discuss what Ed is proposing. Anyway?, not going to agree or disagree on a proposal until I hear the rationale and context. In principle, I?m not a fan of binding our councillors? votes for any reason. However, the NCSG charter does allow this. So from a process perspective, I support a request to hold a discussion on binding votes. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 14, 2015, at 4:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I am only an observer, but i recommend against it. > > I think you should continue to rely on; > - convincing the council members with your reasons > - asking them to explain themselves if they go against. > > If it is the right thing to do, then all the council members will decide > on their own to do the right thing. > > Further none of this has been discussed within the NCSG DISCUSS and it > seems problematic to do so when you don't know that you have a uniform > SG to back up your forcing decision. > > avri > > On 13-Nov-15 18:55, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hello everybody, >> >> >> I'd like to ask that some time be reserved during the call, either as >> an agenda item or during any other business, to consider the idea of >> binding our Councillors during upcoming votes on CCWG - Accountability >> reports and approval. This obviously is not something we do very often >> but there are some circumstances that have recently arisen in the >> groups work that might make doing so to be in the best interest of the >> noncommercial community. I look forward to addressing the specific >> issues along with our procedures for binding, and how to call upon >> them quickly if needed, during the call. >> >> Thanks for considering, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From*: "Tapani Tarvainen" >> *Sent*: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:24 PM >> *To*: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> *Subject*: NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 17 November 2015 | 1600 UTC >> >> Dear all, >> >> Next NCSG monthly conference call is on next Tuesday, 17th November >> 2015 at 16:00 UTC. (Please click http://bit.ly/1Q5e0UF to see the >> time in your timezone.) >> >> Everybody is encouraged to attend. >> >> What is it about? Generally: >> >> - Discussing the GNSO council call agenda items. Councillors and >> NCSG members involved in related working group will give more insight >> about >> the motions. >> >> - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements, >> open public comments and discussing how NCSG should act. >> >> - Other issues of interest to NCSG members. >> >> >> *Why should you attend?* >> >> It is good opportunity to catch-up with the ongoing policies and >> finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers it is >> a good way to get a snapshot of activities within NCSG, GNSO and >> ICANN, and to interact with GNSO councillors. >> >> *Below is a preliminary agenda. If you have suggestions for other >> items you'd like to add, please send them to me.* >> >> I will send a reminder again 24 hours prior to the call. >> >> >> Preliminary agenda: >> >> I. Roll call >> >> II. 19 November GNSO Meeting Preparation: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meeting+2015-11-19 >> A. GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership >> about the GNSO call agenda items. >> B. Discussion Items >> >> III. Quick Update on ICANN policies >> * Working Groups / Panels/ Expert groups, e.g., >> IANA Stewardship transition cross-community Working Group, ICANN >> accountability, Proxy and Privacy accreditation, Policy and >> Implementation WG, Board-GNSO group on RDS, Auctions proceeds Drafting >> team (non-exhaustive list). >> * Open Comment Periods >> See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public >> >> IV. Any other business >> >> >> >> I'm looking forward to interacting with our members in the call next >> week. If you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed >> below, please send email off-list to Maryam (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) >> and she will assist you. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> NCSG Chair >> >> >> *follow @NCSG_ICANN & ncsg.is* >> =========================================================================== >> >> Participation details for the call: >> >> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ >> >> Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1Q5e0UF >> >> Passcodes/Pin codes: >> Participant passcode: NCSG >> >> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the >> conference. >> >> Dial in numbers: >> Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ >> Toll Free Number >> >> >> ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >> AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >> BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 >> BRAZIL 0800-7610651 >> CHILE 1230-020-2863 >> CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 >> CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 >> COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 >> CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 >> DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >> ESTONIA 800-011-1093 >> FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 >> FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 >> FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 >> FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 >> GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 >> GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 >> HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 >> HUNGARY 06-800-12755 >> INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 >> INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 >> INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 >> INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 >> IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 >> ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 >> ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 >> JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799> JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191> LATVIA 8000-3185 >> LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 >> MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >> MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 >> NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 >> NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 >> NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >> PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 >> PERU 0800-53713 >> PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 >> POLAND 00-800-1212572 >> PORTUGAL 8008-14052 >> RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 >> SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 >> SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 >> SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 >> SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 >> SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 >> SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 >> SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >> SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 >> TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 >> THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 >> UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 >> UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 >> UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 >> UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 >> UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 >> URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 >> USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 >> VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 >> >> >> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers >> using a mobile telephone. >> >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From ncsg Sat Nov 14 13:00:17 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 08:00:17 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] VC election In-Reply-To: References: <20151113190246.GC13040@kusti.tarvainen.info> <06EB3E83-05B3-4A27-89EE-2E3117DD64FE@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <20151114110012.GB31030@roller.tarvainen.info> On Nov 14 10:55, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: > Binding our councillors involves ballots and voting. That?s not > what?s going on here. Voting for a NCPH VC to the council has never > been a requirement, and to my knowledge, hasn?t been a common > practice before either. It?s always been about SG position, and > building a NCPH consensus. Yes. > So saying that the PC is binding our councillors? positions is > incorrect. I don't think Dave meant to say PC is now trying to bind councilors, rather just to make it explicitly clear that it is not the case. Anyway: In the absense of either written rules (and we don't have the time to create such now) or precedent we can't have a formal vote. Yet we need to let all councillors to express their position, including the NCA, who's so far been excluded from the process. I'm going to send another message, Cc: Helsingius, asking for councillors for their position, so as to make sure all of them can have their voice heard. (I take this as my task rather than Amr's, because it is not a PC decision as Dave correctly pointed out.) -- Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg Sat Nov 14 13:55:51 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:55:51 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election Message-ID: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> Dear Councillors, Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, I would like to ask you to state if you support the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's Vice Chair in the Council. To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied even if you have stated your position before. Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally if you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't agree. Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is "it's complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the majority position, however.) Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if you wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are free to do so. Thank you, -- Tapani Tarvainen From julf Sat Nov 14 14:04:49 2015 From: julf (Johan Helsingius) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:04:49 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <56472361.5080400@julf.com> Yes, I fully support the nomination of Heather as NCPH's Vice Chair in the Council. Julf On 14/11/15 12:55, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear Councillors, > > Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, > > I would like to ask you to state if you support > the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's > Vice Chair in the Council. > > To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied > even if you have stated your position before. > > Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). > > A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. > > Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally > if you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't > agree. Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is > "it's complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the > majority position, however.) > > Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. > > For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if > you wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are > free to do so. > > Thank you, > From egmorris1 Sat Nov 14 15:26:26 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 08:26:26 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <56472361.5080400@julf.com> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> <56472361.5080400@julf.com> Message-ID: I have no objection to this, assuming it is the desire of my fellow Councillors. I find Heather to be a capable, intelligent, decent, hardworking Councillor and a fine representative of the Intellectual Property Constituency. Sincere thanks to David Cake for his two plus years of service on our behalf as Vice Chair of the GNSO Council. David's fine work, in particular, during the exceptional circumstances of the past month deserves all of our respect, thanks and gratitude. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Johan Helsingius" Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 12:05 PM To: "Tapani Tarvainen" , pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election Yes, I fully support the nomination of Heather as NCPH's Vice Chair in the Council. Julf On 14/11/15 12:55, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear Councillors, > > Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, > > I would like to ask you to state if you support > the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's > Vice Chair in the Council. > > To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied > even if you have stated your position before. > > Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). > > A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. > > Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally > if you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't > agree. Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is > "it's complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the > majority position, however.) > > Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. > > For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if > you wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are > free to do so. > > Thank you, > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Sat Nov 14 16:06:36 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:06:36 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <76286110-EAEC-40AC-B6DF-349ADA91401A@difference.com.au> I support Heather for Vice-Chair of the Council. And thank you Ed for the kind words. David > On 14 Nov 2015, at 8:55 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Dear Councillors, > > Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, > > I would like to ask you to state if you support > the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's > Vice Chair in the Council. > > To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied > even if you have stated your position before. > > Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). > > A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. > > Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally > if you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't > agree. Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is > "it's complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the > majority position, however.) > > Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. > > For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if > you wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are > free to do so. > > Thank you, > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ncsg Sat Nov 14 16:13:10 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:10 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Tuesday call topics Message-ID: <20151114141309.GA5183@roller.tarvainen.info> All, Attempting to collect topics and lead speakers for our next policy call on Tuesday, here's a start: * Proxy/privacy Accreditation WG (Kathy) * CCWG status update (Robin) * Possibly binding votes in upcoming CCWG accountability votes (Ed) * New civil society engagement strategy (Adam Peake); we can drop this if it becomes apparent there isn't enough time, perhaps arrange a special call/webinar later, but it'd be good to have at least a brief introduction now. Please add your items (estimates of how long time you'll need would be appreciated, too). Thank you, -- Tapani Tarvainen From lanfran Sat Nov 14 16:35:22 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:35:22 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Tuesday call topics In-Reply-To: <20151114141309.GA5183@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20151114141309.GA5183@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <564746AA.2000902@yorku.ca> Tapani, It would be useful if someone who attended IGF in Brazil could note particular hot button topics that boiled to the top there and are within the NCSG/ICANN remit. Some might make agenda items for this Tuesday call. We all know the long list, this is to identify what was focused on in particular. Sam L. On 14/11/2015 9:13 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > All, > > Attempting to collect topics and lead speakers for our > next policy call on Tuesday, here's a start: > > * Proxy/privacy Accreditation WG (Kathy) > > * CCWG status update (Robin) > > * Possibly binding votes in upcoming CCWG accountability votes (Ed) > > * New civil society engagement strategy (Adam Peake); > we can drop this if it becomes apparent there isn't enough time, > perhaps arrange a special call/webinar later, but it'd be good > to have at least a brief introduction now. > > Please add your items (estimates of how long time you'll > need would be appreciated, too). > > Thank you, > -- ------------------------------------------------ "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 From lanfran Sat Nov 14 16:37:22 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:37:22 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <56474722.1090304@yorku.ca> Just to reaffirm that I support the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's Vice Chair in the Council. Sam L. On 14/11/2015 6:55 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear Councillors, > > Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, > > I would like to ask you to state if you support > the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's > Vice Chair in the Council. > > To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied > even if you have stated your position before. > > Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). > > A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. > > Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally > if you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't > agree. Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is > "it's complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the > majority position, however.) > > Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. > > For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if > you wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are > free to do so. > > Thank you, > -- ------------------------------------------------ "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 From stephanie.perrin Sat Nov 14 18:33:37 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:33:37 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> <56472361.5080400@julf.com> Message-ID: <56476261.50101@mail.utoronto.ca> Well said. I certainly support Heather in the Vice Chair, and join everyone in thanking David for all his work on our behalf. Hopefully all of this turmoil will help us move forward positively with the BC, as we certainly have challenges ahead of us. cheers Stephanie On 2015-11-14 8:26, Edward Morris wrote: > I have no objection to this, assuming it is the desire of my fellow > Councillors. I find Heather to be a capable, intelligent, decent, > hardworking Councillor and a fine representative of the Intellectual > Property Constituency. > Sincere thanks to David Cake for his two plus years of service on our > behalf as Vice Chair of the GNSO Council. David's fine work, in > particular, during the exceptional circumstances of the past month > deserves all of our respect, thanks and gratitude. > Ed > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Johan Helsingius" > *Sent*: Saturday, November 14, 2015 12:05 PM > *To*: "Tapani Tarvainen" , > pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election > Yes, I fully support the nomination of Heather as NCPH's > Vice Chair in the Council. > > Julf > > > On 14/11/15 12:55, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Dear Councillors, > > > > Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, > > > > I would like to ask you to state if you support > > the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's > > Vice Chair in the Council. > > > > To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied > > even if you have stated your position before. > > > > Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). > > > > A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. > > > > Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally > > if you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't > > agree. Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is > > "it's complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the > > majority position, however.) > > > > Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. > > > > For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if > > you wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are > > free to do so. > > > > Thank you, > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Sat Nov 14 20:08:03 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:08:03 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <56472361.5080400@julf.com> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> <56472361.5080400@julf.com> Message-ID: <4BBDB9C0-69EF-471F-9427-3BC7B11FC2F0@egyptig.org> Hi, > On Nov 14, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > Yes, I fully support the nomination of Heather as NCPH's > Vice Chair in the Council. Same here. Thanks. Amr From wjdrake Sun Nov 15 18:46:28 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:46:28 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 17 November 2015 | 1600 UTC In-Reply-To: <7C587224-69D3-48AF-A842-AB6450F48ADC@egyptig.org> References: <56469832.4050503@acm.org> <7C587224-69D3-48AF-A842-AB6450F48ADC@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <35AAFE67-ADD6-46A9-8E23-C1E2374526A0@gmail.com> Hi from the peanut gallery > On Nov 14, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > I am not opposed to adding this as an agenda item to the monthly NCSG policy meeting, as long as it is clear that it is only for the purpose of discussion, and that no decision on this issue will be made during the call. Irrespective of whether we ever choose to go down the path of binding for anything, it might be worth discussion whether there's a case for at least some means of enhanced coordination among and tracking positions of our reps in Council, WGs, CCWGs---anything where we are interfacing with the rest of the ?community? on divisive issues. I assume that I am not alone in frequently getting private messages from perplexed folks from xyz grouping asking ?is this person giving a NC position, or just a personal position?? Some people seem to find it a bit difficult to bargain with us and engage in the usual horse trading, give and take, etc. when they don?t quite understand the status of the views being expressed and what?s behind these. It makes me think of the academic literature on ?credible commitments? in international institutions and foreign policy; counterparts who cannot judge the solidity of positions and their support can find it difficult to know what stock to place in them, or may react by trying to split coalitions or just cut us out the deal making. I?m not suggesting some sort of stalinist enforcement of uniformity and the repression of individual views, just calling attention to the potential unintended consequences of how we operate and saying whatever we do should be eyes wide open with due consideration given. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Nov 17 07:56:09 2015 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:56:09 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 17 November 2015 | 1600 UTC In-Reply-To: <35AAFE67-ADD6-46A9-8E23-C1E2374526A0@gmail.com> References: <56469832.4050503@acm.org> <7C587224-69D3-48AF-A842-AB6450F48ADC@egyptig.org> <35AAFE67-ADD6-46A9-8E23-C1E2374526A0@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, I think that first step would be to encourage other counterparts to reach Tapani as NCSG chair and/or Amr as PC chair to get clarification about NCSG official position or at least elicit the process to work on it when needed. regarding coordination, I think that PC should play role (among others like planning for public comments) on that and liaise with our representatives more frequently to get updates or ask for feedback from other participants in WGs ( except NCSG rep to cross-community working groups, others members participate in their own capacity). we are trying to do that at NCSG policy call but it is not enough. unfortunately, it is unlikely for me to attend today call at 1:00am so that is my comment for this topic :) Best, Rafik 2015-11-16 1:46 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > Hi from the peanut gallery > > On Nov 14, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Amr Elsadr > wrote: > > I am not opposed to adding this as an agenda item to the monthly NCSG > policy meeting, as long as it is clear that it is only for the purpose of > discussion, and that no decision on this issue will be made during the call. > > > Irrespective of whether we ever choose to go down the path of binding for > anything, it might be worth discussion whether there's a case for at least > some means of enhanced coordination among and tracking positions of our > reps in Council, WGs, CCWGs---anything where we are interfacing with the > rest of the ?community? on divisive issues. I assume that I am not alone > in frequently getting private messages from perplexed folks from xyz > grouping asking ?is this person giving a NC position, or just a personal > position?? Some people seem to find it a bit difficult to bargain with us > and engage in the usual horse trading, give and take, etc. when they don?t > quite understand the status of the views being expressed and what?s behind > these. It makes me think of the academic literature on ?credible > commitments? in international institutions and foreign policy; counterparts > who cannot judge the solidity of positions and their support can find it > difficult to know what stock to place in them, or may react by trying to > split coalitions or just cut us out the deal making. I?m not suggesting > some sort of stalinist enforcement of uniformity and the repression of > individual views, just calling attention to the potential unintended > consequences of how we operate and saying whatever we do should be eyes > wide open with due consideration given. > > Cheers > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Tue Nov 17 13:17:29 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:17:29 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Tuesday call topics In-Reply-To: <20151114141309.GA5183@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20151114141309.GA5183@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20151117111729.GE23078@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Current agenda draft below, comments/additions still welcome, even more so volunteers to talk about stuff - in particular the open public comments. Note, I've dropped the binding vote discussion as apparently neither Ed nor Bill can make the call, but if time allows we can still discuss it in general terms at the end. * Proxy/privacy Accreditation WG (Kathy Kleiman) * New civil society engagement strategy, brief introduction (Adam Peake) * Consumer Trust RT applicants (https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications) * CCWG status update (Robin Gross) * Upcoming intersessional NCPH meeting * Open public comments * News from IGF (James Gannon) -- Tapani Tarvainen From mariliamaciel Tue Nov 17 16:11:00 2015 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:11:00 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <4BBDB9C0-69EF-471F-9427-3BC7B11FC2F0@egyptig.org> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> <56472361.5080400@julf.com> <4BBDB9C0-69EF-471F-9427-3BC7B11FC2F0@egyptig.org> Message-ID: I also support others that wrote before me. Mar?lia On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > > On Nov 14, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > > > Yes, I fully support the nomination of Heather as NCPH's > > Vice Chair in the Council. > > Same here. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue Nov 17 16:34:34 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:34:34 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Tuesday call topics In-Reply-To: <20151117111729.GE23078@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <20151114141309.GA5183@roller.tarvainen.info> <20151117111729.GE23078@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <2ED4953D-23C7-4C0A-9D2C-A40088C2BEE6@egyptig.org> Hi Tapani, I?d be happy to discuss the issue of open public comments, as well as make a point that we missed a few. I?m assuming that the GNSO Council agenda will also be on the agenda for today?s call. The council agenda includes the council chair election. We may also want to briefly discuss progress on the council VC selection. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 17, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Current agenda draft below, comments/additions still welcome, > even more so volunteers to talk about stuff - in particular > the open public comments. > > Note, I've dropped the binding vote discussion as apparently > neither Ed nor Bill can make the call, but if time allows > we can still discuss it in general terms at the end. > > > * Proxy/privacy Accreditation WG (Kathy Kleiman) > > * New civil society engagement strategy, brief introduction (Adam Peake) > > * Consumer Trust RT applicants > (https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications) > > * CCWG status update (Robin Gross) > > * Upcoming intersessional NCPH meeting > > * Open public comments > > * News from IGF (James Gannon) > > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From ncsg Tue Nov 17 17:29:52 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:29:52 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Next Tuesday call topics In-Reply-To: <2ED4953D-23C7-4C0A-9D2C-A40088C2BEE6@egyptig.org> References: <20151114141309.GA5183@roller.tarvainen.info> <20151117111729.GE23078@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <2ED4953D-23C7-4C0A-9D2C-A40088C2BEE6@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <20151117152952.GB22757@tarvainen.info> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:34:34PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: > I?d be happy to discuss the issue of open public comments, as well > as make a point that we missed a few. Good. > I?m assuming that the GNSO Council agenda will also be on the agenda > for today?s call. Yes. Cf. (just put up, sorry): https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/17th+Nov+NCSG+Open+Policy+Meeting I moved policy updates prior council agenda because Kathy has to leave early, and Adam first because of the timezone and he promised to need only 5 minutes. > The council agenda includes the council chair election. Yes. It would've been useful to open it up in our agenda but I ran out of time. > We may also want to briefly discuss progress on the council VC selection. Yes. Even though it's not on the agenda, we could talk about it while dealing with chair election. -- Tapani Tarvainen From joy Tue Nov 17 18:17:35 2015 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:17:35 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <76286110-EAEC-40AC-B6DF-349ADA91401A@difference.com.au> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> <76286110-EAEC-40AC-B6DF-349ADA91401A@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <001e01d12153$79886880$6c993980$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Yes I also support this - and thanks David for all of your work, too Joy -----Original Message----- From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2015 3:07 a.m. To: Tapani Tarvainen Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; Johan Helsingius Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election I support Heather for Vice-Chair of the Council. And thank you Ed for the kind words. David > On 14 Nov 2015, at 8:55 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Dear Councillors, > > Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, > > I would like to ask you to state if you support the nomination of > Heather Forrest as NCPH's Vice Chair in the Council. > > To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied even if > you have stated your position before. > > Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). > > A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. > > Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally if > you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't agree. > Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is "it's > complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the majority > position, however.) > > Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. > > For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if you > wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are free to do > so. > > Thank you, > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From joy Tue Nov 17 20:07:16 2015 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:07:16 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> Message-ID: <008601d12162$cb442f10$61cc8d30$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Hi - and I see that my term is up this month as well, Joy From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Maryam Bakoshi Sent: Monday, 9 November 2015 9:20 p.m. To: Sam Lanfranco Cc: NCSG-Policy; Tapani Tarvainen Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query Hi Sam, All, I have asked for this page to be updated, but I am still waiting for it to be actioned. Below is the change request I made, please it would be helpful if corrections are made, then I can send an updated version/request to the team. ------------------------ Rafik Dammak: remove 'Chair' from front of name and also remove from Executive Committee and Finance Committee Avri Doria: Remove and replace with 'Stefania Milan' (SOI ); picture attached; term: Oct 2015 - Oct 2017 David Cake - change end date to October 2016 Amr Elsadr - change end date to Oct 2017 Maria Farrel - change end date to Oct 2017 Sam Lanfranco - change end date to Oct 2016 Marilia Maciel - change end date to Oct 2017 Tapani Tarvainen - move to top of page; add 'Chair' in bold to front of name; change end date to Oct 2016; add to Executive Committee, Policy Committee and Finance Committee. Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann T: +44 7737698036 On 8 Nov 2015, at 23:58, Sam Lanfranco wrote: Policy Committee Colleagues, Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee membership has expired. Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? Data from: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg Sam L. Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check mark = still a member/observer. -- ------------------------------------------------ "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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 67255 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maryam.bakoshi Tue Nov 17 20:27:20 2015 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:27:20 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <008601d12162$cb442f10$61cc8d30$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> <008601d12162$cb442f10$61cc8d30$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Message-ID: Hi Joy, Please could you let me know what the correct date is, and I will ask for it to be updated asap. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Mobile: +44 7737 698036 Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann From: Joy Liddicoat > Date: Tuesday, 17 November 2015 18:07 To: Maryam Bakoshi >, 'Sam Lanfranco' > Cc: 'NCSG-Policy' >, 'Tapani Tarvainen' > Subject: RE: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query Hi - and I see that my term is up this month as well, Joy From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Maryam Bakoshi Sent: Monday, 9 November 2015 9:20 p.m. To: Sam Lanfranco Cc: NCSG-Policy; Tapani Tarvainen Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query Hi Sam, All, I have asked for this page to be updated, but I am still waiting for it to be actioned. Below is the change request I made, please it would be helpful if corrections are made, then I can send an updated version/request to the team. ------------------------ Rafik Dammak: remove ?Chair? from front of name and also remove from Executive Committee and Finance Committee Avri Doria: Remove and replace with 'Stefania Milan? (SOI); picture attached; term: Oct 2015 - Oct 2017 David Cake - change end date to October 2016 Amr Elsadr - change end date to Oct 2017 Maria Farrel - change end date to Oct 2017 Sam Lanfranco - change end date to Oct 2016 Marilia Maciel - change end date to Oct 2017 Tapani Tarvainen - move to top of page; add ?Chair? in bold to front of name; change end date to Oct 2016; add to Executive Committee, Policy Committee and Finance Committee. Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann T: +44 7737698036 On 8 Nov 2015, at 23:58, Sam Lanfranco > wrote: Policy Committee Colleagues, Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee membership has expired. Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? Data from:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg Sam L. Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check mark = still a member/observer. [cid:image001.png at 01D121CF.C1D650D0] -- ------------------------------------------------ "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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 67255 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From ncsg Tue Nov 17 21:09:10 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:09:10 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Travelers to LA intersessional Message-ID: <20151117190910.GC31288@tarvainen.info> Dear all, and especially councilors, the NCPH intersessional meeting will be held in LA on 4-5 February, with probably an NCSG/constituency pre-meeting on Feb 3. That does not leave much time for travel arrangements. There is travel support for all councillors, but please confirm whether or no you can travel then ASAP. (Constituency EC members are supported as well, but they're up to respective ECs to take care of.) Others, if you think there's a reason why you should get there in case there are extra travel slots (if a councillor can't make it or something), please come forward, too. Thank you, -- Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg Tue Nov 17 21:24:32 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:24:32 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment Message-ID: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. -- Tapani Tarvainen From lanfran Tue Nov 17 21:32:56 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:32:56 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Travelers to LA intersessional In-Reply-To: <20151117190910.GC31288@tarvainen.info> References: <20151117190910.GC31288@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <564B80E8.5040700@yorku.ca> Tapani, I have also confirmed to NPOC that I can attend those meetings. I have no passport issues and need little if any advanced notice. I will focus on the ICANN comment topics in the next 48 hours. Sam L. TapaniOn 17/11/2015 2:09 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear all, > > and especially councilors, the NCPH intersessional > meeting will be held in LA on 4-5 February, with > probably an NCSG/constituency pre-meeting on Feb 3. > > That does not leave much time for travel arrangements. > > There is travel support for all councillors, but > please confirm whether or no you can travel then ASAP. > > (Constituency EC members are supported as well, but > they're up to respective ECs to take care of.) > > Others, if you think there's a reason why you should > get there in case there are extra travel slots > (if a councillor can't make it or something), please > come forward, too. > > Thank you, > From lanfran Tue Nov 17 22:00:28 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:00:28 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> Tapani, It is my individual opinion that the Jeremy Malcolm comment is of the right tone and focus and I urge consensus with regard to submitting the document within the comments deadline. The key NCSG comment would be: "..allow any applicant to have recourse of the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure if it is compelled to do so by locally applicable law, without any formality." Any other process would be needlessly burdensome and runs the risk of local authorities using the process as a way of unduly burdening the Contracted Party as a form of abuse and/or punishment. Sam L. On 17/11/2015 2:24 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on > > IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for > Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws > > is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. > > We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit > > We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, > but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. > -- ------------------------------------------------ "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 From ncsg Tue Nov 17 22:04:59 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:04:59 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20151117200459.GA25547@roller.tarvainen.info> I declare this consensus, even though Stefania has not replied to this thread but she agreed earlier (feel free to embarrass me by denying it in case you've changed your mind, Stefi). Tapani On Nov 14 13:55, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > Dear Councillors, > > Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, > > I would like to ask you to state if you support > the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's > Vice Chair in the Council. > > To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied > even if you have stated your position before. > > Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). > > A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. > > Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally > if you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't > agree. Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is > "it's complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the > majority position, however.) > > Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. > > For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if > you wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are > free to do so. > > Thank you, > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg Tue Nov 17 22:06:27 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:06:27 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <20151117200459.GA25547@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info> <20151117200459.GA25547@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20151117200627.GB25547@roller.tarvainen.info> [Re-sending because I forgot to Cc: Helsingius, who is not on the list.] On Nov 17 22:04, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > I declare this consensus, even though Stefania has not replied to this > thread but she agreed earlier (feel free to embarrass me by denying it > in case you've changed your mind, Stefi). > > Tapani > > On Nov 14 13:55, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > > > Dear Councillors, > > > > Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, > > > > I would like to ask you to state if you support > > the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's > > Vice Chair in the Council. > > > > To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied > > even if you have stated your position before. > > > > Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). > > > > A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. > > > > Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally > > if you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't > > agree. Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is > > "it's complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the > > majority position, however.) > > > > Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. > > > > For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if > > you wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are > > free to do so. > > > > Thank you, > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Tapani Tarvainen From Stefania.Milan Wed Nov 18 01:53:14 2015 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:53:14 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Vice-Chair election In-Reply-To: <20151117200459.GA25547@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20151114115551.GA25810@kusti.tarvainen.info>, <20151117200459.GA25547@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: in-between airports, sorry i thought i had replied... anyway consensus it is (and i wouldnt dare contradicting our chair anyway ;-P) Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 17, 2015, at 21:05, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > I declare this consensus, even though Stefania has not replied to this > thread but she agreed earlier (feel free to embarrass me by denying it > in case you've changed your mind, Stefi). > > Tapani > >> On Nov 14 13:55, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: >> >> Dear Councillors, >> >> Notably including NomCom-Appointee Johan Helsingius, >> >> I would like to ask you to state if you support >> the nomination of Heather Forrest as NCPH's >> Vice Chair in the Council. >> >> To remove all doubt, it would be appreciated if you replied >> even if you have stated your position before. >> >> Please reply to all recipients (pc-ncsg list and Helsingius). >> >> A simple "Yes" is enough if you agree. >> >> Of course you are also welcome to explain yourself more verbally >> if you like, and an explanation would be appreciated if you don't >> agree. Note that this is not a formal vote, so if your position is >> "it's complicated", feel free to say so. (I hope that won't be the >> majority position, however.) >> >> Please try to reply before the end of next Monday. >> >> For non-councillors in the PC: this is not directed to you, but if >> you wish to comment or protest the procedure, of course you are >> free to do so. >> >> Thank you, >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From stephanie.perrin Wed Nov 18 07:11:26 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:11:26 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Travelers to LA intersessional In-Reply-To: <20151117190910.GC31288@tarvainen.info> References: <20151117190910.GC31288@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <564C087E.7050708@mail.utoronto.ca> I can make it, and as usual am happy to share the room with an underfunded woman. cheers stephanie On 2015-11-17 14:09, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear all, > > and especially councilors, the NCPH intersessional > meeting will be held in LA on 4-5 February, with > probably an NCSG/constituency pre-meeting on Feb 3. > > That does not leave much time for travel arrangements. > > There is travel support for all councillors, but > please confirm whether or no you can travel then ASAP. > > (Constituency EC members are supported as well, but > they're up to respective ECs to take care of.) > > Others, if you think there's a reason why you should > get there in case there are extra travel slots > (if a councillor can't make it or something), please > come forward, too. > > Thank you, > From robin Wed Nov 18 19:22:17 2015 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:22:17 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> <008601d12162$cb442f10$61cc8d30$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Message-ID: <712C8982-85FF-43BD-93DB-F861F448088F@ipjustice.org> I am not a member of the NCSG Policy Committee, fyi. Thanks, Robin > On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Maryam Bakoshi wrote: > > Hi Joy, > > Please could you let me know what the correct date is, and I will ask for it to be updated asap. > > Many thanks, > -- > Maryam Bakoshi > Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > Mobile: +44 7737 698036 > Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann > > From: Joy Liddicoat > > Date: Tuesday, 17 November 2015 18:07 > To: Maryam Bakoshi >, 'Sam Lanfranco' > > Cc: 'NCSG-Policy' >, 'Tapani Tarvainen' > > Subject: RE: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query > > Hi ? and I see that my term is up this month as well, > > Joy > > From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org ] On Behalf Of Maryam Bakoshi > Sent: Monday, 9 November 2015 9:20 p.m. > To: Sam Lanfranco > Cc: NCSG-Policy; Tapani Tarvainen > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query > > Hi Sam, All, > > I have asked for this page to be updated, but I am still waiting for it to be actioned. > > Below is the change request I made, please it would be helpful if corrections are made, then I can send an updated version/request to the team. > > ------------------------ > > Rafik Dammak: remove ?Chair? from front of name and also remove from Executive Committee and Finance Committee > Avri Doria: Remove and replace with 'Stefania Milan? (SOI ); picture attached; term: Oct 2015 ? Oct 2017 > David Cake - change end date to October 2016 > Amr Elsadr - change end date to Oct 2017 > Maria Farrel ? change end date to Oct 2017 > Sam Lanfranco - change end date to Oct 2016 > Marilia Maciel - change end date to Oct 2017 > Tapani Tarvainen ? move to top of page; add ?Chair? in bold to front of name; change end date to Oct 2016; add to Executive Committee, Policy Committee and Finance Committee. > > Many thanks, > > Maryam Bakoshi > Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann > T: +44 7737698036 > > > On 8 Nov 2015, at 23:58, Sam Lanfranco > wrote: > > Policy Committee Colleagues, > > Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. > Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee membership has expired. > Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. > > Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? > Data from: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg > > Sam L. > > Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check mark = still a member/observer. > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > "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 _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi Wed Nov 18 19:37:12 2015 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:37:12 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query In-Reply-To: <712C8982-85FF-43BD-93DB-F861F448088F@ipjustice.org> References: <563FE170.2030605@yorku.ca> <25A8DD74-45AA-42D9-A21F-EE1EAD88FEB1@icann.org> <008601d12162$cb442f10$61cc8d30$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> , <712C8982-85FF-43BD-93DB-F861F448088F@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <7C90C71B-97C9-4067-BA0E-F5A7CC3141C7@icann.org> Thank you, Robin. I will get that updated. Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann T: +44 7737698036 On 18 Nov 2015, at 17:24, Robin Gross > wrote: I am not a member of the NCSG Policy Committee, fyi. Thanks, Robin On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Maryam Bakoshi > wrote: Hi Joy, Please could you let me know what the correct date is, and I will ask for it to be updated asap. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Mobile: +44 7737 698036 Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann From: Joy Liddicoat > Date: Tuesday, 17 November 2015 18:07 To: Maryam Bakoshi >, 'Sam Lanfranco' > Cc: 'NCSG-Policy' >, 'Tapani Tarvainen' > Subject: RE: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query Hi - and I see that my term is up this month as well, Joy From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Maryam Bakoshi Sent: Monday, 9 November 2015 9:20 p.m. To: Sam Lanfranco Cc: NCSG-Policy; Tapani Tarvainen Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Query Hi Sam, All, I have asked for this page to be updated, but I am still waiting for it to be actioned. Below is the change request I made, please it would be helpful if corrections are made, then I can send an updated version/request to the team. ------------------------ Rafik Dammak: remove 'Chair' from front of name and also remove from Executive Committee and Finance Committee Avri Doria: Remove and replace with 'Stefania Milan' (SOI); picture attached; term: Oct 2015 - Oct 2017 David Cake - change end date to October 2016 Amr Elsadr - change end date to Oct 2017 Maria Farrel - change end date to Oct 2017 Sam Lanfranco - change end date to Oct 2016 Marilia Maciel - change end date to Oct 2017 Tapani Tarvainen - move to top of page; add 'Chair' in bold to front of name; change end date to Oct 2016; add to Executive Committee, Policy Committee and Finance Committee. Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann T: +44 7737698036 On 8 Nov 2015, at 23:58, Sam Lanfranco > wrote: Policy Committee Colleagues, Aware that my membership in the NCSG Policy Committee expired at the end of October I looked up Policy Committee composition. Unless I am reading the data wrong, almost all of the Policy Committee membership has expired. Only Robin Gross (Jan 2016), Edward Morris (AGM 2016), and Rudi Vansnick (July 2016) are serving beyond this month. Is there an issue here, or am I missing something? Data from:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg Sam L. Code: X = expired; X with yellow = about to expire; and green check mark = still a member/observer. -- ------------------------------------------------ "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 _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Thu Nov 19 14:17:48 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:17:48 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi, Having just gotten around to reading the IAG report and Jeremy?s comment, I too would like the NCSG to endorse the comment. Note that Jeremy already submitted it on October 19th, so we do not need to resubmit it. You?ll find it in the archives here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iag-whois-05oct15/msg00001.html Would be great to hear from more folks on this as soon as possible. As Tapani has indicated, we?re well past the deadline on this one. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > Tapani, > > It is my individual opinion that the Jeremy Malcolm comment is of the right tone and focus and I urge consensus with regard to submitting the document within the comments deadline. The key NCSG comment would be: > > "..allow any applicant to have recourse of the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure if it is compelled to do so by locally applicable law, without any formality." > > Any other process would be needlessly burdensome and runs the risk of local authorities using the process as a way of unduly burdening the Contracted Party as a form of abuse and/or punishment. > > Sam L. > > > On 17/11/2015 2:24 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on >> >> IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for >> Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws >> >> is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. >> >> We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit >> >> We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, >> but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > "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 From dave Thu Nov 19 14:20:30 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:20:30 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <12DF2269-9AB7-4BBB-BA14-D0D716FE51DA@difference.com.au> We are obviously past the deadline, but I also would be happy to endorse Jeremys comment. David > On 19 Nov 2015, at 8:17 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > Having just gotten around to reading the IAG report and Jeremy?s comment, I too would like the NCSG to endorse the comment. Note that Jeremy already submitted it on October 19th, so we do not need to resubmit it. You?ll find it in the archives here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iag-whois-05oct15/msg00001.html > > Would be great to hear from more folks on this as soon as possible. As Tapani has indicated, we?re well past the deadline on this one. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> Tapani, >> >> It is my individual opinion that the Jeremy Malcolm comment is of the right tone and focus and I urge consensus with regard to submitting the document within the comments deadline. The key NCSG comment would be: >> >> "..allow any applicant to have recourse of the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure if it is compelled to do so by locally applicable law, without any formality." >> >> Any other process would be needlessly burdensome and runs the risk of local authorities using the process as a way of unduly burdening the Contracted Party as a form of abuse and/or punishment. >> >> Sam L. >> >> >> On 17/11/2015 2:24 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on >>> >>> IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for >>> Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws >>> >>> is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. >>> >>> We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit >>> >>> We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, >>> but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. >>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------ >> "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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ncsg Thu Nov 19 15:04:51 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:04:51 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: <12DF2269-9AB7-4BBB-BA14-D0D716FE51DA@difference.com.au> References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> <12DF2269-9AB7-4BBB-BA14-D0D716FE51DA@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <20151119130451.GB9986@tarvainen.info> Agreed. Tapani On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 08:20:30PM +0800, David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) wrote: > We are obviously past the deadline, but I also would be happy to endorse Jeremys comment. > > David > > > On 19 Nov 2015, at 8:17 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Having just gotten around to reading the IAG report and Jeremy?s comment, I too would like the NCSG to endorse the comment. Note that Jeremy already submitted it on October 19th, so we do not need to resubmit it. You?ll find it in the archives here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iag-whois-05oct15/msg00001.html > > > > Would be great to hear from more folks on this as soon as possible. As Tapani has indicated, we?re well past the deadline on this one. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > >> On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > >> > >> Tapani, > >> > >> It is my individual opinion that the Jeremy Malcolm comment is of the right tone and focus and I urge consensus with regard to submitting the document within the comments deadline. The key NCSG comment would be: > >> > >> "..allow any applicant to have recourse of the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure if it is compelled to do so by locally applicable law, without any formality." > >> > >> Any other process would be needlessly burdensome and runs the risk of local authorities using the process as a way of unduly burdening the Contracted Party as a form of abuse and/or punishment. > >> > >> Sam L. > >> > >> > >> On 17/11/2015 2:24 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >>> Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on > >>> > >>> IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for > >>> Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws > >>> > >>> is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. > >>> > >>> We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: > >>> > >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit > >>> > >>> We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, > >>> but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------ > >> "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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From wjdrake Thu Nov 19 15:58:37 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:58:37 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: <20151119130451.GB9986@tarvainen.info> References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> <12DF2269-9AB7-4BBB-BA14-D0D716FE51DA@difference.com.au> <20151119130451.GB9986@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <98CC4BCF-6CBA-4C91-BC52-57E03148B015@gmail.com> >From the peanut gallery? I don?t have a vote, but would say the letter?s fine except that we ought to use accurate membership numbers when referring to ourselves. Best Bill > On Nov 19, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Agreed. > > Tapani > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 08:20:30PM +0800, David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) wrote: > >> We are obviously past the deadline, but I also would be happy to endorse Jeremys comment. >> >> David >> >>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 8:17 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Having just gotten around to reading the IAG report and Jeremy?s comment, I too would like the NCSG to endorse the comment. Note that Jeremy already submitted it on October 19th, so we do not need to resubmit it. You?ll find it in the archives here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iag-whois-05oct15/msg00001.html >>> >>> Would be great to hear from more folks on this as soon as possible. As Tapani has indicated, we?re well past the deadline on this one. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>> >>>> Tapani, >>>> >>>> It is my individual opinion that the Jeremy Malcolm comment is of the right tone and focus and I urge consensus with regard to submitting the document within the comments deadline. The key NCSG comment would be: >>>> >>>> "..allow any applicant to have recourse of the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure if it is compelled to do so by locally applicable law, without any formality." >>>> >>>> Any other process would be needlessly burdensome and runs the risk of local authorities using the process as a way of unduly burdening the Contracted Party as a form of abuse and/or punishment. >>>> >>>> Sam L. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17/11/2015 2:24 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>>> Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on >>>>> >>>>> IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for >>>>> Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws >>>>> >>>>> is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. >>>>> >>>>> We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit >>>>> >>>>> We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, >>>>> but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>> "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 ********************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q ********************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Nov 19 16:06:44 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:06:44 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: <20151119130451.GB9986@tarvainen.info> References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> <12DF2269-9AB7-4BBB-BA14-D0D716FE51DA@difference.com.au> <20151119130451.GB9986@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <564DD774.4090707@mail.utoronto.ca> me too, lets fire it in. SP On 2015-11-19 8:04, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Agreed. > > Tapani > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 08:20:30PM +0800, David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) wrote: > >> We are obviously past the deadline, but I also would be happy to endorse Jeremys comment. >> >> David >> >>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 8:17 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Having just gotten around to reading the IAG report and Jeremy?s comment, I too would like the NCSG to endorse the comment. Note that Jeremy already submitted it on October 19th, so we do not need to resubmit it. You?ll find it in the archives here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iag-whois-05oct15/msg00001.html >>> >>> Would be great to hear from more folks on this as soon as possible. As Tapani has indicated, we?re well past the deadline on this one. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>> >>>> Tapani, >>>> >>>> It is my individual opinion that the Jeremy Malcolm comment is of the right tone and focus and I urge consensus with regard to submitting the document within the comments deadline. The key NCSG comment would be: >>>> >>>> "..allow any applicant to have recourse of the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure if it is compelled to do so by locally applicable law, without any formality." >>>> >>>> Any other process would be needlessly burdensome and runs the risk of local authorities using the process as a way of unduly burdening the Contracted Party as a form of abuse and/or punishment. >>>> >>>> Sam L. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17/11/2015 2:24 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>>> Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on >>>>> >>>>> IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for >>>>> Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws >>>>> >>>>> is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. >>>>> >>>>> We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit >>>>> >>>>> We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, >>>>> but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>> "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: From aelsadr Fri Nov 20 19:50:26 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 19:50:26 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI Message-ID: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> Hi, Earlier this month, Tapani circulated a call for volunteers for NCSG primary and secondary representatives to the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI). Avri Doria had been serving as the NCSG primary rep to this committee, with Stefania Milan serving as the alternate rep. Recently, and following years of service, Avri stepped down from that role. The NCSG PC now needs to make these appointments. The SCI is currently working on two projects, and during yesterday?s GNSO Council meeting, a motion was passed requesting the SCI to pick up a third project concerning the Council election procedures in the GNSO Operating Manual. The committee will be quite busy with these over the next year, and NCSG representation (which has been fantastic to date) needs to be engaged in this work. I?m hoping we can wrap up these appointments prior to the SCI?s next meeting on December 10th, but the sooner we do get this done, the better. This is the current list of volunteers, and I am asking that PC members indicate who they would like to support to fill the two roles of primary and alternate representatives: 1. Stefania Milan 2. Sam Akins 3. Tapani Tarvainen 4. Karel Douglas I don?t believe I missed anyone who did volunteer for this, but if I inadvertently have left any names out, please flag this here. Thanks. Amr From ncsg Fri Nov 20 20:33:07 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 20:33:07 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 07:50:26PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: > This is the current list of volunteers, and I am asking that PC > members indicate who they would like to support to fill the two > roles of primary and alternate representatives: > 1. Stefania Milan > 2. Sam Akins > 3. Tapani Tarvainen > 4. Karel Douglas Number 2's full name is Samuel Akinsola. Also, please drop me out of the list. I'm busy enough as it is, I don't need to do this now that there're enough good volunteers. I vote for Stefania as primary and Karel as alternate. -- Tapani Tarvainen From aelsadr Sat Nov 21 14:35:21 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:35:21 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: <98CC4BCF-6CBA-4C91-BC52-57E03148B015@gmail.com> References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> <12DF2269-9AB7-4BBB-BA14-D0D716FE51DA@difference.com.au> <20151119130451.GB9986@tarvainen.info> <98CC4BCF-6CBA-4C91-BC52-57E03148B015@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, Not sure what membership numbers you?re referring to. I can?t locate any reference to NCSG?s membership numbers in EFF?s comment. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 19, 2015, at 3:58 PM, William Drake wrote: > > From the peanut gallery? > > I don?t have a vote, but would say the letter?s fine except that we ought to use accurate membership numbers when referring to ourselves. > > Best > > Bill > >> On Nov 19, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >> Agreed. >> >> Tapani >> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 08:20:30PM +0800, David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) wrote: >> >>> We are obviously past the deadline, but I also would be happy to endorse Jeremys comment. >>> >>> David >>> >>>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 8:17 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Having just gotten around to reading the IAG report and Jeremy?s comment, I too would like the NCSG to endorse the comment. Note that Jeremy already submitted it on October 19th, so we do not need to resubmit it. You?ll find it in the archives here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iag-whois-05oct15/msg00001.html >>>> >>>> Would be great to hear from more folks on this as soon as possible. As Tapani has indicated, we?re well past the deadline on this one. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>>> On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Tapani, >>>>> >>>>> It is my individual opinion that the Jeremy Malcolm comment is of the right tone and focus and I urge consensus with regard to submitting the document within the comments deadline. The key NCSG comment would be: >>>>> >>>>> "..allow any applicant to have recourse of the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure if it is compelled to do so by locally applicable law, without any formality." >>>>> >>>>> Any other process would be needlessly burdensome and runs the risk of local authorities using the process as a way of unduly burdening the Contracted Party as a form of abuse and/or punishment. >>>>> >>>>> Sam L. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17/11/2015 2:24 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>>>> Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on >>>>>> >>>>>> IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for >>>>>> Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws >>>>>> >>>>>> is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. >>>>>> >>>>>> We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, >>>>>> but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>> "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 > > ********************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q > ********************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Sat Nov 21 14:38:59 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:38:59 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: <564DD774.4090707@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> <12DF2269-9AB7-4BBB-BA14-D0D716FE51DA@difference.com.au> <20151119130451.GB9986@tarvainen.info> <564DD774.4090707@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <36A32B02-BC17-41E4-9938-3AD54C428CD1@egyptig.org> Hi, Thanks for those who have voiced support for this document. I know it?s the weekend, and folks may not be checking/responding to email as regularly as they normally would. However, because we are so way past the deadline to submit comments, I?m going to set a rather close deadline of UTC 12:00 tomorrow (Sunday, November 21st) for anyone to voice any concern or objection with NCSG endorsing Jeremy?s input on this topic. In the absence of any objection, I will ask Tapani to send an email to staff via the public comment forum informing them that the NCSG is endorsing the EFF comment submitted by Jeremy. Thanks to all. Amr > On Nov 19, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > me too, lets fire it in. > SP > > On 2015-11-19 8:04, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Agreed. >> >> Tapani >> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 08:20:30PM +0800, David Cake ( >> dave at difference.com.au >> ) wrote: >> >> >>> We are obviously past the deadline, but I also would be happy to endorse Jeremys comment. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 8:17 PM, Amr Elsadr >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Having just gotten around to reading the IAG report and Jeremy?s comment, I too would like the NCSG to endorse the comment. Note that Jeremy already submitted it on October 19th, so we do not need to resubmit it. You?ll find it in the archives here: >>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iag-whois-05oct15/msg00001.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Would be great to hear from more folks on this as soon as possible. As Tapani has indicated, we?re well past the deadline on this one. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Sam Lanfranco >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Tapani, >>>>> >>>>> It is my individual opinion that the Jeremy Malcolm comment is of the right tone and focus and I urge consensus with regard to submitting the document within the comments deadline. The key NCSG comment would be: >>>>> >>>>> "..allow any applicant to have recourse of the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure if it is compelled to do so by locally applicable law, without any formality." >>>>> >>>>> Any other process would be needlessly burdensome and runs the risk of local authorities using the process as a way of unduly burdening the Contracted Party as a form of abuse and/or punishment. >>>>> >>>>> Sam L. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17/11/2015 2:24 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on >>>>>> >>>>>> IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for >>>>>> Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws >>>>>> >>>>>> is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. >>>>>> >>>>>> We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, >>>>>> but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>> "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 > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Sat Nov 21 14:41:23 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:41:23 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> Hi Tapani, Thanks for the correction on Samuel?s name, informing us of your decision to withdraw yours (which I find to be understandable), as well as letting us know of your preferences. Lots of thank you?s. :) Amr > On Nov 20, 2015, at 8:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 07:50:26PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: > >> This is the current list of volunteers, and I am asking that PC >> members indicate who they would like to support to fill the two >> roles of primary and alternate representatives: > >> 1. Stefania Milan >> 2. Sam Akins >> 3. Tapani Tarvainen >> 4. Karel Douglas > > Number 2's full name is Samuel Akinsola. > > Also, please drop me out of the list. I'm busy enough as it is, > I don't need to do this now that there're enough good volunteers. > > I vote for Stefania as primary and Karel as alternate. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wjdrake Sat Nov 21 17:25:51 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:25:51 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> <12DF2269-9AB7-4BBB-BA14-D0D716FE51DA@difference.com.au> <20151119130451.GB9986@tarvainen.info> <98CC4BCF-6CBA-4C91-BC52-57E03148B015@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5A30039B-6A91-41E4-BB7F-C4C00CFEDC47@gmail.com> was in the draft comment I clicked on prior no worries > On Nov 21, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Not sure what membership numbers you?re referring to. I can?t locate any reference to NCSG?s membership numbers in EFF?s comment. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Nov 19, 2015, at 3:58 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> From the peanut gallery? >> >> I don?t have a vote, but would say the letter?s fine except that we ought to use accurate membership numbers when referring to ourselves. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >>> On Nov 19, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> Tapani >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 08:20:30PM +0800, David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) wrote: >>> >>>> We are obviously past the deadline, but I also would be happy to endorse Jeremys comment. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 8:17 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Having just gotten around to reading the IAG report and Jeremy?s comment, I too would like the NCSG to endorse the comment. Note that Jeremy already submitted it on October 19th, so we do not need to resubmit it. You?ll find it in the archives here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iag-whois-05oct15/msg00001.html >>>>> >>>>> Would be great to hear from more folks on this as soon as possible. As Tapani has indicated, we?re well past the deadline on this one. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Tapani, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is my individual opinion that the Jeremy Malcolm comment is of the right tone and focus and I urge consensus with regard to submitting the document within the comments deadline. The key NCSG comment would be: >>>>>> >>>>>> "..allow any applicant to have recourse of the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure if it is compelled to do so by locally applicable law, without any formality." >>>>>> >>>>>> Any other process would be needlessly burdensome and runs the risk of local authorities using the process as a way of unduly burdening the Contracted Party as a form of abuse and/or punishment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sam L. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17/11/2015 2:24 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>>>>> Following up on recent call, the deadline for public comments on >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for >>>>>>> Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws >>>>>>> >>>>>>> is today at 23:59 UTC, or in about 4? hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We've got a draft comment written by Jeremy Malcolm here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11HplKsNmXJayM8fBE6v_e3JcAkvuSz5pTFRH_YrGURw/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We can try to submit a bit later and hope they'll accept it anyway, >>>>>>> but it should nonetheless be done as soon as possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> "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 >> From Stefania.Milan Sun Nov 22 17:34:12 2015 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:34:12 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Travelers to LA intersessional In-Reply-To: <564C087E.7050708@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <20151117190910.GC31288@tarvainen.info>, <564C087E.7050708@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I can make it, already marked it in my agenda. Stefania ________________________________________ Da: PC-NCSG per conto di Stephanie Perrin Inviato: mercoled? 18 novembre 2015 06.11 A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Travelers to LA intersessional I can make it, and as usual am happy to share the room with an underfunded woman. cheers stephanie On 2015-11-17 14:09, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear all, > > and especially councilors, the NCPH intersessional > meeting will be held in LA on 4-5 February, with > probably an NCSG/constituency pre-meeting on Feb 3. > > That does not leave much time for travel arrangements. > > There is travel support for all councillors, but > please confirm whether or no you can travel then ASAP. > > (Constituency EC members are supported as well, but > they're up to respective ECs to take care of.) > > Others, if you think there's a reason why you should > get there in case there are extra travel slots > (if a councillor can't make it or something), please > come forward, too. > > Thank you, > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From stephanie.perrin Mon Nov 23 05:34:04 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:34:04 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Response to final report In-Reply-To: <5AAF650D-6E96-4DDA-AA62-47AAD4360175@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <5AAF650D-6E96-4DDA-AA62-47AAD4360175@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <5652892C.9050101@mail.utoronto.ca> For your information....ALAC also had trouble getting their comments in on time for IAG. cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Response to final report Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 20:51:13 +0100 From: Christopher Wilkinson To: Holly Raiche CC: Carlton Samuels , Alan Greenberg , Stephanie Perrin Thankyou, Holly, CW On 22 Nov 2015, at 20:38, Holly Raiche > wrote: > The following is an informal statement that represents the view of > many of the ALAC members. We simply did not have the bandwidth or > time to formally approve this statement, so it cannot be considered as > a formal ALAC response. That said, this issue has been discussed and > does have support within ALAC. Again, my apologies in not managing to > have the time for this to go through formal ALAC processes. I?m > happy to take any questions on its content. > Holly > > The ALAC has deep concerns with the Implementation Advisory Group?s > proposed alternative ?triggers? and supports the ?Minority Views? of > Stephanie Perrin and Christopher Wilkinson. > The original goal of this policy (concluded by the GNSO in November > 2005) was to develop procedures that could reconcile mandatory laws on > privacy with the requirements on registries and registrars under > contract with ICANN for the collection, display and distribution of > WHOIS personal information. > Unfortunately, the Task Force charged with implementing the policy > adopted a ?solution? that is virtually unworkable and has never been > used. Under the ?solution? the registrar/registry should notify ICANN > within 30 days of situations (an inquiry, litigation or threat of > sanctions) when the registry/registrar can demonstrate that it cannot > comply with WHOIS obligations due to local or national privacy laws. > There are two fundamental reasons why the policy is unworkable. The > first is the bizarre outcome that registrars and registries must seek > ICANN permission to comply with their applicable local laws. The > second obvious flaw is that it means registrars/registries must wait > until there is an ?inquiry or investigation etc of some sort before > the process can be triggered. > This Implementation Working Group (IWG) was formed to ? consider the > need for changes to how the procedure is invoked and used?. The > difficulty with that approach is that it does not address the basic > flaws in the processes proposed: it still assumes that ICANN has a > role in determining registry/registrar compliance with applicable > local law and it still believes that solution lies in legal events > that ?trigger? a resolution process. > The ISG report proposes an ?Alternative Trigger? (Appendix 1) or a > Written Legal Opinion (Dual Trigger) (Appendix 2). The Alternative > Trigger process is far simpler and preferable. Indeed, the language > suggests that the process might be used to reconcile ICANN WHOIS > requirements with relevant privacy law more generally, and not on just > on a case by case basis. > There are, however, difficulties with the Alternative Trigger > proposal, as follows. > > * It relies on advice from law firms (whose advice would not bind > the relevant privacy agency), or on agencies themselves (who are > most often reluctant to provide such advice) > * The onus is on individual registries/registrars to invoke the > process. There are many smaller registries/registrars that would > not have the resources to fund such advice, particularly if it is > needed on a case by case basis > * Because laws/regulations on the handling of personal information > vary from area to area (whether national or regional), different > registries/registrars will be bound by different sets of > requirements ? in order to comply with the same contractual terms > * It is also not clear why GAC advice is included in both proposed > ?triggers?. The expertise of individual GAC members relates to > ICANN?s remit: domain names, IP addresses and protocols. > > The ALAC supports both of the proposals made by Christopher Wilkinson > (Appendix 4) which address the issues raised . The first is ? at the > least ? a ?block exemption? for all registries/registrars in the > relevant jurisdiction. This would eliminate the ?case by case? > approach to the issue and provide certainty for all > registries/registrars (whether large or small) in that area. > A better approach is his call for a ?best practice? policy on the > collection, retention and revealing of WHOIS information. This would > ensure that, regardless of the jurisdiction of the > registrar/registries ? and registrants ? all would receive the same > privacy protection. > > Holly Raiche > Carlton Samuels > _______________________________________________ > 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: From aelsadr Mon Nov 23 16:15:02 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:15:02 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IAG public comment In-Reply-To: <5A30039B-6A91-41E4-BB7F-C4C00CFEDC47@gmail.com> References: <20151117192432.GE31288@tarvainen.info> <564B875C.9070502@yorku.ca> <12DF2269-9AB7-4BBB-BA14-D0D716FE51DA@difference.com.au> <20151119130451.GB9986@tarvainen.info> <98CC4BCF-6CBA-4C91-BC52-57E03148B015@gmail.com> <5A30039B-6A91-41E4-BB7F-C4C00CFEDC47@gmail.com> Message-ID: <09CF4F2E-9926-4CCE-8E11-8693A044677A@egyptig.org> Hi, > On Nov 23, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > For your information....ALAC also had trouble getting their comments in on time for IAG. > cheers Stephanie Thanks for letting us know, Stephanie. I?ve also sent an email to the public comment forum informing staff that the NCSG supports the EFF comment submitted by Jeremy. Thanks again. Amr From aelsadr Mon Nov 23 16:21:25 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:21:25 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> Hi again, Was hoping I could get more input on these appointments. Anyone have any preferences they would like to let the PC know about? Several NCSG members expressed interest in joining the SCI, so it?d be good to hear the thoughts of the PC members who are meant to appoint them. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 21, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi Tapani, > > Thanks for the correction on Samuel?s name, informing us of your decision to withdraw yours (which I find to be understandable), as well as letting us know of your preferences. Lots of thank you?s. :) > > Amr > >> On Nov 20, 2015, at 8:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 07:50:26PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: >> >>> This is the current list of volunteers, and I am asking that PC >>> members indicate who they would like to support to fill the two >>> roles of primary and alternate representatives: >> >>> 1. Stefania Milan >>> 2. Sam Akins >>> 3. Tapani Tarvainen >>> 4. Karel Douglas >> >> Number 2's full name is Samuel Akinsola. >> >> Also, please drop me out of the list. I'm busy enough as it is, >> I don't need to do this now that there're enough good volunteers. >> >> I vote for Stefania as primary and Karel as alternate. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Mon Nov 23 16:33:23 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:33:23 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeting Samuel, he may be excellent but I think the Stef/Karel team would be excellent. cheers steph On 2015-11-23 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi again, > > Was hoping I could get more input on these appointments. Anyone have any preferences they would like to let the PC know about? Several NCSG members expressed interest in joining the SCI, so it?d be good to hear the thoughts of the PC members who are meant to appoint them. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Nov 21, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi Tapani, >> >> Thanks for the correction on Samuel?s name, informing us of your decision to withdraw yours (which I find to be understandable), as well as letting us know of your preferences. Lots of thank you?s. :) >> >> Amr >> >>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 8:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 07:50:26PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: >>> >>>> This is the current list of volunteers, and I am asking that PC >>>> members indicate who they would like to support to fill the two >>>> roles of primary and alternate representatives: >>>> 1. Stefania Milan >>>> 2. Sam Akins >>>> 3. Tapani Tarvainen >>>> 4. Karel Douglas >>> Number 2's full name is Samuel Akinsola. >>> >>> Also, please drop me out of the list. I'm busy enough as it is, >>> I don't need to do this now that there're enough good volunteers. >>> >>> I vote for Stefania as primary and Karel as alternate. >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Mon Nov 23 16:37:51 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:37:51 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Stephanie. Any other takers? > On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeting Samuel, he may be excellent but I think the Stef/Karel team would be excellent. > cheers steph > > On 2015-11-23 9:21, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> Was hoping I could get more input on these appointments. Anyone have any preferences they would like to let the PC know about? Several NCSG members expressed interest in joining the SCI, so it?d be good to hear the thoughts of the PC members who are meant to appoint them. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Nov 21, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Hi Tapani, >>> >>> Thanks for the correction on Samuel?s name, informing us of your decision to withdraw yours (which I find to be understandable), as well as letting us know of your preferences. Lots of thank you?s. :) >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 8:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 07:50:26PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is the current list of volunteers, and I am asking that PC >>>>> members indicate who they would like to support to fill the two >>>>> roles of primary and alternate representatives: >>>>> 1. Stefania Milan >>>>> 2. Sam Akins >>>>> 3. Tapani Tarvainen >>>>> 4. Karel Douglas >>>> Number 2's full name is Samuel Akinsola. >>>> >>>> Also, please drop me out of the list. I'm busy enough as it is, >>>> I don't need to do this now that there're enough good volunteers. >>>> >>>> I vote for Stefania as primary and Karel as alternate. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From lanfran Mon Nov 23 18:42:29 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:42:29 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> Having limited information I too will join Stephanie in supporting Stef & Karel. Sam On 23/11/2015 9:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks Stephanie. Any other takers? > >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeting Samuel, he may be excellent but I think the Stef/Karel team would be excellent. >> cheers steph >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From aelsadr Mon Nov 23 19:21:32 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:21:32 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Sam. I will also go ahead and lend my support to the Stefania/Karel team-up. Thanks again. Amr > On Nov 23, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > Having limited information I too will join Stephanie in supporting Stef & Karel. > > Sam > > On 23/11/2015 9:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Thanks Stephanie. Any other takers? >> >>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>> I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeting Samuel, he may be excellent but I think the Stef/Karel team would be excellent. >>> cheers steph >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Tue Nov 24 02:11:56 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:11:56 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <5653AB4C.7030101@mail.utoronto.ca> I take the liberty of forwarding to you the last bits from the Westlake review working group, even though I did not make the last meeting (few did, I believe Avri may have been the only member from this list present, but I am not sure at all). However, the last three recommendations, where they are still looking for input, are difficult ones, I would suggest. It might behoove us to discuss a bit before we show up at the next meeting. kind regards stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:34:33 +0000 From: Charla Shambley To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Thank you for the productive call last week to finish categorizing the remaining recommendations from the Final Report. I am attaching the Excel spreadsheet which now sorts the recommendations according to the color coding scheme and then by ?Ease of Implementation?. The objective of your next call is to determine prioritization of the recommendations and preparation of a Working Party report to the GNSO Council and ultimately the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with suggestions on how to proceed with the 36 recommendations issued by the independent examiner. Please complete the doodle poll so that we can schedule a one hour call during the week of 30 November ? I will close this poll on Friday, 27 November. You will notice that there are three outstanding recommendations that the Working Party flagged during our last call which require further discussion and review of the Final Report. I have highlighted relevant sections from the Final Report that support these three recommendations and have attached these two documents as well: Section 6 ? recommendations 21 and 22 Section 9 ? recommendation 36 *WP ACTION ITEM*: Complete the doodle poll by 27 November. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (17 Nov).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 116354 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 165362 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 9.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162234 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dave Tue Nov 24 02:22:33 2015 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:22:33 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting. I do strongly support Stefania as primary. David > On 24 Nov 2015, at 1:21 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Thanks Sam. I will also go ahead and lend my support to the Stefania/Karel team-up. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> Having limited information I too will join Stephanie in supporting Stef & Karel. >> >> Sam >> >> On 23/11/2015 9:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Thanks Stephanie. Any other takers? >>> >>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>> I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeting Samuel, he may be excellent but I think the Stef/Karel team would be excellent. >>>> cheers steph >>>> >>> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Nov 24 05:44:30 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:44:30 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653DD1E.8010706@mail.utoronto.ca> Further information on the CCT endorsement process, apologies for cross posting. Note that the deadline for GNSO endorsements is now December 17. Stephanie Perrin -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 02:22:12 +0000 From: Marika Konings To: Council For your information. From: > on behalf of Charla Shambley > Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "'soac-infoalert at icann.org '" > Cc: Eleeza Agopian >, Margie Milam > Subject: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Dear SO/AC leaders, We are pleased to report that we received 72 applications from individuals interested in serving on the next review team under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) that will examine the impact of new gTLDS in the areas of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT). Before final selection of the CCT Review Team is completed by the ICANN CEO and the GAC Chair, we are seeking endorsements from any SO/AC for those applicants who have expressed an interest to serve as their representatives. If you choose to endorse an applicant, please send your endorsements by email to reviews at icann.org by the updated deadline of 17 December at 23:59 UTC. In order to help with the endorsement process, below are answers to some frequently asked questions: *Is there a set allocation for SO/AC representatives? *Under the AoC, there is no set allocation per SO/AC or per stakeholder group, nor is there a maximum for total size of the review team. *How Many Members Will be on the Review Team?* There is no set number of volunteers for the Review Team. However, keep in mind that the review team should be comprised of members that collectively have expertise covering the wide range of topics that are within the mandate of this review team. Past AoC review teams were comprised of approximately 16 members. *What Were the Criteria for Applicants? *The call for volunteers lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including:** ?*Subject matter expertise*? oNew gTLD application process/objections oIntellectual Property oSecurity & Malicious Abuse of the DNS oCompetition Issues oConsumer Protection oPublic Policy Concerns oTrust in the DNS ?*Representation across the interested SO/ACs* ?*Diversity* ?*Regional representation* For more information, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert From lanfran Tue Nov 24 07:30:47 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:30:47 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Recommendations R21, R22, R36 In-Reply-To: <5653AB4C.7030101@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <5653AB4C.7030101@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5653F607.8060302@yorku.ca> Thanks to Stephanie Perrin for the heads up on the three recommendations identified as difficult and where they are still looking for input. I will start with comments from a position of maximum naivety. Each of the three recommendations appears to start from what appears to be a reasonable and "why", but goes to a "what" and a "how" that are problematic both with regard to implementation and outcomes. Recommendation 21 (R21): That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well-represented in the policy-making process. ? R21: Ignoring for a minute what analytical framework would work here, it is unclear what is meant by a trend, and at what stage in the policy-making process of creating new gTLDs this analysis would occur. Is this talking about the terms of reference for a new round gTLDs? In that case there is no trend in gTLDs, but instead there are policy issues with regard to the terms of reference for the new round. ? R21: If this refers to the flow of proposed new gTLDs after a new round has been initiated, then it is not clear what is meant by policy-process here. For issues that arise in the context of individual gTLD proposals, the proposed process would be a cumbersome, burdensome, and likely poor alternative to greater transparency and ease of comment option/discussion with regard to new gTLD applications. ? R21: Ensuring that those affected are well represented would also be problematic. For .pharmacy it is relatively easy to engage the pharmacy community, but less so the broad consumer community. For .health it is not at all clear how the affected global health community would be "well represented" in the policy-making process. Recommendation 22 (R22): That the GNSO Council develop a competency-based framework which its members should utilise to identify development needs and opportunities. ? R22: The GNSO is an ICANN supporting organization dealing with policies for generic Top-Level Domains. Leaving aside for a moment what is meant by "a competency-based framework", most all of the policy issues the GNSO has to deal with are tossed up within the ferment of the Internet ecosystem. The GNSO is not an incubator with the luxury of generating its own policy projects independent of current context. While the GNSO has resource limitations with regard to the number of PDP?s it can handle, it does set priorities there, but it is not at all clear what is meant by GNSO "development needs and opportunities" in this recommendation. Recommendation 36 (R36): That, when approving the formation of a PDP WG, the GNSO Council require that its membership represent as far as reasonably practical the geographic, cultural and gender diversity of the Internet as a whole. Additionally, that when approving GNSO Policy, the ICANN Board explicitly satisfy itself that the GNSO Council undertook these actions when approving the formation of a PDP WG. ? R36: This diversity requirement recommendation faces multiple obstacles as proposed. PDP WGs need to remain manageable in terms of size. As well, there will be varying levels of constituency interest and engagement in the DPD process depending on the policy areas under development. Lastly, constituency volunteer participation (in contrast to contracted and non-contracted business interests) would be hard pressed to provide adequate diverse participation just for the sake of diversity and independent of the relevance of the particular PDP. ? Adequate and diverse stakeholder engagement may be better served by enhanced transparency around pending policy issues, and promoting greater awareness and ease of engagement on the comments side of the PDP process. From aelsadr Tue Nov 24 16:22:39 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:22:39 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> Yeah?, I don?t know Samuel at all. I can?t say I know Karel either, except for briefly meeting him in Dublin, which isn?t a very good reason to prefer him over Samuel. I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) My only reason for choosing Karel over Samuel is that my impression of his is that he is a relatively new member, and seems eager. I figured it wouldn?t be a bad idea to encourage him to stay engaged. In the future, it might not be a bad idea to develop a process by which volunteers provide some kind of brief explanation why they may be qualified for a certain appointment, as well as why they are seeking it. This may help inform PC members who are trying to make some kind of informed, fair and constructive decision when it comes to these appointments. Just thought I?d share my thoughts on this. Looking forward to hearing from others. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:22 AM, David Cake wrote: > > I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting. > > I do strongly support Stefania as primary. > > David > >> On 24 Nov 2015, at 1:21 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Thanks Sam. I will also go ahead and lend my support to the Stefania/Karel team-up. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> >>> Having limited information I too will join Stephanie in supporting Stef & Karel. >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> On 23/11/2015 9:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Thanks Stephanie. Any other takers? >>>> >>>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeting Samuel, he may be excellent but I think the Stef/Karel team would be excellent. >>>>> cheers steph >>>>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From egmorris1 Tue Nov 24 16:42:39 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:42:39 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <0C14A5DA-8CB1-4207-83EF-3475291885B5@toast.net> Actually, Amr, you have written everything I would want to write. Regarding the SCI, it's long been my dream home at ICANN. The few months I spent there as a temporary member in 2014 were amongst my favorite all time at ICANN. The atmosphere brought about by the consensus requirement was, at that time, wonderful to be part of. I hope the new appointees enjoy it as much as I did. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Yeah?, I don?t know Samuel at all. I can?t say I know Karel either, except for briefly meeting him in Dublin, which isn?t a very good reason to prefer him over Samuel. > > I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) My only reason for choosing Karel over Samuel is that my impression of his is that he is a relatively new member, and seems eager. I figured it wouldn?t be a bad idea to encourage him to stay engaged. > > In the future, it might not be a bad idea to develop a process by which volunteers provide some kind of brief explanation why they may be qualified for a certain appointment, as well as why they are seeking it. This may help inform PC members who are trying to make some kind of informed, fair and constructive decision when it comes to these appointments. > > Just thought I?d share my thoughts on this. > > Looking forward to hearing from others. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:22 AM, David Cake wrote: >> >> I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting. >> >> I do strongly support Stefania as primary. >> >> David >> >>> On 24 Nov 2015, at 1:21 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Sam. I will also go ahead and lend my support to the Stefania/Karel team-up. >>> >>> Thanks again. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>> >>>> Having limited information I too will join Stephanie in supporting Stef & Karel. >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> >>>>> On 23/11/2015 9:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> Thanks Stephanie. Any other takers? >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeting Samuel, he may be excellent but I think the Stef/Karel team would be excellent. >>>>>> cheers steph >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From ncsg Tue Nov 24 17:47:51 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:47:51 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <20151124154751.GA27221@tarvainen.info> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 04:22:39PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: > I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. > Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) Now all I need to do is make all these hard and thankless tasks sound so sexy we'll get lots of volunteers. :-) Anyway, here's a bit of background information on Karel and Samuel: http://icannwiki.com/Karel_Douglas https://www.linkedin.com/in/karel-douglas-a4a47539 https://www.linkedin.com/in/sammy-akinsola-5b998280 -- Tapani Tarvainen From stephanie.perrin Tue Nov 24 18:28:34 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:28:34 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <56549032.2080102@mail.utoronto.ca> This would be a great opportunity to demonstrate a mentoring project. Both Stef and Karel are relative newbies. A mentor assigned to help could be very useful to them, and provide confidence to the PC. History is useful to know in these exercises, and dont ask someone to read oodles of transcripts from previous exercises.... cheers steph On 2015-11-24 9:22, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Yeah?, I don?t know Samuel at all. I can?t say I know Karel either, except for briefly meeting him in Dublin, which isn?t a very good reason to prefer him over Samuel. > > I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) My only reason for choosing Karel over Samuel is that my impression of his is that he is a relatively new member, and seems eager. I figured it wouldn?t be a bad idea to encourage him to stay engaged. > > In the future, it might not be a bad idea to develop a process by which volunteers provide some kind of brief explanation why they may be qualified for a certain appointment, as well as why they are seeking it. This may help inform PC members who are trying to make some kind of informed, fair and constructive decision when it comes to these appointments. > > Just thought I?d share my thoughts on this. > > Looking forward to hearing from others. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:22 AM, David Cake wrote: >> >> I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting. >> >> I do strongly support Stefania as primary. >> >> David >> >>> On 24 Nov 2015, at 1:21 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Sam. I will also go ahead and lend my support to the Stefania/Karel team-up. >>> >>> Thanks again. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>> >>>> Having limited information I too will join Stephanie in supporting Stef & Karel. >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> >>>> On 23/11/2015 9:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> Thanks Stephanie. Any other takers? >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeting Samuel, he may be excellent but I think the Stef/Karel team would be excellent. >>>>>> cheers steph >>>>>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Tue Nov 24 18:44:54 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:44:54 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <56549032.2080102@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> <56549032.2080102@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, I'd be happy to help any NCSG member who is a newcomer to SCI settle in. Thanks. Amr Sent from mobile > On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > This would be a great opportunity to demonstrate a mentoring project. Both Stef and Karel are relative newbies. A mentor assigned to help could be very useful to them, and provide confidence to the PC. History is useful to know in these exercises, and dont ask someone to read oodles of transcripts from previous exercises.... > cheers steph > >> On 2015-11-24 9:22, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Yeah?, I don?t know Samuel at all. I can?t say I know Karel either, except for briefly meeting him in Dublin, which isn?t a very good reason to prefer him over Samuel. >> >> I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) My only reason for choosing Karel over Samuel is that my impression of his is that he is a relatively new member, and seems eager. I figured it wouldn?t be a bad idea to encourage him to stay engaged. >> >> In the future, it might not be a bad idea to develop a process by which volunteers provide some kind of brief explanation why they may be qualified for a certain appointment, as well as why they are seeking it. This may help inform PC members who are trying to make some kind of informed, fair and constructive decision when it comes to these appointments. >> >> Just thought I?d share my thoughts on this. >> >> Looking forward to hearing from others. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:22 AM, David Cake wrote: >>> >>> I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting. >>> >>> I do strongly support Stefania as primary. >>> >>> David >>> >>>> On 24 Nov 2015, at 1:21 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Sam. I will also go ahead and lend my support to the Stefania/Karel team-up. >>>> >>>> Thanks again. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Having limited information I too will join Stephanie in supporting Stef & Karel. >>>>> >>>>> Sam >>>>> >>>>>> On 23/11/2015 9:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. Any other takers? >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeti From stephanie.perrin Tue Nov 24 18:45:33 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:45:33 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> <56549032.2080102@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5654942D.40006@mail.utoronto.ca> That is a great offer Amr, can we use it as a trial to see what folks need in a mentor, how it works best etc.? Maybe the final candidates wont want this at all but I would be surprised... cheers steph On 2015-11-24 11:44, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I'd be happy to help any NCSG member who is a newcomer to SCI settle in. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > Sent from mobile > >> On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> This would be a great opportunity to demonstrate a mentoring project. Both Stef and Karel are relative newbies. A mentor assigned to help could be very useful to them, and provide confidence to the PC. History is useful to know in these exercises, and dont ask someone to read oodles of transcripts from previous exercises.... >> cheers steph >> >>> On 2015-11-24 9:22, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Yeah?, I don?t know Samuel at all. I can?t say I know Karel either, except for briefly meeting him in Dublin, which isn?t a very good reason to prefer him over Samuel. >>> >>> I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) My only reason for choosing Karel over Samuel is that my impression of his is that he is a relatively new member, and seems eager. I figured it wouldn?t be a bad idea to encourage him to stay engaged. >>> >>> In the future, it might not be a bad idea to develop a process by which volunteers provide some kind of brief explanation why they may be qualified for a certain appointment, as well as why they are seeking it. This may help inform PC members who are trying to make some kind of informed, fair and constructive decision when it comes to these appointments. >>> >>> Just thought I?d share my thoughts on this. >>> >>> Looking forward to hearing from others. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:22 AM, David Cake wrote: >>>> >>>> I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting. >>>> >>>> I do strongly support Stefania as primary. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>>> On 24 Nov 2015, at 1:21 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Sam. I will also go ahead and lend my support to the Stefania/Karel team-up. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Having limited information I too will join Stephanie in supporting Stef & Karel. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sam >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23/11/2015 9:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie. Any other takers? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will second Tapani's proposal....I have met Karel, I do not recall meeti From aelsadr Tue Nov 24 18:57:04 2015 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:57:04 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <5654942D.40006@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> <56549032.2080102@mail.utoronto.ca> <5654942D.40006@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <4B57A2A8-C46A-4D4A-A965-119E4C85B722@egyptig.org> Hi Stefanie, I wasn't thinking of assuming any formal mentor role. Just a lightweight approach to helping folks settle in to the work of the SCI, become acquainted with how and why the committee gets requests from Council, etc... But if you have any ideas that would be helpful to you in developing a mentor program, sure..., share your thoughts (perhaps off-list). Thanks. Amr Sent from mobile > On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > That is a great offer Amr, can we use it as a trial to see what folks need in a mentor, how it works best etc.? Maybe the final candidates wont want this at all but I would be surprised... > cheers steph > >> On 2015-11-24 11:44, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd be happy to help any NCSG member who is a newcomer to SCI settle in. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> Sent from mobile >> >>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>> This would be a great opportunity to demonstrate a mentoring project. Both Stef and Karel are relative newbies. A mentor assigned to help could be very useful to them, and provide confidence to the PC. History is useful to know in these exercises, and dont ask someone to read oodles of transcripts from previous exercises.... >>> cheers steph >>> >>>> On 2015-11-24 9:22, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Yeah?, I don?t know Samuel at all. I can?t say I know Karel either, except for briefly meeting him in Dublin, which isn?t a very good reason to prefer him over Samuel. >>>> >>>> I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) My only reason for choosing Karel over Samuel is that my impression of his is that he is a relatively new member, and seems eager. I figured it wouldn?t be a bad idea to encourage him to stay engaged. >>>> >>>> In the future, it might not be a bad idea to develop a process by which volunteers provide some kind of brief explanation why they may be qualified for a certain appointment, as well as why they are seeking it. This may help inform PC members who are trying to make some kind of informed, fair and constructive decision when it comes to these appointments. >>>> >>>> Just thought I?d share my thoughts on this. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to hearing from others. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:22 AM, David Cake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting. >>>>> From stephanie.perrin Tue Nov 24 18:58:05 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:58:05 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Appointments to the SCI In-Reply-To: <4B57A2A8-C46A-4D4A-A965-119E4C85B722@egyptig.org> References: <7298B6A0-FFA4-4E5E-A943-70F0C162378B@egyptig.org> <20151120183307.GA8092@tarvainen.info> <71F531BB-D0FC-4436-9491-89EE740DA134@egyptig.org> <13D16D7B-6C59-4357-8E3D-FF303FD0B441@egyptig.org> <565323B3.5000308@mail.utoronto.ca> <565341F5.3060400@yorku.ca> <5D6E6289-280F-4BA0-BD99-2CABB523A9EE@difference.com.au> <3EC60817-7098-4C9A-BD07-E91E30275538@egyptig.org> <56549032.2080102@mail.utoronto.ca> <5654942D.40006@mail.utoronto.ca> <4B57A2A8-C46A-4D4A-A965-119E4C85B722@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <5654971D.4080703@mail.utoronto.ca> will do! SP On 2015-11-24 11:57, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi Stefanie, > > I wasn't thinking of assuming any formal mentor role. Just a lightweight approach to helping folks settle in to the work of the SCI, become acquainted with how and why the committee gets requests from Council, etc... > > But if you have any ideas that would be helpful to you in developing a mentor program, sure..., share your thoughts (perhaps off-list). > > Thanks. > > Amr > > Sent from mobile > >> On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> That is a great offer Amr, can we use it as a trial to see what folks need in a mentor, how it works best etc.? Maybe the final candidates wont want this at all but I would be surprised... >> cheers steph >> >>> On 2015-11-24 11:44, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd be happy to help any NCSG member who is a newcomer to SCI settle in. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> Sent from mobile >>> >>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>> This would be a great opportunity to demonstrate a mentoring project. Both Stef and Karel are relative newbies. A mentor assigned to help could be very useful to them, and provide confidence to the PC. History is useful to know in these exercises, and dont ask someone to read oodles of transcripts from previous exercises.... >>>> cheers steph >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-24 9:22, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> Yeah?, I don?t know Samuel at all. I can?t say I know Karel either, except for briefly meeting him in Dublin, which isn?t a very good reason to prefer him over Samuel. >>>>> >>>>> I don?t recall there ever being a rush to join the SCI before. Somehow, Tapani made the job sound sexy. :) My only reason for choosing Karel over Samuel is that my impression of his is that he is a relatively new member, and seems eager. I figured it wouldn?t be a bad idea to encourage him to stay engaged. >>>>> >>>>> In the future, it might not be a bad idea to develop a process by which volunteers provide some kind of brief explanation why they may be qualified for a certain appointment, as well as why they are seeking it. This may help inform PC members who are trying to make some kind of informed, fair and constructive decision when it comes to these appointments. >>>>> >>>>> Just thought I?d share my thoughts on this. >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to hearing from others. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:22 AM, David Cake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don?t know either Samuel or Karel well enough to judge, so I?ll express no preference while not dissenting. >>>>>> From stephanie.perrin Tue Nov 24 19:27:02 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:27:02 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Recommendations R21, R22, R36 In-Reply-To: <5653F607.8060302@yorku.ca> References: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <5653AB4C.7030101@mail.utoronto.ca> <5653F607.8060302@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <56549DE6.2060309@mail.utoronto.ca> I agree Sam, and on R21 I must say I am deeply cynical. AS a consultant, when I see recommendations for further work I tend to reject them out of hand, possibly too soon. Nice to see your arguments. On that one in particular, issues at ICANN tend to rise up and bite us in the nether regions, I dont think we need trend analysis to spot them. On R22, we have a problem getting volunteers to do the work as it is. If I had to undergo some skills assessment in order to volunteer my time I am afraid I would not react well. On R36 (and in some respects R22) training is an issue at ICANN but I did not find the Westlake recommendations very helpful in solving this problem. cheers SP On 2015-11-24 0:30, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Thanks to Stephanie Perrin for the heads up on the three > recommendations identified as difficult and where they are still > looking for input. > > I will start with comments from a position of maximum naivety. Each > of the three recommendations appears to start from what appears to be > a reasonable and "why", but goes to a "what" and a "how" that are > problematic both with regard to implementation and outcomes. > > Recommendation 21 (R21): That the GNSO Council should regularly > undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to > forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected > are well-represented in the policy-making process. > > ? R21: Ignoring for a minute what analytical framework would work > here, it is unclear what is meant by a trend, and at what stage in the > policy-making process of creating new gTLDs this analysis would occur. > Is this talking about the terms of reference for a new round gTLDs? In > that case there is no trend in gTLDs, but instead there are policy > issues with regard to the terms of reference for the new round. > > ? R21: If this refers to the flow of proposed new gTLDs after a new > round has been initiated, then it is not clear what is meant by > policy-process here. For issues that arise in the context of > individual gTLD proposals, the proposed process would be a cumbersome, > burdensome, and likely poor alternative to greater transparency and > ease of comment option/discussion with regard to new gTLD applications. > > ? R21: Ensuring that those affected are well represented would also > be problematic. For .pharmacy it is relatively easy to engage the > pharmacy community, but less so the broad consumer community. For > .health it is not at all clear how the affected global health > community would be "well represented" in the policy-making process. > > Recommendation 22 (R22): That the GNSO Council develop a > competency-based framework which its members should utilise to > identify development needs and opportunities. > > ? R22: The GNSO is an ICANN supporting organization dealing with > policies for generic Top-Level Domains. Leaving aside for a moment > what is meant by "a competency-based framework", most all of the > policy issues the GNSO has to deal with are tossed up within the > ferment of the Internet ecosystem. The GNSO is not an incubator with > the luxury of generating its own policy projects independent of > current context. While the GNSO has resource limitations with regard > to the number of PDP?s it can handle, it does set priorities there, > but it is not at all clear what is meant by GNSO "development needs > and opportunities" in this recommendation. > > Recommendation 36 (R36): That, when approving the formation of a PDP > WG, the GNSO Council require that its membership represent as far as > reasonably practical the geographic, cultural and gender diversity of > the Internet as a whole. Additionally, that when approving GNSO > Policy, the ICANN Board explicitly satisfy itself that the GNSO > Council undertook these actions when approving the formation of a PDP WG. > > ? R36: This diversity requirement recommendation faces multiple > obstacles as proposed. PDP WGs need to remain manageable in terms of > size. As well, there will be varying levels of constituency interest > and engagement in the DPD process depending on the policy areas under > development. Lastly, constituency volunteer participation (in contrast > to contracted and non-contracted business interests) would be hard > pressed to provide adequate diverse participation just for the sake of > diversity and independent of the relevance of the particular PDP. > > ? Adequate and diverse stakeholder engagement may be better served > by enhanced transparency around pending policy issues, and promoting > greater awareness and ease of engagement on the comments side of the > PDP process. > From lanfran Tue Nov 24 19:28:31 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:28:31 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Recommendations R21, R22, R36 In-Reply-To: <5653F607.8060302@yorku.ca> References: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <5653AB4C.7030101@mail.utoronto.ca> <5653F607.8060302@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <56549E3F.1060000@yorku.ca> Policy colleagues, Following my longer analytical comments with regard to Westlake Recommendations 21, 22, and 36, here are recommendations I toss on the table. R21 instructs the GNSO to analyze trends in gTLDs, forecast likely requirements for policy, and ensure those affected are well-represented in the policy-making process. R22 instructs the GNSO Council develop a competency-based framework to identify development needs and opportunities. R36 instructs the GNSO to pursue PDP WG efforts that include participation diversity, to the satisfaction of the ICANN Board. While the goals are laudable; each recommendation is fraught with difficulties. Here are my opening suggestions for a NCSG position and response: -------------------------------- RE R36: Greater participatory diversity is a broadly held ICANN and NCSG objective, with movement in that direction. However, it cannot be mandated, and should not be used by the Board to accept or reject PRP output, especially in the absence of agreed criteria for the evaluation of diversity in individual PDP WGs. My Recommendation: R36 be recast as a statement of principle with respect to greater diversity in the policy-making process, not tie it exclusively to the composition of the PDP WGs, and not give the Board power to reject PDP output on the grounds of lack of diversity in the composition of the PDP WGs. GNSO composition of particular PDP WGs is driven by stakeholder group interest and stakeholder capacity. The contracted and non-contracted business side, and the GAC have dedicated resources for participation. The non-profit, civil society and at large stakeholder groups rely mainly on volunteer labour and constrained resources. While the non-profit, civil society and at large stakeholder groups work to recruit wider participation and greater diversity, they can also be more active in promoting more diverse engagement by affected communities in individual PDP policy-making processes beyond PDP membership (e.g. comments processes) ----------------------- RE R21: Representation/participation by those affected by policy is at the core of the multistakeholder model. To a large extent that is already done. To augment representation greater clarity is needed with regard to what is meant by forecasting trends in gTLDs and policy requirements. PDP WGs tend to be generated mainly by DNS demands and not by stakeholder wish lists. My Recommendation: R21 be recast as a request to review the history of PDP WGs to capture lessons learned about issue selection and PDP WG engagement dynamics, lessons useful for future PDP WGs and for greater stakeholder engagement in policy-making. -------------------- RE R22: There is ambiguity and a lack of clarity with regard to what is meant by ?a competency-based framework to identify development needs and opportunities.?. Progress in the areas identified in R21 & R36 would cover the much of the intent of this recommendation with regard to policy-making. Time and effort would be better spent dealing with revised versions of R21 and R36. My Recommendation: R22 be seen as redundant and be dropped from the list of recommendations. ------------------------ Sam L. From wjdrake Wed Nov 25 09:33:29 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 08:33:29 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER References: <1b6e4b8d5fd446a28dd6136780e17447@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <1C464A50-2AFA-4DAA-A5A4-D7496FE5362D@gmail.com> Hi So here?s something else to chew on and decide. I have checked the Council list to see if there?s been discussion there of SO endorsements for CCT but we need to decide who to push for. There are applicants saying they are civil society @ GNSO who I know and could readily support and some I don?t. Some of the self nominations are thin and unimpressive, others are solid and pop out. And some interesting independent expert apps like Stan Besen. Bill > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Charla Shambley > Date: November 24, 2015 at 3:01:27 AM GMT+1 > To: "'soac-infoalert at icann.org'" > Cc: Eleeza Agopian , Margie Milam > Subject: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER > > Dear SO/AC leaders, > > We are pleased to report that we received 72 applications from individuals interested in serving on the next review team under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) that will examine the impact of new gTLDS in the areas of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT). Before final selection of the CCT Review Team is completed by the ICANN CEO and the GAC Chair, we are seeking endorsements from any SO/AC for those applicants who have expressed an interest to serve as their representatives. > > If you choose to endorse an applicant, please send your endorsements by email to reviews at icann.org by the updated deadline of 17 December at 23:59 UTC. > > In order to help with the endorsement process, below are answers to some frequently asked questions: > > Is there a set allocation for SO/AC representatives? Under the AoC, there is no set allocation per SO/AC or per stakeholder group, nor is there a maximum for total size of the review team. > > How Many Members Will be on the Review Team? There is no set number of volunteers for the Review Team. However, keep in mind that the review team should be comprised of members that collectively have expertise covering the wide range of topics that are within the mandate of this review team. Past AoC review teams were comprised of approximately 16 members. > > What Were the Criteria for Applicants? The call for volunteers lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including: > > ? Subject matter expertise ? > o New gTLD application process/objections > o Intellectual Property > o Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS > o Competition Issues > o Consumer Protection > o Public Policy Concerns > o Trust in the DNS > ? Representation across the interested SO/ACs > ? Diversity > ? Regional representation > > For more information, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en . > _______________________________________________ > soac-infoalert mailing list > soac-infoalert at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert ********************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q ********************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Wed Nov 25 11:43:31 2015 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:43:31 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: SO-AC-SG-RALO 23 November Meeting References: Message-ID: <2B9DB0BE-0321-495F-80E2-D7CB598A2D5C@gmail.com> Hi See attached. I was teaching when this call was held and I?m on a plane 1 December when the next one is held so someone else has to represent NCUC. Best Bill > Begin forwarded message: > > From: David Olive > Date: November 24, 2015 at 11:35:50 AM GMT+1 > To: "byron.holland at cira.ca" , "thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch" , "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" , "axel.pawlik at ripe.net" , "louie at louie.net" , "patrik at frobbit.se" , "tsinha at umd.edu" , "liman at netnod.se" , "alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca" , "psc at vlaw-dc.com" , "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com" , "gregshatanipc at gmail.com" , "william.drake at uzh.ch" , "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" , "hilaliaziz at yahoo.fr" , "siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com" , "alberto at soto.net.ar" , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , "Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr" , "thomas at rickert.net" , "leonfelipe at sanchez.mx" , "alissa at cooperw.in" , "paf at netnod.se" , "mbashir at mbash.net" , "jrobinson at afilias.info" , "lise.fuhr at difo.dk" , "icann-board at icann.org" , "global_leadership at icann.org" , "lynn.gravel at cira.ca" , "allan.macgillivray at cira.ca" , "Becky.Burr at neustar.biz" , "sdelbianco at netchoice.org" , "langdonorr at gmail.com" , "jordan at internetnz.net.nz" , ASO Chairs , "tapani.tarvainen at effi.org" , "'mcknight.glenn at gmail.com'" , Donna Austin , "Paul Diaz" , ASO Chairs , "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" , Heather Forrest > Cc: Duncan Burns , Alice Jansen , Hillary Jett , "Susie Johnson" , Nick Tomasso > Subject: FW: SO-AC-SG-RALO 23 November Meeting > > Dear Community Leaders: > > Attached please find the following: > > 1) 23 November 2015 Chat history; > 2) 23 November 2015 Transcript; and > 3) Link to the recordings (in both English and Spanish) > > http://audio.icann.org/so-ac-sg-ralo-leadership-23nov15-en.mp3 > http://audio.icann.org/so-ac-sg-ralo-leadership-23nov15-es.mp3 > Best regards David > > > > David A. Olive > Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul > Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 > Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 > Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 > Email: david.olive at icann.org > www.icann.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2015-11-23 Chat.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16652 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Transcript 11-23-2015.doc Type: application/msword Size: 81920 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran Wed Nov 25 21:12:15 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:12:15 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Recommendations 36 In-Reply-To: <56549E3F.1060000@yorku.ca> References: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <5653AB4C.7030101@mail.utoronto.ca> <5653F607.8060302@yorku.ca> <56549E3F.1060000@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <5656080F.6080702@yorku.ca> PC Cttee, Am I the only one on the Policy Committee who sees the wording of GNSO Review recommendation 36 as giving the Board almost unrestricted power to reject GNSO policy on the grounds that, in the Board's view, the PDP Working Group did not reflect adequate diversity? Or am I missing something here? I have no idea what is meant by "..reasonably practical", nor do I understand what remedial options are open to the GNSO should the board refuse to approve GNSO Policy on these grounds. I would suggest proposing dropping the second sentence in the recommendation. Enlightenment? Sam L. Recommendation 36 (R36): That, when approving the formation of a PDP WG, the GNSO Council require that its membership represent as far as reasonably practical the geographic, cultural and gender diversity of the Internet as a whole. Additionally, that when approving GNSO Policy, the ICANN Board explicitly satisfy itself that the GNSO Council undertook these actions when approving the formation of a PDP WG. From kathy Sat Nov 28 17:58:58 2015 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:58:58 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments Message-ID: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, Fearing that our deadline for the UDRP/URS/TMCH comments might be missed (it's Monday), I spent a good amount of time of my holiday putting thoughts together. As a member of the final UDRP and URS drafting teams, I see some good in this Preliminary Issues Report, and a lot of shortcomings. I've set them out. If someone wants to upload to Google Docs, please be my guest. Overall, I think our NCSG voice is a critical one here. Best, Kathy p.s. Hoping Stephanie can do her usual scrub. p.p.s. below and attached (same document) DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Comments of NCSG to Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All Generic Top-Level Domains These comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) address three key aspects of the Preliminary a) the organization and order of the evaluation, b) the scope of the reviews to take place and whether the rights of all stakeholders are reflected in the scope and goals set out, and c) the substantive issues and questions to be asked and evaluated. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. *a) Organization and Order of Evaluation* In Section 1.3 of the Preliminary Issue Report, Staff suggests three different approaches to the organization and order of evaluation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP adopted in 1999) and the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) adopted in 2012 for the New gTLD roll-out program. We would like to strongly suggest a fourth approach: evaluate UDRP first and RPMs second. Why? The UDRP is the oldest consensus policy of ICANN and the one we understand the best. We have studied it the most and have the longest history of implementation and decisions. While we agree that the work of the UDRP should be staggered, we think it is the trunk of the tree from which all other trademark rights protection mechanisms take place. It works to embody the principles and purposes of our work in balancing trademark rights and the traditional fair use and free speech/freedom of expression rights of all others. Work should certainly be staggered, but the UDRP should come first, not second. Further reasons include: 1. The UDRP created the principles from which the URS and Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) were negotiated. Are those principles valid and strong? Do they need to be revised? Assessing the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) put the cart before the horse ? we should assess the strength of foundation ? before checking its higher and newer levels. 2. The roll-out of New gTLDs is still in progress. We expected to be finished by this point, but many New gTLDs are still in contracting and others are still in contention. Key Sunrise and Trademark Claims periods are yet to be undertaken, and data about the roll-outs of all New gTLDs would be helpful. We will have a fuller data set if we wait for more New gTLD introduction. Accordingly, we ask for UDRP first, and its RPM New gTLD offshoots second. *b) Scope & Breadth* This Preliminary Issues Report tells us (the readers/commenters) repeatedly that it will rely heavily and extensively on ?the 2011 GNSO Issue Report? and additional RPM materials. But the 2011 GNSO Issue Report of the UDRP is half a decade old! That's light years in terms of Internet time, and if used, the UDRP Review will be missing: 1. Major UDRP decisions of 2011-2015 (thousands of decisions) 2. The entire overlap of the New gTLDs and their RPMs with the UDRP (one of the key criteria of evaluation in this ?Review of All Rights Protection mechanisms? 3. The benefit of the Arbitration Forums self-reviews, including the /WIPO Advanced Workshop on Domain Name Dispute Resolution, May 2015/, in which inconsistencies of decisions, including in the free speech/freedom of expression area were candidly discussed and contemplated. 4. Recent and strong ICANN work seeking to understand and incorporate Human Rights into the policy considerations of ICANN (note the many, many sessions on Human Rights, including by the Cross Community WG and the GAC in Dublin). The UDRP Issues Report must be updated to include the UDRP work of the last half decade. /_Further, all discussions of the Scope must include more than the needs of trademark holders. _/ We ask for fairness _and balance _in the representation of the goals of the upcoming UDRP and RPM evaluation process. On Page 17 of this Preliminary Issues Report, the goals are framed in a one-sided way: ?to inform and to clarify the scope of the analysis to follow, as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively can be said to achieve the intention of providing sufficient protection to trademark holders in both existing and new gTLDs, or if further changes may be required.? But the protection of trademark holders **must take place within the fuller context of whether the rights and protections they seek are consistent with national law and public policy**. By way of example, the owner of the National Football Team in Washington DC, Dan Snyder, certainly does not think that the trademark laws are providing sufficient protection to him and his longstanding US federal trademark for the ?Redskins.? His longstanding, powerful and very valuable US federal trademark for Redskins was recently canceled by US court for disparagement of Native Americans. Public policy considerations consistent with trademark law took effect to eliminate his federal trademark rights. Under all national laws, trademark holders rights are limited and the rights of others are balanced. Including the rights to: 1. Use generic and descriptive words in new and novel ways 2. Use their last names, in all ways legal under law (which includes major protections in this area), and 3. Use geographic words that accurately mark where an organization, business or individual is located. Reflecting such a balance has **always been part of the goals of the UDRP and RPMs since their formulation and adopted by the ICANN Community** and must continue in the upcoming process. We ask that the full balance of the goals of this review process be clearly laid out at /each and every opportunity./ Finally, we ask that this UDRP review not be an Expedited PDP without much more extensive evaluation. This is an evaluation of our very first consensus policy ? one adopted very quickly by ICANN and without any of the Stakeholder Groups that exist today. This is an evaluation of a sixteen year old consensus policy, and a review years in the making. Let's give it the full and careful consideration that it deserves. 100. *Potential Issues for Review in a PDP (Questions to be asked of the UDRP, URS and TMCH)* We seek to add questions to the specific UDRP, URS and TMCH list, but offer an initial question/issue/category as yet unasked: 1. *Addition of a New Potential Issue for Review in the PDP: Are the processes being adopted by Providers of UDRP, URS, and TMCH services fair and reasonable?* UDRP, URS and TMCH Providers are adopting procedures that change the fees, expand the time of services, add new services, allow additional responses by trademark holders and more. Many refuse to rotate their Panelists, assigning to cases Panelists who have a track record of nearly uninterrupted decisions for trademark holders. It is critical that the RPM Review process understand the procedural rules adopted by Providers and ask the key questions that every supervising body must: a. Are the Providers' procedures fair and equitable for all stakeholders and participants b. Are the Providers consulting with all stakeholders and participants in the evaluation, adoption and review of these new procedures? c. Are the Providers training both the Complainants and the Respondents, and their communities and representatives, fairly and equally in these new procedures? d. A Providers exceeding the scope of their authority in any of the procedures they are adopting? e. Is ICANN reaching out properly to the multistakeholder community when such procedures are being evaluated by ICANN at the Providers request? Is this an open and transparent process? f. What remedies exist, or should exist, to allow questions about new policies by the Providers offering UDRP, URS and TMCH services, and how can they be expeditiously and fairly created. g. What changes need to be made to ensure that procedures adopted by providers are consistent with the ICANN policies and are fair and balanced? 2. *Specific Potential Issues Concerning the UDRP Review* We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the UDRP Review * Recommend that the term ?free speech and the rights of non-commercial registrants? be expanded to include ?free speech, freedom of expression and the rights of non-commercial registrants? to include rights under US law and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. * Inclusion of: Are the critical concepts of ?fair use? and ?fair dealing? fully and accurately reflected in the UDRP (and also URS and TMCH rules)? * Are generic dictionary words being adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws and international treaties? E.g. sun, windows. * Are last names and geographic places adequately protection so that they are available for all to use allowed under their national laws, e.g, Smith, McDonald, Capitol Hill Cafe, Old Town Deli? * Now that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a regular finding of UDRP panels, indicating that domain name registrants are being abused by complaints brought against them in the UDRP process, what penalties and sanctions should be imposed on Complainants found to be reverse domain name hijackers? How can those penalties and sanctions to aligned to be fair as compared to the loss of a domain name taken from a registrant found to be a ?cybersquatter?? * Are free speech,, freedom of expression and the right of non-commercial registrants *uniformly protected *in existing UDRP (and URS and TMCH) policy and its implementation. As currently phrased, the ?potential issue? asks if it is ?adequately protected,? but where we find differences among Panelists of different countries, we should ask if free speech is ?adequately and uniformly protected? ? as equity and fairness lies in both. * Should defenses be expanded, e.g., as seen in Nominet's policy and the URS. 2. *Specific Potential Issues Concerning the URS Review* We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the URS Review o Has ICANN does it job in training registrants in the new rights and defenses of the URS? o Are the expanded defenses of the URS being used and if so, how and when? o What sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS by the trademark owner? o What evidence is there of problems with the use of the English-only requirement of the URS, especially given its application to IDN New gTLDs? o How can the appeals process of the URS be expanded and improved? *4. Specific Potential Issues Concerning the Trademark Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period, and Trademark Claims* We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the Trademark Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims o Is the protection of the TMCH too broad? o Is the TMCH providing too much protection for those with a trademark on a generic or descriptive dictionary word, thus allowing a trademark in one category of goods and services to block or postpone the legitimate and rightful use of all others in other areas of goods and services? Are legitimate noncommercial, commercial and individual registrants losing legitimate opportunities to register domain names in New gTLDs? o Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing ?Windows? to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft). o How should the TMCH scope be limited to apply to only the categories of good and service in which the generic terms in a trademark are protected? o How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered for ICANN pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies vs. what services are offered to private New gTLD registries pursuant to private contract. o How can the TMCH provide education services not only for trademark owners, but for the registrants and potential registrants equally impacted by their services. o How quickly can a canceled trademark be removed from the TMCH database? (note: rejected trademarks and canceled trademarks are different, with canceled trademarks involving trademarks that have already been issued). o What is the chilling effect of the 90 day Trademark Claims process? o Should Tdmk +50 be reversed? We note that many of the ?potential issues? concerning the Sunrise Period, TMCH and Trademark Claims involve the express reversal of adopted GNSO policy ? a reversal of the careful compromises negotiated by the multi-stakeholders of the GNSO who finalized the URS, TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims policies. **Where that is taking place, we ask the Staff to express note and flag such a question.** For example: o /Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow /TMCH matching rules be expanded, e.g. to include plurals, ?marks contained? or ?mark+keyword?, and/or common typos of a mark o /Should the STI consensus be reversed to all Trademark/claims period be extended beyond ninety days? There are clear reasons these policies were reviewed, extensively debated and rejected in the first place. Clear information should be provided and signals issued when a question asks for the setting aside of these important compromises. 4. *PDDRP* Given that no proceedings have taken place under the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures involving allegations against an entire registry and its gTLD, we have no evidence or record for review and we think it is premature for the review of this policy. Conclusion Overall, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and ask that our suggestions, recommendations and concerns be incorporated into the plan, order and issues to be evaluated going forward. Thank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UDRP Review comments 2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 47104 bytes Desc: not available URL: From egmorris1 Sat Nov 28 19:28:20 2015 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 12:28:20 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments In-Reply-To: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Kathy, Thank you so much for doing this. It is definitely a crucial public comment and so many of us are so overstretched on transition (and holiday) related issues that it was in danger of slipping by or of getting just a short end of period take. Your suggestion of a fourth way - rather than merely submitting and picking amongst staff offered options one, two or three - is pure brilliance. Overall, if there were an award for public comment of the year this is the one I would nominate. I had a short check list of things I would have covered in a last minute comment I was going to put together Monday had no one else stepped up to do this. Your p.c. hits all the points I would have made plus loads of others I had not even thought of. I see absolutely nothing in your comment that I disagree with and look forward to pushing your suggested approach on Council. Frankly, this comment is vastly better than anything anyone else has submitted to date. I expect it will be quite influential with staff and others. Fully endorse as an NCSG comment and ask others to join me in doing so in order that we can get sign off prior to the Monday deadline for submission. Thanks again, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Kleiman" Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 4:34 PM To: "NCSG-Policy" , "Tapani Tarvainen" , "Stephanie Perrin" Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments Hi All, Fearing that our deadline for the UDRP/URS/TMCH comments might be missed (it's Monday), I spent a good amount of time of my holiday putting thoughts together. As a member of the final UDRP and URS drafting teams, I see some good in this Preliminary Issues Report, and a lot of shortcomings. I've set them out. If someone wants to upload to Google Docs, please be my guest. Overall, I think our NCSG voice is a critical one here. Best, Kathy p.s. Hoping Stephanie can do her usual scrub. p.p.s. below and attached (same document) DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Comments of NCSG to Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All Generic Top-Level Domains These comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) address three key aspects of the Preliminary a) the organization and order of the evaluation, b) the scope of the reviews to take place and whether the rights of all stakeholders are reflected in the scope and goals set out, and c) the substantive issues and questions to be asked and evaluated. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. a) Organization and Order of Evaluation In Section 1.3 of the Preliminary Issue Report, Staff suggests three different approaches to the organization and order of evaluation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP adopted in 1999) and the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) adopted in 2012 for the New gTLD roll-out program. We would like to strongly suggest a fourth approach: evaluate UDRP first and RPMs second. Why? The UDRP is the oldest consensus policy of ICANN and the one we understand the best. We have studied it the most and have the longest history of implementation and decisions. While we agree that the work of the UDRP should be staggered, we think it is the trunk of the tree from which all other trademark rights protection mechanisms take place. It works to embody the principles and purposes of our work in balancing trademark rights and the traditional fair use and free speech/freedom of expression rights of all others. Work should certainly be staggered, but the UDRP should come first, not second. Further reasons include: The UDRP created the principles from which the URS and Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) were negotiated. Are those principles valid and strong? Do they need to be revised? Assessing the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) put the cart before the horse - we should assess the strength of foundation - before checking its higher and newer levels. The roll-out of New gTLDs is still in progress. We expected to be finished by this point, but many New gTLDs are still in contracting and others are still in contention. Key Sunrise and Trademark Claims periods are yet to be undertaken, and data about the roll-outs of all New gTLDs would be helpful. We will have a fuller data set if we wait for more New gTLD introduction. Accordingly, we ask for UDRP first, and its RPM New gTLD offshoots second. b) Scope & Breadth This Preliminary Issues Report tells us (the readers/commenters) repeatedly that it will rely heavily and extensively on "the 2011 GNSO Issue Report" and additional RPM materials. But the 2011 GNSO Issue Report of the UDRP is half a decade old! That's light years in terms of Internet time, and if used, the UDRP Review will be missing: Major UDRP decisions of 2011-2015 (thousands of decisions) The entire overlap of the New gTLDs and their RPMs with the UDRP (one of the key criteria of evaluation in this "Review of All Rights Protection mechanisms" The benefit of the Arbitration Forums self-reviews, including the WIPO Advanced Workshop on Domain Name Dispute Resolution, May 2015, in which inconsistencies of decisions, including in the free speech/freedom of expression area were candidly discussed and contemplated. Recent and strong ICANN work seeking to understand and incorporate Human Rights into the policy considerations of ICANN (note the many, many sessions on Human Rights, including by the Cross Community WG and the GAC in Dublin). The UDRP Issues Report must be updated to include the UDRP work of the last half decade. Further, all discussions of the Scope must include more than the needs of trademark holders. We ask for fairness and balance in the representation of the goals of the upcoming UDRP and RPM evaluation process. On Page 17 of this Preliminary Issues Report, the goals are framed in a one-sided way: "to inform and to clarify the scope of the analysis to follow, as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively can be said to achieve the intention of providing sufficient protection to trademark holders in both existing and new gTLDs, or if further changes may be required." But the protection of trademark holders **must take place within the fuller context of whether the rights and protections they seek are consistent with national law and public policy**. By way of example, the owner of the National Football Team in Washington DC, Dan Snyder, certainly does not think that the trademark laws are providing sufficient protection to him and his longstanding US federal trademark for the "Redskins." His longstanding, powerful and very valuable US federal trademark for Redskins was recently canceled by US court for disparagement of Native Americans. Public policy considerations consistent with trademark law took effect to eliminate his federal trademark rights. Under all national laws, trademark holders rights are limited and the rights of others are balanced. Including the rights to: Use generic and descriptive words in new and novel ways Use their last names, in all ways legal under law (which includes major protections in this area), and Use geographic words that accurately mark where an organization, business or individual is located. Reflecting such a balance has **always been part of the goals of the UDRP and RPMs since their formulation and adopted by the ICANN Community** and must continue in the upcoming process. We ask that the full balance of the goals of this review process be clearly laid out at each and every opportunity. Finally, we ask that this UDRP review not be an Expedited PDP without much more extensive evaluation. This is an evaluation of our very first consensus policy - one adopted very quickly by ICANN and without any of the Stakeholder Groups that exist today. This is an evaluation of a sixteen year old consensus policy, and a review years in the making. Let's give it the full and careful consideration that it deserves. Potential Issues for Review in a PDP (Questions to be asked of the UDRP, URS and TMCH) We seek to add questions to the specific UDRP, URS and TMCH list, but offer an initial question/issue/category as yet unasked: Addition of a New Potential Issue for Review in the PDP: Are the processes being adopted by Providers of UDRP, URS, and TMCH services fair and reasonable? UDRP, URS and TMCH Providers are adopting procedures that change the fees, expand the time of services, add new services, allow additional responses by trademark holders and more. Many refuse to rotate their Panelists, assigning to cases Panelists who have a track record of nearly uninterrupted decisions for trademark holders. It is critical that the RPM Review process understand the procedural rules adopted by Providers and ask the key questions that every supervising body must: a. Are the Providers' procedures fair and equitable for all stakeholders and participants b. Are the Providers consulting with all stakeholders and participants in the evaluation, adoption and review of these new procedures? c. Are the Providers training both the Complainants and the Respondents, and their communities and representatives, fairly and equally in these new procedures? d. A Providers exceeding the scope of their authority in any of the procedures they are adopting? e. Is ICANN reaching out properly to the multistakeholder community when such procedures are being evaluated by ICANN at the Providers request? Is this an open and transparent process? f. What remedies exist, or should exist, to allow questions about new policies by the Providers offering UDRP, URS and TMCH services, and how can they be expeditiously and fairly created. g. What changes need to be made to ensure that procedures adopted by providers are consistent with the ICANN policies and are fair and balanced? Specific Potential Issues Concerning the UDRP Review We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the UDRP Review Recommend that the term "free speech and the rights of non-commercial registrants" be expanded to include "free speech, freedom of expression and the rights of non-commercial registrants" to include rights under US law and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Inclusion of: Are the critical concepts of "fair use" and "fair dealing" fully and accurately reflected in the UDRP (and also URS and TMCH rules)? Are generic dictionary words being adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws and international treaties? E.g. sun, windows. Are last names and geographic places adequately protection so that they are available for all to use allowed under their national laws, e.g, Smith, McDonald, Capitol Hill Cafe, Old Town Deli? Now that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a regular finding of UDRP panels, indicating that domain name registrants are being abused by complaints brought against them in the UDRP process, what penalties and sanctions should be imposed on Complainants found to be reverse domain name hijackers? How can those penalties and sanctions to aligned to be fair as compared to the loss of a domain name taken from a registrant found to be a "cybersquatter"? Are free speech,, freedom of expression and the right of non-commercial registrants uniformly protected in existing UDRP (and URS and TMCH) policy and its implementation. As currently phrased, the "potential issue" asks if it is "adequately protected," but where we find differences among Panelists of different countries, we should ask if free speech is "adequately and uniformly protected" - as equity and fairness lies in both. Should defenses be expanded, e.g., as seen in Nominet's policy and the URS. Specific Potential Issues Concerning the URS Review We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the URS Review Has ICANN does it job in training registrants in the new rights and defenses of the URS? Are the expanded defenses of the URS being used and if so, how and when? What sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS by the trademark owner? What evidence is there of problems with the use of the English-only requirement of the URS, especially given its application to IDN New gTLDs? How can the appeals process of the URS be expanded and improved? We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the Trademark Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims 4. Specific Potential Issues Concerning the Trademark Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period, and Trademark Claims Is the protection of the TMCH too broad? Is the TMCH providing too much protection for those with a trademark on a generic or descriptive dictionary word, thus allowing a trademark in one category of goods and services to block or postpone the legitimate and rightful use of all others in other areas of goods and services? Are legitimate noncommercial, commercial and individual registrants losing legitimate opportunities to register domain names in New gTLDs? Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing "Windows" to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft). How should the TMCH scope be limited to apply to only the categories of good and service in which the generic terms in a trademark are protected? How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of what is offered for ICANN pursuant to ICANN contracts and policies vs. what services are offered to private New gTLD registries pursuant to private contract. How can the TMCH provide education services not only for trademark owners, but for the registrants and potential registrants equally impacted by their services. How quickly can a canceled trademark be removed from the TMCH database? (note: rejected trademarks and canceled trademarks are different, with canceled trademarks involving trademarks that have already been issued). What is the chilling effect of the 90 day Trademark Claims process? Should Tdmk +50 be reversed? We note that many of the "potential issues" concerning the Sunrise Period, TMCH and Trademark Claims involve the express reversal of adopted GNSO policy - a reversal of the careful compromises negotiated by the multi-stakeholders of the GNSO who finalized the URS, TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims policies. **Where that is taking place, we ask the Staff to express note and flag such a question.** For example: Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow TMCH matching rules be expanded, e.g. to include plurals, 'marks contained' or 'mark+keyword', and/or common typos of a mark Should the STI consensus be reversed to all Trademark claims period be extended beyond ninety days? There are clear reasons these policies were reviewed, extensively debated and rejected in the first place. Clear information should be provided and signals issued when a question asks for the setting aside of these important compromises. PDDRP Given that no proceedings have taken place under the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures involving allegations against an entire registry and its gTLD, we have no evidence or record for review and we think it is premature for the review of this policy. Conclusion Overall, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and ask that our suggestions, recommendations and concerns be incorporated into the plan, order and issues to be evaluated going forward. Thank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sat Nov 28 20:28:41 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 13:28:41 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments In-Reply-To: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <5659F259.60303@mail.utoronto.ca> Agreed, thanks so much for doing this Kathy, I will give it a picky bits edit. Stephanie On 2015-11-28 10:58, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > Fearing that our deadline for the UDRP/URS/TMCH comments might be > missed (it's Monday), I spent a good amount of time of my holiday > putting thoughts together. As a member of the final UDRP and URS > drafting teams, I see some good in this Preliminary Issues Report, and > a lot of shortcomings. I've set them out. If someone wants to upload > to Google Docs, please be my guest. Overall, I think our NCSG voice > is a critical one here. > Best, > Kathy > p.s. Hoping Stephanie can do her usual scrub. > p.p.s. below and attached (same document) > > DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT > > Comments of NCSG to Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development > Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All Generic > Top-Level Domains > > > These comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) address > three key aspects of the Preliminary a) the organization and order of > the evaluation, b) the scope of the reviews to take place and whether > the rights of all stakeholders are reflected in the scope and goals > set out, and c) the substantive issues and questions to be asked and > evaluated. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. > > > *a) Organization and Order of Evaluation* > > > In Section 1.3 of the Preliminary Issue Report, Staff suggests three > different approaches to the organization and order of evaluation of > the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP adopted in 1999) and the > Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) adopted in 2012 for the New gTLD > roll-out program. We would like to strongly suggest a fourth approach: > evaluate UDRP first and RPMs second. > > > Why? The UDRP is the oldest consensus policy of ICANN and the one we > understand the best. We have studied it the most and have the longest > history of implementation and decisions. While we agree that the work > of the UDRP should be staggered, we think it is the trunk of the tree > from which all other trademark rights protection mechanisms take > place. It works to embody the principles and purposes of our work in > balancing trademark rights and the traditional fair use and free > speech/freedom of expression rights of all others. > > > Work should certainly be staggered, but the UDRP should come first, > not second. Further reasons include: > > > 1. > > The UDRP created the principles from which the URS and Trademark > Clearinghouse (TMCH) were negotiated. Are those principles valid > and strong? Do they need to be revised? Assessing the Uniform > Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) put the > cart before the horse ? we should assess the strength of > foundation ? before checking its higher and newer levels. > > 2. > > The roll-out of New gTLDs is still in progress. We expected to be > finished by this point, but many New gTLDs are still in > contracting and others are still in contention. Key Sunrise and > Trademark Claims periods are yet to be undertaken, and data about > the roll-outs of all New gTLDs would be helpful. We will have a > fuller data set if we wait for more New gTLD introduction. > > > Accordingly, we ask for UDRP first, and its RPM New gTLD offshoots > second. > > > *b) Scope & Breadth* > > > This Preliminary Issues Report tells us (the readers/commenters) > repeatedly that it will rely heavily and extensively on ?the 2011 GNSO > Issue Report? and additional RPM materials. > > > But the 2011 GNSO Issue Report of the UDRP is half a decade old! > That's light years in terms of Internet time, and if used, the UDRP > Review will be missing: > > > 1. > > Major UDRP decisions of 2011-2015 (thousands of decisions) > > 2. > > The entire overlap of the New gTLDs and their RPMs with > the UDRP (one of the key criteria of evaluation in this > ?Review of All Rights Protection mechanisms? > > 3. > > The benefit of the Arbitration Forums self-reviews, > including the /WIPO Advanced Workshop on Domain Name > Dispute Resolution, May 2015/, in which inconsistencies of > decisions, including in the free speech/freedom of > expression area were candidly discussed and contemplated. > > 4. > > Recent and strong ICANN work seeking to understand and > incorporate Human Rights into the policy considerations of > ICANN (note the many, many sessions on Human Rights, > including by the Cross Community WG and the GAC in Dublin). > > > The UDRP Issues Report must be updated to include the UDRP work of the > last half decade. > > > /_Further, all discussions of the Scope must include more than the > needs of trademark holders. _/ > > > We ask for fairness _and balance _in the representation of the goals > of the upcoming UDRP and RPM evaluation process. On Page 17 of this > Preliminary Issues Report, the goals are framed in a one-sided way: > > > ?to inform and to clarify the scope of the analysis to follow, as to > whether or not all the RPMs collectively can be said to achieve the > intention of providing sufficient protection to trademark holders in > both existing and new gTLDs, or if further changes may be required.? > > > But the protection of trademark holders **must take place within the > fuller context of whether the rights and protections they seek are > consistent with national law and public policy**. > > > By way of example, the owner of the National Football Team in > Washington DC, Dan Snyder, certainly does not think that the trademark > laws are providing sufficient protection to him and his longstanding > US federal trademark for the ?Redskins.? His longstanding, powerful > and very valuable US federal trademark for Redskins was recently > canceled by US court for disparagement of Native Americans. Public > policy considerations consistent with trademark law took effect to > eliminate his federal trademark rights. > > > Under all national laws, trademark holders rights are limited and the > rights of others are balanced. Including the rights to: > > 1. > > Use generic and descriptive words in new and novel ways > > 2. > > Use their last names, in all ways legal under law (which > includes major protections in this area), and > > 3. > > Use geographic words that accurately mark where an > organization, business or individual is located. > > > Reflecting such a balance has **always been part of the goals of the > UDRP and RPMs since their formulation and adopted by the ICANN > Community** and must continue in the upcoming process. > > > We ask that the full balance of the goals of this review process be > clearly laid out at /each and every opportunity./ > > > Finally, we ask that this UDRP review not be an Expedited PDP without > much more extensive evaluation. This is an evaluation of our very > first consensus policy ? one adopted very quickly by ICANN and without > any of the Stakeholder Groups that exist today. This is an evaluation > of a sixteen year old consensus policy, and a review years in the > making. Let's give it the full and careful consideration that it deserves. > > >100. > > *Potential Issues for Review in a PDP (Questions to be asked of > the UDRP, URS and TMCH)* > > > We seek to add questions to the specific UDRP, URS and TMCH list, but > offer an initial question/issue/category as yet unasked: > > > 1. > > *Addition of a New Potential Issue for Review in the PDP: Are the > processes being adopted by Providers of UDRP, URS, and TMCH > services fair and reasonable?* > > UDRP, URS and TMCH Providers are adopting procedures that change > the fees, expand the time of services, add new services, allow > additional responses by trademark holders and more. Many refuse to > rotate their Panelists, assigning to cases Panelists who have a > track record of nearly uninterrupted decisions for trademark > holders. It is critical that the RPM Review process understand the > procedural rules adopted by Providers and ask the key questions > that every supervising body must: > > a. Are the Providers' procedures fair and equitable for all > stakeholders and participants > > b. Are the Providers consulting with all stakeholders and > participants in the evaluation, adoption and review of these new > procedures? > > c. Are the Providers training both the Complainants and the > Respondents, and their communities and representatives, fairly and > equally in these new procedures? > > d. A Providers exceeding the scope of their authority in any of > the procedures they are adopting? > > e. Is ICANN reaching out properly to the multistakeholder > community when such procedures are being evaluated by ICANN at the > Providers request? Is this an open and transparent process? > > f. What remedies exist, or should exist, to allow questions about > new policies by the Providers offering UDRP, URS and TMCH > services, and how can they be expeditiously and fairly created. > > g. What changes need to be made to ensure that procedures adopted > by providers are consistent with the ICANN policies and are fair > and balanced? > > > > 2. > > *Specific Potential Issues Concerning the UDRP Review* > > > We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the > UDRP Review > > > * > > Recommend that the term ?free speech and the rights of > non-commercial registrants? be expanded to include ?free speech, > freedom of expression and the rights of non-commercial > registrants? to include rights under US law and the United Nations > Declaration of Human Rights. > > * > > Inclusion of: Are the critical concepts of ?fair use? and ?fair > dealing? fully and accurately reflected in the UDRP (and also URS > and TMCH rules)? > > * > > Are generic dictionary words being adequately protected so that > they are available for all to use as allowed under their national > laws and international treaties? E.g. sun, windows. > > * > > Are last names and geographic places adequately protection so that > they are available for all to use allowed under their national > laws, e.g, Smith, McDonald, Capitol Hill Cafe, Old Town Deli? > > * > > Now that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a regular finding of > UDRP panels, indicating that domain name registrants are being > abused by complaints brought against them in the UDRP process, > what penalties and sanctions should be imposed on Complainants > found to be reverse domain name hijackers? How can those penalties > and sanctions to aligned to be fair as compared to the loss of a > domain name taken from a registrant found to be a ?cybersquatter?? > > * > > Are free speech,, freedom of expression and the right of > non-commercial registrants *uniformly protected *in existing UDRP > (and URS and TMCH) policy and its implementation. As currently > phrased, the ?potential issue? asks if it is ?adequately > protected,? but where we find differences among Panelists of > different countries, we should ask if free speech is ?adequately > and uniformly protected? ? as equity and fairness lies in both. > > * > > Should defenses be expanded, e.g., as seen in Nominet's policy and > the URS. > > > 2. > > *Specific Potential Issues Concerning the URS Review* > > > We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the URS > Review > > > o > > Has ICANN does it job in training registrants in the new > rights and defenses of the URS? > > o > > Are the expanded defenses of the URS being used and if so, how > and when? > > o > > What sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS by the > trademark owner? > > o > > What evidence is there of problems with the use of the > English-only requirement of the URS, especially given its > application to IDN New gTLDs? > > o > > How can the appeals process of the URS be expanded and improved? > > *4. Specific Potential Issues Concerning the Trademark > Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period, and Trademark Claims* > > We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the > Trademark Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims > > > o > > Is the protection of the TMCH too broad? > > o > > Is the TMCH providing too much protection for those with a > trademark on a generic or descriptive dictionary word, thus > allowing a trademark in one category of goods and services to > block or postpone the legitimate and rightful use of all > others in other areas of goods and services? Are legitimate > noncommercial, commercial and individual registrants losing > legitimate opportunities to register domain names in New gTLDs? > > o > > Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names > to be cherry picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to > those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark > owner (e.g., allowing ?Windows? to be removed from a future > .CLEANING by Microsoft). > > o > > How should the TMCH scope be limited to apply to only the > categories of good and service in which the generic terms in a > trademark are protected? > > o > > How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of > what is offered for ICANN pursuant to ICANN contracts and > policies vs. what services are offered to private New gTLD > registries pursuant to private contract. > > o > > How can the TMCH provide education services not only for > trademark owners, but for the registrants and potential > registrants equally impacted by their services. > > o > > How quickly can a canceled trademark be removed from the TMCH > database? (note: rejected trademarks and canceled trademarks > are different, with canceled trademarks involving trademarks > that have already been issued). > > o > > What is the chilling effect of the 90 day Trademark Claims > process? > > o > > Should Tdmk +50 be reversed? > > > We note that many of the ?potential issues? concerning the Sunrise > Period, TMCH and Trademark Claims involve the express reversal of > adopted GNSO policy ? a reversal of the careful compromises negotiated > by the multi-stakeholders of the GNSO who finalized the URS, TMCH, > Sunrise and Trademark Claims policies. > > > **Where that is taking place, we ask the Staff to express note and > flag such a question.** For example: > > o > > /Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow /TMCH matching > rules be expanded, e.g. to include plurals, ?marks contained? > or ?mark+keyword?, and/or common typos of a mark > > o > > /Should the STI consensus be reversed to all Trademark/claims > period be extended beyond ninety days? > > > There are clear reasons these policies were reviewed, extensively > debated and rejected in the first place. Clear information should be > provided and signals issued when a question asks for the setting aside > of these important compromises. > > > 4. > > *PDDRP* > > Given that no proceedings have taken place under the > Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures involving > allegations against an entire registry and its gTLD, we > have no evidence or record for review and we think it is > premature for the review of this policy. > > > Conclusion > > Overall, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and ask that our > suggestions, recommendations and concerns be incorporated into the > plan, order and issues to be evaluated going forward. Thank > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sun Nov 29 03:50:28 2015 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 20:50:28 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments In-Reply-To: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> As requested, I have given this excellent document a light edit in markup. This is certainly not my area of expertise, but it strikes me as extremely important. I invite those with greater knowledge than I of UDRP matters to have a look at this document, make sure I did not alter the meaning as I sought to correct typos etc, and see if more should be added. I think Kathy has definitely given them something to chew on here, though, it looks excellent to me. We must make sure we get it in on time (deadline Monday). I am adding Monika to the cc as I know that she has done work on the UDRP, as well as Wendy and Robin since I am not sure they are on the NCSG-policy list. The link for the report is here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en kind regards Stephanie Perrin On 2015-11-28 10:58, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > Fearing that our deadline for the UDRP/URS/TMCH comments might be > missed (it's Monday), I spent a good amount of time of my holiday > putting thoughts together. As a member of the final UDRP and URS > drafting teams, I see some good in this Preliminary Issues Report, and > a lot of shortcomings. I've set them out. If someone wants to upload > to Google Docs, please be my guest. Overall, I think our NCSG voice > is a critical one here. > Best, > Kathy > p.s. Hoping Stephanie can do her usual scrub. > p.p.s. below and attached (same document) > > DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT > > Comments of NCSG to Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development > Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All Generic > Top-Level Domains > > > These comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) address > three key aspects of the Preliminary a) the organization and order of > the evaluation, b) the scope of the reviews to take place and whether > the rights of all stakeholders are reflected in the scope and goals > set out, and c) the substantive issues and questions to be asked and > evaluated. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. > > > *a) Organization and Order of Evaluation* > > > In Section 1.3 of the Preliminary Issue Report, Staff suggests three > different approaches to the organization and order of evaluation of > the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP adopted in 1999) and the > Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) adopted in 2012 for the New gTLD > roll-out program. We would like to strongly suggest a fourth approach: > evaluate UDRP first and RPMs second. > > > Why? The UDRP is the oldest consensus policy of ICANN and the one we > understand the best. We have studied it the most and have the longest > history of implementation and decisions. While we agree that the work > of the UDRP should be staggered, we think it is the trunk of the tree > from which all other trademark rights protection mechanisms take > place. It works to embody the principles and purposes of our work in > balancing trademark rights and the traditional fair use and free > speech/freedom of expression rights of all others. > > > Work should certainly be staggered, but the UDRP should come first, > not second. Further reasons include: > > > 1. > > The UDRP created the principles from which the URS and Trademark > Clearinghouse (TMCH) were negotiated. Are those principles valid > and strong? Do they need to be revised? Assessing the Uniform > Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) put the > cart before the horse ? we should assess the strength of > foundation ? before checking its higher and newer levels. > > 2. > > The roll-out of New gTLDs is still in progress. We expected to be > finished by this point, but many New gTLDs are still in > contracting and others are still in contention. Key Sunrise and > Trademark Claims periods are yet to be undertaken, and data about > the roll-outs of all New gTLDs would be helpful. We will have a > fuller data set if we wait for more New gTLD introduction. > > > Accordingly, we ask for UDRP first, and its RPM New gTLD offshoots > second. > > > *b) Scope & Breadth* > > > This Preliminary Issues Report tells us (the readers/commenters) > repeatedly that it will rely heavily and extensively on ?the 2011 GNSO > Issue Report? and additional RPM materials. > > > But the 2011 GNSO Issue Report of the UDRP is half a decade old! > That's light years in terms of Internet time, and if used, the UDRP > Review will be missing: > > > 1. > > Major UDRP decisions of 2011-2015 (thousands of decisions) > > 2. > > The entire overlap of the New gTLDs and their RPMs with > the UDRP (one of the key criteria of evaluation in this > ?Review of All Rights Protection mechanisms? > > 3. > > The benefit of the Arbitration Forums self-reviews, > including the /WIPO Advanced Workshop on Domain Name > Dispute Resolution, May 2015/, in which inconsistencies of > decisions, including in the free speech/freedom of > expression area were candidly discussed and contemplated. > > 4. > > Recent and strong ICANN work seeking to understand and > incorporate Human Rights into the policy considerations of > ICANN (note the many, many sessions on Human Rights, > including by the Cross Community WG and the GAC in Dublin). > > > The UDRP Issues Report must be updated to include the UDRP work of the > last half decade. > > > /_Further, all discussions of the Scope must include more than the > needs of trademark holders. _/ > > > We ask for fairness _and balance _in the representation of the goals > of the upcoming UDRP and RPM evaluation process. On Page 17 of this > Preliminary Issues Report, the goals are framed in a one-sided way: > > > ?to inform and to clarify the scope of the analysis to follow, as to > whether or not all the RPMs collectively can be said to achieve the > intention of providing sufficient protection to trademark holders in > both existing and new gTLDs, or if further changes may be required.? > > > But the protection of trademark holders **must take place within the > fuller context of whether the rights and protections they seek are > consistent with national law and public policy**. > > > By way of example, the owner of the National Football Team in > Washington DC, Dan Snyder, certainly does not think that the trademark > laws are providing sufficient protection to him and his longstanding > US federal trademark for the ?Redskins.? His longstanding, powerful > and very valuable US federal trademark for Redskins was recently > canceled by US court for disparagement of Native Americans. Public > policy considerations consistent with trademark law took effect to > eliminate his federal trademark rights. > > > Under all national laws, trademark holders rights are limited and the > rights of others are balanced. Including the rights to: > > 1. > > Use generic and descriptive words in new and novel ways > > 2. > > Use their last names, in all ways legal under law (which > includes major protections in this area), and > > 3. > > Use geographic words that accurately mark where an > organization, business or individual is located. > > > Reflecting such a balance has **always been part of the goals of the > UDRP and RPMs since their formulation and adopted by the ICANN > Community** and must continue in the upcoming process. > > > We ask that the full balance of the goals of this review process be > clearly laid out at /each and every opportunity./ > > > Finally, we ask that this UDRP review not be an Expedited PDP without > much more extensive evaluation. This is an evaluation of our very > first consensus policy ? one adopted very quickly by ICANN and without > any of the Stakeholder Groups that exist today. This is an evaluation > of a sixteen year old consensus policy, and a review years in the > making. Let's give it the full and careful consideration that it deserves. > > >100. > > *Potential Issues for Review in a PDP (Questions to be asked of > the UDRP, URS and TMCH)* > > > We seek to add questions to the specific UDRP, URS and TMCH list, but > offer an initial question/issue/category as yet unasked: > > > 1. > > *Addition of a New Potential Issue for Review in the PDP: Are the > processes being adopted by Providers of UDRP, URS, and TMCH > services fair and reasonable?* > > UDRP, URS and TMCH Providers are adopting procedures that change > the fees, expand the time of services, add new services, allow > additional responses by trademark holders and more. Many refuse to > rotate their Panelists, assigning to cases Panelists who have a > track record of nearly uninterrupted decisions for trademark > holders. It is critical that the RPM Review process understand the > procedural rules adopted by Providers and ask the key questions > that every supervising body must: > > a. Are the Providers' procedures fair and equitable for all > stakeholders and participants > > b. Are the Providers consulting with all stakeholders and > participants in the evaluation, adoption and review of these new > procedures? > > c. Are the Providers training both the Complainants and the > Respondents, and their communities and representatives, fairly and > equally in these new procedures? > > d. A Providers exceeding the scope of their authority in any of > the procedures they are adopting? > > e. Is ICANN reaching out properly to the multistakeholder > community when such procedures are being evaluated by ICANN at the > Providers request? Is this an open and transparent process? > > f. What remedies exist, or should exist, to allow questions about > new policies by the Providers offering UDRP, URS and TMCH > services, and how can they be expeditiously and fairly created. > > g. What changes need to be made to ensure that procedures adopted > by providers are consistent with the ICANN policies and are fair > and balanced? > > > > 2. > > *Specific Potential Issues Concerning the UDRP Review* > > > We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the > UDRP Review > > > * > > Recommend that the term ?free speech and the rights of > non-commercial registrants? be expanded to include ?free speech, > freedom of expression and the rights of non-commercial > registrants? to include rights under US law and the United Nations > Declaration of Human Rights. > > * > > Inclusion of: Are the critical concepts of ?fair use? and ?fair > dealing? fully and accurately reflected in the UDRP (and also URS > and TMCH rules)? > > * > > Are generic dictionary words being adequately protected so that > they are available for all to use as allowed under their national > laws and international treaties? E.g. sun, windows. > > * > > Are last names and geographic places adequately protection so that > they are available for all to use allowed under their national > laws, e.g, Smith, McDonald, Capitol Hill Cafe, Old Town Deli? > > * > > Now that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a regular finding of > UDRP panels, indicating that domain name registrants are being > abused by complaints brought against them in the UDRP process, > what penalties and sanctions should be imposed on Complainants > found to be reverse domain name hijackers? How can those penalties > and sanctions to aligned to be fair as compared to the loss of a > domain name taken from a registrant found to be a ?cybersquatter?? > > * > > Are free speech,, freedom of expression and the right of > non-commercial registrants *uniformly protected *in existing UDRP > (and URS and TMCH) policy and its implementation. As currently > phrased, the ?potential issue? asks if it is ?adequately > protected,? but where we find differences among Panelists of > different countries, we should ask if free speech is ?adequately > and uniformly protected? ? as equity and fairness lies in both. > > * > > Should defenses be expanded, e.g., as seen in Nominet's policy and > the URS. > > > 2. > > *Specific Potential Issues Concerning the URS Review* > > > We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the URS > Review > > > o > > Has ICANN does it job in training registrants in the new > rights and defenses of the URS? > > o > > Are the expanded defenses of the URS being used and if so, how > and when? > > o > > What sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS by the > trademark owner? > > o > > What evidence is there of problems with the use of the > English-only requirement of the URS, especially given its > application to IDN New gTLDs? > > o > > How can the appeals process of the URS be expanded and improved? > > *4. Specific Potential Issues Concerning the Trademark > Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period, and Trademark Claims* > > We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the > Trademark Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims > > > o > > Is the protection of the TMCH too broad? > > o > > Is the TMCH providing too much protection for those with a > trademark on a generic or descriptive dictionary word, thus > allowing a trademark in one category of goods and services to > block or postpone the legitimate and rightful use of all > others in other areas of goods and services? Are legitimate > noncommercial, commercial and individual registrants losing > legitimate opportunities to register domain names in New gTLDs? > > o > > Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names > to be cherry picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to > those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark > owner (e.g., allowing ?Windows? to be removed from a future > .CLEANING by Microsoft). > > o > > How should the TMCH scope be limited to apply to only the > categories of good and service in which the generic terms in a > trademark are protected? > > o > > How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of > what is offered for ICANN pursuant to ICANN contracts and > policies vs. what services are offered to private New gTLD > registries pursuant to private contract. > > o > > How can the TMCH provide education services not only for > trademark owners, but for the registrants and potential > registrants equally impacted by their services. > > o > > How quickly can a canceled trademark be removed from the TMCH > database? (note: rejected trademarks and canceled trademarks > are different, with canceled trademarks involving trademarks > that have already been issued). > > o > > What is the chilling effect of the 90 day Trademark Claims > process? > > o > > Should Tdmk +50 be reversed? > > > We note that many of the ?potential issues? concerning the Sunrise > Period, TMCH and Trademark Claims involve the express reversal of > adopted GNSO policy ? a reversal of the careful compromises negotiated > by the multi-stakeholders of the GNSO who finalized the URS, TMCH, > Sunrise and Trademark Claims policies. > > > **Where that is taking place, we ask the Staff to express note and > flag such a question.** For example: > > o > > /Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow /TMCH matching > rules be expanded, e.g. to include plurals, ?marks contained? > or ?mark+keyword?, and/or common typos of a mark > > o > > /Should the STI consensus be reversed to all Trademark/claims > period be extended beyond ninety days? > > > There are clear reasons these policies were reviewed, extensively > debated and rejected in the first place. Clear information should be > provided and signals issued when a question asks for the setting aside > of these important compromises. > > > 4. > > *PDDRP* > > Given that no proceedings have taken place under the > Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures involving > allegations against an entire registry and its gTLD, we > have no evidence or record for review and we think it is > premature for the review of this policy. > > > Conclusion > > Overall, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and ask that our > suggestions, recommendations and concerns be incorporated into the > plan, order and issues to be evaluated going forward. Thank > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UDRP Review comments 3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54272 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kathy Sun Nov 29 16:09:40 2015 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:09:40 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments In-Reply-To: <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> Stephanie's edits are great. They are still highlighted in the attached document. If you could review these comments today, we would appreciate it - and get them ready to submit tomorrow. Sorry for the delay, but PPSAI has been busy too! Best, Kathy On 11/28/2015 8:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > As requested, I have given this excellent document a light edit in > markup. This is certainly not my area of expertise, but it strikes me > as extremely important. I invite those with greater knowledge than I > of UDRP matters to have a look at this document, make sure I did not > alter the meaning as I sought to correct typos etc, and see if more > should be added. I think Kathy has definitely given them something to > chew on here, though, it looks excellent to me. We must make sure we > get it in on time (deadline Monday). I am adding Monika to the cc as I > know that she has done work on the UDRP, as well as Wendy and Robin > since I am not sure they are on the NCSG-policy list. The link for > the report is here: > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en > kind regards > Stephanie Perrin > > On 2015-11-28 10:58, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> Hi All, >> Fearing that our deadline for the UDRP/URS/TMCH comments might be >> missed (it's Monday), I spent a good amount of time of my holiday >> putting thoughts together. As a member of the final UDRP and URS >> drafting teams, I see some good in this Preliminary Issues Report, >> and a lot of shortcomings. I've set them out. If someone wants to >> upload to Google Docs, please be my guest. Overall, I think our NCSG >> voice is a critical one here. >> Best, >> Kathy >> p.s. Hoping Stephanie can do her usual scrub. >> p.p.s. below and attached (same document) >> >> DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT >> >> Comments of NCSG to Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development >> Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All Generic >> Top-Level Domains >> >> >> These comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) address >> three key aspects of the Preliminary a) the organization and order of >> the evaluation, b) the scope of the reviews to take place and whether >> the rights of all stakeholders are reflected in the scope and goals >> set out, and c) the substantive issues and questions to be asked and >> evaluated. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. >> >> >> *a) Organization and Order of Evaluation* >> >> >> In Section 1.3 of the Preliminary Issue Report, Staff suggests three >> different approaches to the organization and order of evaluation of >> the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP adopted in 1999) and the >> Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) adopted in 2012 for the New gTLD >> roll-out program. We would like to strongly suggest a fourth >> approach: evaluate UDRP first and RPMs second. >> >> >> Why? The UDRP is the oldest consensus policy of ICANN and the one we >> understand the best. We have studied it the most and have the longest >> history of implementation and decisions. While we agree that the work >> of the UDRP should be staggered, we think it is the trunk of the tree >> from which all other trademark rights protection mechanisms take >> place. It works to embody the principles and purposes of our work in >> balancing trademark rights and the traditional fair use and free >> speech/freedom of expression rights of all others. >> >> >> Work should certainly be staggered, but the UDRP should come first, >> not second. Further reasons include: >> >> >> 1. >> >> The UDRP created the principles from which the URS and Trademark >> Clearinghouse (TMCH) were negotiated. Are those principles valid >> and strong? Do they need to be revised? Assessing the Uniform >> Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) put the >> cart before the horse ? we should assess the strength of >> foundation ? before checking its higher and newer levels. >> >> 2. >> >> The roll-out of New gTLDs is still in progress. We expected to be >> finished by this point, but many New gTLDs are still in >> contracting and others are still in contention. Key Sunrise and >> Trademark Claims periods are yet to be undertaken, and data about >> the roll-outs of all New gTLDs would be helpful. We will have a >> fuller data set if we wait for more New gTLD introduction. >> >> >> Accordingly, we ask for UDRP first, and its RPM New gTLD offshoots >> second. >> >> >> *b) Scope & Breadth* >> >> >> This Preliminary Issues Report tells us (the readers/commenters) >> repeatedly that it will rely heavily and extensively on ?the 2011 >> GNSO Issue Report? and additional RPM materials. >> >> >> But the 2011 GNSO Issue Report of the UDRP is half a decade old! >> That's light years in terms of Internet time, and if used, the UDRP >> Review will be missing: >> >> >> 1. >> >> Major UDRP decisions of 2011-2015 (thousands of decisions) >> >> 2. >> >> The entire overlap of the New gTLDs and their RPMs with >> the UDRP (one of the key criteria of evaluation in this >> ?Review of All Rights Protection mechanisms? >> >> 3. >> >> The benefit of the Arbitration Forums self-reviews, >> including the /WIPO Advanced Workshop on Domain Name >> Dispute Resolution, May 2015/, in which inconsistencies >> of decisions, including in the free speech/freedom of >> expression area were candidly discussed and contemplated. >> >> 4. >> >> Recent and strong ICANN work seeking to understand and >> incorporate Human Rights into the policy considerations >> of ICANN (note the many, many sessions on Human Rights, >> including by the Cross Community WG and the GAC in Dublin). >> >> >> The UDRP Issues Report must be updated to include the UDRP work of >> the last half decade. >> >> >> /_Further, all discussions of the Scope must include more than the >> needs of trademark holders. _/ >> >> >> We ask for fairness _and balance _in the representation of the goals >> of the upcoming UDRP and RPM evaluation process. On Page 17 of this >> Preliminary Issues Report, the goals are framed in a one-sided way: >> >> >> ?to inform and to clarify the scope of the analysis to follow, as to >> whether or not all the RPMs collectively can be said to achieve the >> intention of providing sufficient protection to trademark holders in >> both existing and new gTLDs, or if further changes may be required.? >> >> >> But the protection of trademark holders **must take place within the >> fuller context of whether the rights and protections they seek are >> consistent with national law and public policy**. >> >> >> By way of example, the owner of the National Football Team in >> Washington DC, Dan Snyder, certainly does not think that the >> trademark laws are providing sufficient protection to him and his >> longstanding US federal trademark for the ?Redskins.? His >> longstanding, powerful and very valuable US federal trademark for >> Redskins was recently canceled by US court for disparagement of >> Native Americans. Public policy considerations consistent with >> trademark law took effect to eliminate his federal trademark rights. >> >> >> Under all national laws, trademark holders rights are limited and the >> rights of others are balanced. Including the rights to: >> >> 1. >> >> Use generic and descriptive words in new and novel ways >> >> 2. >> >> Use their last names, in all ways legal under law (which >> includes major protections in this area), and >> >> 3. >> >> Use geographic words that accurately mark where an >> organization, business or individual is located. >> >> >> Reflecting such a balance has **always been part of the goals of the >> UDRP and RPMs since their formulation and adopted by the ICANN >> Community** and must continue in the upcoming process. >> >> >> We ask that the full balance of the goals of this review process be >> clearly laid out at /each and every opportunity./ >> >> >> Finally, we ask that this UDRP review not be an Expedited PDP without >> much more extensive evaluation. This is an evaluation of our very >> first consensus policy ? one adopted very quickly by ICANN and >> without any of the Stakeholder Groups that exist today. This is an >> evaluation of a sixteen year old consensus policy, and a review years >> in the making. Let's give it the full and careful consideration that >> it deserves. >> >> >>100. >> >> *Potential Issues for Review in a PDP (Questions to be asked of >> the UDRP, URS and TMCH)* >> >> >> We seek to add questions to the specific UDRP, URS and TMCH list, but >> offer an initial question/issue/category as yet unasked: >> >> >> 1. >> >> *Addition of a New Potential Issue for Review in the PDP: Are the >> processes being adopted by Providers of UDRP, URS, and TMCH >> services fair and reasonable?* >> >> UDRP, URS and TMCH Providers are adopting procedures that change >> the fees, expand the time of services, add new services, allow >> additional responses by trademark holders and more. Many refuse >> to rotate their Panelists, assigning to cases Panelists who have >> a track record of nearly uninterrupted decisions for trademark >> holders. It is critical that the RPM Review process understand >> the procedural rules adopted by Providers and ask the key >> questions that every supervising body must: >> >> a. Are the Providers' procedures fair and equitable for all >> stakeholders and participants >> >> b. Are the Providers consulting with all stakeholders and >> participants in the evaluation, adoption and review of these new >> procedures? >> >> c. Are the Providers training both the Complainants and the >> Respondents, and their communities and representatives, fairly >> and equally in these new procedures? >> >> d. A Providers exceeding the scope of their authority in any of >> the procedures they are adopting? >> >> e. Is ICANN reaching out properly to the multistakeholder >> community when such procedures are being evaluated by ICANN at >> the Providers request? Is this an open and transparent process? >> >> f. What remedies exist, or should exist, to allow questions about >> new policies by the Providers offering UDRP, URS and TMCH >> services, and how can they be expeditiously and fairly created. >> >> g. What changes need to be made to ensure that procedures adopted >> by providers are consistent with the ICANN policies and are fair >> and balanced? >> >> >> >> 2. >> >> *Specific Potential Issues Concerning the UDRP Review* >> >> >> We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the >> UDRP Review >> >> >> * >> >> Recommend that the term ?free speech and the rights of >> non-commercial registrants? be expanded to include ?free speech, >> freedom of expression and the rights of non-commercial >> registrants? to include rights under US law and the United >> Nations Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> * >> >> Inclusion of: Are the critical concepts of ?fair use? and ?fair >> dealing? fully and accurately reflected in the UDRP (and also URS >> and TMCH rules)? >> >> * >> >> Are generic dictionary words being adequately protected so that >> they are available for all to use as allowed under their national >> laws and international treaties? E.g. sun, windows. >> >> * >> >> Are last names and geographic places adequately protection so >> that they are available for all to use allowed under their >> national laws, e.g, Smith, McDonald, Capitol Hill Cafe, Old Town >> Deli? >> >> * >> >> Now that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a regular finding of >> UDRP panels, indicating that domain name registrants are being >> abused by complaints brought against them in the UDRP process, >> what penalties and sanctions should be imposed on Complainants >> found to be reverse domain name hijackers? How can those >> penalties and sanctions to aligned to be fair as compared to the >> loss of a domain name taken from a registrant found to be a >> ?cybersquatter?? >> >> * >> >> Are free speech,, freedom of expression and the right of >> non-commercial registrants *uniformly protected *in existing UDRP >> (and URS and TMCH) policy and its implementation. As currently >> phrased, the ?potential issue? asks if it is ?adequately >> protected,? but where we find differences among Panelists of >> different countries, we should ask if free speech is ?adequately >> and uniformly protected? ? as equity and fairness lies in both. >> >> * >> >> Should defenses be expanded, e.g., as seen in Nominet's policy >> and the URS. >> >> >> 2. >> >> *Specific Potential Issues Concerning the URS Review* >> >> >> We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with the >> URS Review >> >> >> o >> >> Has ICANN does it job in training registrants in the new >> rights and defenses of the URS? >> >> o >> >> Are the expanded defenses of the URS being used and if so, >> how and when? >> >> o >> >> What sanctions should be allowed for misuse of the URS by the >> trademark owner? >> >> o >> >> What evidence is there of problems with the use of the >> English-only requirement of the URS, especially given its >> application to IDN New gTLDs? >> >> o >> >> How can the appeals process of the URS be expanded and improved? >> >> *4. Specific Potential Issues Concerning the Trademark >> Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period, and Trademark Claims* >> >> We list for inclusion the following Issues for evaluation with >> the Trademark Clearinghouse Review, Sunrise Period and Trademark >> Claims >> >> >> o >> >> Is the protection of the TMCH too broad? >> >> o >> >> Is the TMCH providing too much protection for those with a >> trademark on a generic or descriptive dictionary word, thus >> allowing a trademark in one category of goods and services to >> block or postpone the legitimate and rightful use of all >> others in other areas of goods and services? Are legitimate >> noncommercial, commercial and individual registrants losing >> legitimate opportunities to register domain names in New gTLDs? >> >> o >> >> Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names >> to be cherry picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to >> those of the categories of goods and services of the >> trademark owner (e.g., allowing ?Windows? to be removed from >> a future .CLEANING by Microsoft). >> >> o >> >> How should the TMCH scope be limited to apply to only the >> categories of good and service in which the generic terms in >> a trademark are protected? >> >> o >> >> How can TMCH services be much more transparent in terms of >> what is offered for ICANN pursuant to ICANN contracts and >> policies vs. what services are offered to private New gTLD >> registries pursuant to private contract. >> >> o >> >> How can the TMCH provide education services not only for >> trademark owners, but for the registrants and potential >> registrants equally impacted by their services. >> >> o >> >> How quickly can a canceled trademark be removed from the TMCH >> database? (note: rejected trademarks and canceled trademarks >> are different, with canceled trademarks involving trademarks >> that have already been issued). >> >> o >> >> What is the chilling effect of the 90 day Trademark Claims >> process? >> >> o >> >> Should Tdmk +50 be reversed? >> >> >> We note that many of the ?potential issues? concerning the Sunrise >> Period, TMCH and Trademark Claims involve the express reversal of >> adopted GNSO policy ? a reversal of the careful compromises >> negotiated by the multi-stakeholders of the GNSO who finalized the >> URS, TMCH, Sunrise and Trademark Claims policies. >> >> >> **Where that is taking place, we ask the Staff to express note and >> flag such a question.** For example: >> >> o >> >> /Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow /TMCH matching >> rules be expanded, e.g. to include plurals, ?marks contained? >> or ?mark+keyword?, and/or common typos of a mark >> >> o >> >> /Should the STI consensus be reversed to all Trademark/claims >> period be extended beyond ninety days? >> >> >> There are clear reasons these policies were reviewed, extensively >> debated and rejected in the first place. Clear information should be >> provided and signals issued when a question asks for the setting >> aside of these important compromises. >> >> >> 4. >> >> *PDDRP* >> >> Given that no proceedings have taken place under the >> Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures involving >> allegations against an entire registry and its gTLD, we >> have no evidence or record for review and we think it is >> premature for the review of this policy. >> >> >> Conclusion >> >> Overall, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and ask that our >> suggestions, recommendations and concerns be incorporated into the >> plan, order and issues to be evaluated going forward. Thank >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UDRP Review comments 3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54272 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lanfran Sun Nov 29 18:58:07 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:58:07 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments In-Reply-To: <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> Thanks to Kathy and Stephanie for the work on the Draft Comments of NCSG to Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All Generic Top-Level Domains. I have appended the document as version 4, aa it was in version 3, with to added two comments/suggestions. The first is to drop the explicit reference to the UDHR (p 4.1), but if kept correct it to properly read Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (not United Nations Declaration of Human Rights). Simply adding "freedom of expression" is adequate here. The second is with regard to the "Redskins" trade mark decision (p. 2.8) where I would drop "powerful and very valuable" as irrelevant [unless one is a US football team owner or football fanatic (-: ] Sam L. On 29/11/2015 9:09 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Stephanie's edits are great. They are still highlighted in the attached > document. If you could review these comments today, we would appreciate > it - and get them ready to submit tomorrow. > Sorry for the delay, but PPSAI has been busy too! > Best, > Kathy > > On 11/28/2015 8:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> As requested, I have given this excellent document a light edit in >> markup. This is certainly not my area of expertise, but it strikes me >> as extremely important. I invite those with greater knowledge than I >> of UDRP matters to have a look at this document, make sure I did not >> alter the meaning as I sought to correct typos etc, and see if more >> should be added. I think Kathy has definitely given them something to >> chew on here, though, it looks excellent to me. We must make sure we >> get it in on time (deadline Monday). I am adding Monika to the cc as I >> know that she has done work on the UDRP, as well as Wendy and Robin >> since I am not sure they are on the NCSG-policy list. The link for >> the report is here: >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en >> kind regards >> Stephanie Perrin -- ------------------------------------------------ "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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UDRP Review comments 4.doc Type: application/vnd.ms-office Size: 54784 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kathy Sun Nov 29 20:41:48 2015 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 13:41:48 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments In-Reply-To: <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> Hi Sam, Tx for your close review - much, much appreciated!! I've incorporated your edits. Correcting the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (good catch) and updating the Redskins trademark to take away "powerful and very," but keeping "valuable" to illustrate the idea that even the valuable trademarks can be lost. I've also incorporated Stephanie's edits (with thanks to Stephanie!). Version 5 attached. Whoever takes this to final, could you please: convert the final to PDF and add the appropriate signature section? Best and tx, Kathy On 11/29/2015 11:58 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Thanks to Kathy and Stephanie for the work on the Draft Comments of > NCSG to Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to > Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All Generic Top-Level Domains. > > I have appended the document as version 4, aa it was in version 3, > with to added two comments/suggestions. > > The first is to drop the explicit reference to the UDHR (p 4.1), but > if kept correct it to properly read Universal Declaration of Human > Rights, (not United Nations Declaration of Human Rights). Simply > adding "freedom of expression" is adequate here. > > The second is with regard to the "Redskins" trade mark decision (p. > 2.8) where I would drop "powerful and very valuable" as irrelevant > [unless one is a US football team owner or football fanatic (-: ] > > Sam L. > > > > On 29/11/2015 9:09 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> Stephanie's edits are great. They are still highlighted in the attached >> document. If you could review these comments today, we would appreciate >> it - and get them ready to submit tomorrow. >> Sorry for the delay, but PPSAI has been busy too! >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> On 11/28/2015 8:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> As requested, I have given this excellent document a light edit in >>> markup. This is certainly not my area of expertise, but it strikes me >>> as extremely important. I invite those with greater knowledge than I >>> of UDRP matters to have a look at this document, make sure I did not >>> alter the meaning as I sought to correct typos etc, and see if more >>> should be added. I think Kathy has definitely given them something to >>> chew on here, though, it looks excellent to me. We must make sure we >>> get it in on time (deadline Monday). I am adding Monika to the cc as I >>> know that she has done work on the UDRP, as well as Wendy and Robin >>> since I am not sure they are on the NCSG-policy list. The link for >>> the report is here: >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en >>> kind regards >>> Stephanie Perrin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UDRP Review comments 5.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54272 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lanfran Mon Nov 30 00:38:41 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 17:38:41 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - Version 6 In-Reply-To: <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> Kathy, Could do the PDF but cannot since I don't know what the "appropriate signature section" is...within the PDF. I cleaned up two things, removing the redundant (b & (c in the first paragraph, and deleting the remaining comments by Stephanie, since the text accepts the replacement of "light years" with "centuries". As I understand it, Stephanie's comment with regard to the time period (p.5) "Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow Trademark claims period to be extended beyond ninety days?" is with regard to NCSG questioning the following language in the Staff Paper on Rights Protection Mechanisms in the New gTLD Program: Revised Report September 2015 https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en (5.3 Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, page 84). Or is it something more? "The Trademark Clearinghouse also offers an Ongoing Notifications service at no additional cost that informs the trademark holder whenever someone has activated a domain name in a new gTLD that matches a term that is recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. When opting in to this service, the trademark holder will receive a notice informing them of the matching domain name, so the trademark holder can determine whether it wishes to take action. This is a non-mandatory service provided following the 90-day Claims Period for each new gTLD whereby trademark holders are notified of potential intellectual property infringement for an indefinite period of time beyond the required 90-day period. Deloitte provides this service to trademark holders and agents for the duration of their trademark record registration into the Trademark" Sam L. On 29/11/2015 1:41 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Sam, > Tx for your close review - much, much appreciated!! I've incorporated > your edits. Correcting the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights > (good catch) and updating the Redskins trademark to take away "powerful > and very," but keeping "valuable" to illustrate the idea that even the > valuable trademarks can be lost. > > I've also incorporated Stephanie's edits (with thanks to Stephanie!). > Version 5 attached. > > Whoever takes this to final, could you please: convert the final to PDF > and add the appropriate signature section? > Best and tx, > Kathy > From lanfran Mon Nov 30 00:41:33 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 17:41:33 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - [WITH] Version 6 In-Reply-To: <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> Kathy, [WITH VERSION 6] Could do the PDF but cannot since I don't know what the "appropriate signature section" is...within the PDF. I cleaned up two things, removing the redundant (b & (c in the first paragraph, and deleting the remaining comments by Stephanie, since the text accepts the replacement of "light years" with "centuries". As I understand it, Stephanie's comment with regard to the time period (p.5) "Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow Trademark claims period to be extended beyond ninety days?" is with regard to NCSG questioning the following language in the Staff Paper on Rights Protection Mechanisms in the New gTLD Program: Revised Report September 2015 https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en (5.3 Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, page 84). Or is it something more? "The Trademark Clearinghouse also offers an Ongoing Notifications service at no additional cost that informs the trademark holder whenever someone has activated a domain name in a new gTLD that matches a term that is recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. When opting in to this service, the trademark holder will receive a notice informing them of the matching domain name, so the trademark holder can determine whether it wishes to take action. This is a non-mandatory service provided following the 90-day Claims Period for each new gTLD whereby trademark holders are notified of potential intellectual property infringement for an indefinite period of time beyond the required 90-day period. Deloitte provides this service to trademark holders and agents for the duration of their trademark record registration into the Trademark" Sam L. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UDRP Review comments 6.doc Type: application/vnd.ms-office Size: 52224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kathy Mon Nov 30 03:59:19 2015 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:59:19 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - [WITH] Version 6 In-Reply-To: <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <565BAD77.4010205@kathykleiman.com> Hi Sam, Tx you very much, the comments look good! Re: (p.5) "Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow Trademark claims period to be extended beyond ninety days?", my thought was the ongoing push of the some stakeholders and the ICANN Staff to extend the mandatory Trademark Claims period beyond 90 days. At the time the STI adopted this compromise, we (NCSG) argued that Trademark Claims (which I will define loosely as a notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse to the trademark holder registered within the Trademark Clearinghouse that something identical to its trademark has just been registered in a New gTLD. We urged a limited Trademark Claims period - a balance between the needs of the trademark owner and the rights of the trademark owner -- to avoid "chilling effects" to the registrant (the concept Wendy Seltzer helped to coin and codify in her/EFF's Chilling Effects Database). I am still very concerned whether I see ICANN seeking to expand this mandatory term. It is one of the changes this Issues Report seeks to introduce. The fact that the Trademark Clearinghouse is doing this voluntarily is shocking... Best, Kathy On 11/29/2015 5:41 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Kathy, [WITH VERSION 6] > > Could do the PDF but cannot since I don't know what the "appropriate > signature section" is...within the PDF. > > I cleaned up two things, removing the redundant (b & (c in the first > paragraph, and deleting the remaining comments by Stephanie, since the > text accepts the replacement of "light years" with "centuries". > > As I understand it, Stephanie's comment with regard to the time period > > (p.5) "Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow Trademark claims > period to be extended beyond ninety days?" > > is with regard to NCSG questioning the following language in the Staff > Paper on Rights Protection Mechanisms in the New gTLD Program: Revised > Report September 2015 > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en > (5.3 Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, page 84). Or is it > something more? > > "The Trademark Clearinghouse also offers an Ongoing Notifications > service at no additional cost that informs the trademark holder > whenever someone has activated a domain name in a new gTLD that > matches a term that is recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. When > opting in to this service, the trademark holder will receive a notice > informing them of the matching domain name, so the trademark holder > can determine whether it wishes to take action. This is a > non-mandatory service provided following the 90-day Claims Period for > each new gTLD whereby trademark holders are notified of potential > intellectual property infringement for an indefinite period of time > beyond the required 90-day period. Deloitte provides this service to > trademark holders and agents for the duration of their trademark > record registration into the Trademark" > > Sam L. From lanfran Mon Nov 30 04:33:28 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 21:33:28 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - Last Questions In-Reply-To: <565BAD77.4010205@kathykleiman.com> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> <565BAD77.4010205@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <565BB578.1040204@yorku.ca> Kathy, Given what little trademark law I (economist not lawyer) know, I think that in the long run national law would dominate here, country by country, since there are statutes of limitation (SOL) for copyright infringement depending on the country. For example, in the U.S. SOL appears to be within three years after the claim accrued for civil actions, and within 5 years after the cause of action arose for criminal cases. In Canada proceedings for infringement must commenced within three years after the time when the plaintiff first knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know of the infringement. While ICANN could probably maintain a Tradmark claims period and process in those first ninety days as part of the gTLD contracts, I don't see how it could have jurisdiction over the remaining three years unless there was mutual agreement on the part of the plaintiff and the defendant. Not clear staff considered that factor. Who is going to do the PDF w/signatures? Sam On 29/11/2015 8:59 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Sam, > Tx you very much, the comments look good! > > Re: (p.5) "Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow Trademark > claims period to be extended beyond ninety days?", my thought was the > ongoing push of the some stakeholders and the ICANN Staff to extend the > mandatory Trademark Claims period beyond 90 days. At the time the STI > adopted this compromise, we (NCSG) argued that Trademark Claims (which I > will define loosely as a notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse to the > trademark holder registered within the Trademark Clearinghouse that > something identical to its trademark has just been registered in a New > gTLD. We urged a limited Trademark Claims period - a balance between the > needs of the trademark owner and the rights of the trademark owner -- to > avoid "chilling effects" to the registrant (the concept Wendy Seltzer > helped to coin and codify in her/EFF's Chilling Effects Database). > > I am still very concerned whether I see ICANN seeking to expand this > mandatory term. It is one of the changes this Issues Report seeks to > introduce. > > The fact that the Trademark Clearinghouse is doing this voluntarily is > shocking... > Best, > Kathy From ncsg Mon Nov 30 09:20:57 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:20:57 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - Last Questions In-Reply-To: <565BB578.1040204@yorku.ca> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> <565BAD77.4010205@kathykleiman.com> <565BB578.1040204@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <20151130072056.GB1606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> On Nov 29 21:33, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote: > Who is going to do the PDF w/signatures? I am (unless Amr shows up and wants to do it). I'll wait until the evening, even though it seems we've pretty much reached a consensus on the text already - please send any additional edits or comments in ASAP. -- Tapani Tarvainen From lanfran Mon Nov 30 20:08:31 2015 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:08:31 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - Last Questions In-Reply-To: <20151130072056.GB1606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> <565BAD77.4010205@kathykleiman.com> <565BB578.1040204@yorku.ca> <20151130072056.GB1606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <565C909F.7060100@yorku.ca> Tapani, Unless there is an objection from an unsuspecting quarter, there seems to be consensus here. - Sam On 30/11/2015 2:20 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Nov 29 21:33, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote: > >> Who is going to do the PDF w/signatures? > > I am (unless Amr shows up and wants to do it). > > I'll wait until the evening, even though it seems we've > pretty much reached a consensus on the text already - > please send any additional edits or comments in ASAP. > From ncsg Mon Nov 30 20:18:38 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:18:38 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - Last Questions In-Reply-To: <20151130072056.GB1606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> <565BAD77.4010205@kathykleiman.com> <565BB578.1040204@yorku.ca> <20151130072056.GB1606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <20151130181838.GA16795@tarvainen.info> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:20:57AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > I'll wait until the evening, even though it seems we've > pretty much reached a consensus on the text already - > please send any additional edits or comments in ASAP. Nobody seems to have anything more to add, so I take it version 6 is our consensus position. I'm attaching pdf version I made of it (I added date to the top and my signature at the bottom), and will wait another half an hour or so before sending it in just in case someone wants to have one more look. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UDRP_Review_comments_NCSG20151130.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 108057 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kathy Mon Nov 30 20:53:47 2015 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:53:47 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - Last Questions In-Reply-To: <20151130181838.GA16795@tarvainen.info> References: <5659CF42.6000801@kathykleiman.com> <565A59E4.3080805@mail.utoronto.ca> <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> <565BAD77.4010205@kathykleiman.com> <565BB578.1040204@yorku.ca> <20151130072056.GB1606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20151130181838.GA16795@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <565C9B3B.3050001@kathykleiman.com> Tx you, Tapani! And thanks to all for edits and review. Best, Kathy On 11/30/2015 1:18 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:20:57AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > >> I'll wait until the evening, even though it seems we've >> pretty much reached a consensus on the text already - >> please send any additional edits or comments in ASAP. > Nobody seems to have anything more to add, so I take it > version 6 is our consensus position. > > I'm attaching pdf version I made of it (I added date to the top and my > signature at the bottom), and will wait another half an hour or so > before sending it in just in case someone wants to have one more look. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Mon Nov 30 21:51:58 2015 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:51:58 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - Last Questions In-Reply-To: <565C9B3B.3050001@kathykleiman.com> References: <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> <565BAD77.4010205@kathykleiman.com> <565BB578.1040204@yorku.ca> <20151130072056.GB1606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20151130181838.GA16795@tarvainen.info> <565C9B3B.3050001@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <20151130195158.GE16281@tarvainen.info> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 01:53:47PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman (kathy at kathykleiman.com) wrote: > Tx you, Tapani! And thanks to all for edits and review. Sent. And noticed ICANN's comment-handling mail server uses greylisting, so it'll take a while before it gets through... good thing there's still 3 hours to go. :-) -- Tapani Tarvainen From kathy Mon Nov 30 21:54:42 2015 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:54:42 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - Last Questions In-Reply-To: <20151130195158.GE16281@tarvainen.info> References: <565B0724.7070604@kathykleiman.com> <565B2E9F.4000601@yorku.ca> <565B46EC.30305@kathykleiman.com> <565B7E71.50406@yorku.ca> <565B7F1D.6060107@yorku.ca> <565BAD77.4010205@kathykleiman.com> <565BB578.1040204@yorku.ca> <20151130072056.GB1606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20151130181838.GA16795@tarvainen.info> <565C9B3B.3050001@kathykleiman.com> <20151130195158.GE16281@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <565CA982.8080501@kathykleiman.com> Right, you will get a email asking you to confirm that the comment is one you intended to submit. When you click yes, hopefully it will post soon after. Tx you! Kathy On 11/30/2015 2:51 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 01:53:47PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman (kathy at kathykleiman.com) wrote: > >> Tx you, Tapani! And thanks to all for edits and review. > Sent. And noticed ICANN's comment-handling mail server uses > greylisting, so it'll take a while before it gets through... > good thing there's still 3 hours to go. :-) >