From egmorris1  Thu Oct  1 17:28:53 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:53 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
Message-ID: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>

At their meeting on Monday the Board rejected our arguments that incorporating RPM's from the new GTLD program into the .TRAVEL, .CAT and .PRO renewal agreements constituted policymaking by contract; that is, that  ICANN has gone around the PDP process and made these new mechanisms (for example, the URS) de facto consensus policies. Thanks to everyone who worked with me in Buenos Aires to draft our sadly unsuccessful public comments on these renewals.

In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.  

A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from Monday can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151001/d95bb1aa/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Oct  1 17:42:12 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:42:12 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

2015-10-01 23:28 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> At their meeting on Monday the Board rejected our arguments that
> incorporating RPM's from the new GTLD program into the .TRAVEL, .CAT and
> .PRO renewal agreements constituted policymaking by contract; that is, that
>  ICANN has gone around the PDP process and made these new mechanisms (for
> example, the URS) de facto consensus policies. Thanks to everyone who
> worked with me in Buenos Aires to draft our sadly unsuccessful public
> comments on these renewals.
>
>
thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall if
there was any support at the public comment period.


> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers
> ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings
> for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other.
> London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are
> about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two
> Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in
> Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's
> global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.
>
>
well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not
Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it sounds with the meetings
requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it
will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.

Best,

Rafik

A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from Monday can be found
> here:
> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f
>  .
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151001/99de663d/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Thu Oct  1 18:59:48 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:59:48 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,
> 
> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>  

Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning, view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.

We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.  


>> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work. 
> 
> well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.
> 

We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.

Best,

Ed




> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
>> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from Monday can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151001/a990d47d/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Oct  2 03:28:45 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:28:45 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,


2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi Rafik,
>
>
>>
> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall if
> there was any support at the public comment period.
>
>
>
> Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this issue against
> the IPC which had the the minority, and winning, view. It sort of makes one
> wonder about the public comment process.
>
> We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky in that
> it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a Reconsideration
> would be worth the effort, although if someone has the time to do one I'd
> be happy to help.
>
>
I thought there is already a report about all RPM
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en

Rafik

>
> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers
>> ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings
>> for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other.
>> London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are
>> about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two
>> Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in
>> Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's
>> global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.
>>
>>
> well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not
> Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it sounds with the meetings
> requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it
> will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.
>
>
> We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be exclusively cost;
> London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll try to talk to Meetings staff
> in Dublin and see if I can get some background to share with everyone. The
> meetings are large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to
> find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy
> but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global outreach
> initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from Monday can be found
>> here:
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f
>>  .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/281d1113/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Fri Oct  2 11:28:54 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:28:54 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.

I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others, but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.

Thoughts?

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> 
> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>> Hi Rafik,
>>> 
>>> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>> 
>> Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning, view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>> 
>> We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help. 
> 
> I thought there is already a report about all RPM https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
> 
> Rafik 
>> 
>>>> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.  
>>> 
>>> well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.
>> 
>> We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>>> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from Monday can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/78914ed8/attachment.html>


From kathy  Fri Oct  2 15:50:14 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:50:14 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
Message-ID: <560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com>

Hi Ed,
If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus policy. 
It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from IP 
interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO PDP 
process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all stakeholders 
were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was me, 
Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.

Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for and 
won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the policy.

But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
Best,
Kathy

:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via 
> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this 
> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and 
> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this 
> issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus 
> policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator 
> of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>
> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff 
> encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the 
> Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others, 
> but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance 
> of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>>
>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>>
>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't
>>>     recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>
>>     Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
>>     issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning,
>>     view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>
>>     We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky
>>     in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a
>>     Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone
>>     has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.
>>
>>
>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM 
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>>         In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of
>>>         next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto
>>>         Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in
>>>         two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and
>>>         Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings,
>>>         are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse
>>>         than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama
>>>         City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the extent
>>>         ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global outreach
>>>         strategy I would suggest it needs some work.
>>>
>>>
>>>     well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city , which
>>>     is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it sounds with
>>>     the meetings requirements, it become more harder different
>>>     hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting format
>>>     starting in 2016.
>>>
>>
>>     We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be
>>     exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll
>>     try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get some
>>     background to share with everyone. The meetings are large but
>>     they are not the largest and other groups manage to find diverse
>>     locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy but
>>     if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global
>>     outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>         A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from
>>>         Monday can be found here:
>>>         https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>>>
>>>         Best,
>>>
>>>         Ed
>>>
>>>         Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/1aebc553/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Fri Oct  2 17:20:34 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:20:34 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <79CC553C-6F56-42AB-8613-A93E01FEEF11@toast.net>

Hi Kathy,

I believe that this is consensus policy relating to the new GTLD program. The issue here is that ICANN is taking this policy and extending it to legacy TLD's through contract. Perhaps I need a bit more education: was the URS ever made consensus policy for legacy TLD's? If it was then obviously I'm mistaken about the need for an Issues Report.

Thanks for clarifying,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin. 
> 
> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for and won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the policy.
> 
> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
> Best,
> Kathy
> 
> :
>> Hi Rafik,
>> 
>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>> 
>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff encroachment on fundamental         rights of the GNSO. We could go the Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others, but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Ed,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>>>> ? 
>>>> 
>>>> Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning, view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>>> 
>>>> We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help. ? 
>>> 
>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>> 
>>> Rafik? 
>>>> 
>>>>>> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two Latin American meetings prior to                                         Panama City, both of which were                                         held in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy                                         is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work. ? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> well you can 2 times for ? Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not Singapore, was Beijing in ? 2013 ? . in fact it sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.
>>>> 
>>>> We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive ? cities. I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>>> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions? from Monday? can be found here:? https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f? .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/f3d560c7/attachment-0001.html>


From kathy  Fri Oct  2 17:28:09 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:28:09 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <79CC553C-6F56-42AB-8613-A93E01FEEF11@toast.net>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
	<79CC553C-6F56-42AB-8613-A93E01FEEF11@toast.net>
Message-ID: <560E9479.1030807@kathykleiman.com>

Ed,
In that case, I agree completely. No, URS was never created as consensus 
policy for legacy TLDs. It was expressly, solely and completely adopted 
(in writing) as consensus policy only for New gTLDs. If it is being used 
beyond that, please stamp it out in every way possible.

Tx you,
Kathy

:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> I believe that this is consensus policy relating to the new GTLD 
> program. The issue here is that ICANN is taking this policy and 
> extending it to legacy TLD's through contract. Perhaps I need a bit 
> more education: was the URS ever made consensus policy for legacy 
> TLD's? If it was then obviously I'm mistaken about the need for an 
> Issues Report.
>
> Thanks for clarifying,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ed,
>> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus 
>> policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from 
>> IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO 
>> PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all 
>> stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was 
>> me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.
>>
>> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for 
>> and won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the 
>> policy.
>>
>> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>>
>> :
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via 
>>> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this 
>>> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and 
>>> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore 
>>> this issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus 
>>> policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the 
>>> creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this 
>>> staff encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go 
>>> the Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with 
>>> others, but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have 
>>> a chance of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we 
>>> could consider.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
>>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>>>>
>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I
>>>>>     don't recall if there was any support at the public comment
>>>>>     period.
>>>>>     ?
>>>>
>>>>     Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
>>>>     issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning,
>>>>     view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>>>
>>>>     We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit
>>>>     risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't
>>>>     think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if
>>>>     someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help. ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM 
>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>>
>>>> Rafik?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>         In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of
>>>>>         next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in
>>>>>         Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be
>>>>>         held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London
>>>>>         and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European
>>>>>         meetings, are about 290 miles from each other. That is
>>>>>         more diverse than our last two Latin American meetings
>>>>>         prior to Panama City, both of which were held in Buenos
>>>>>         Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of
>>>>>         ICANN's global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs
>>>>>         some work. ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     well you can 2 times for ? Singapore. the last Asian city ,
>>>>>     which is not Singapore, was Beijing in ? 2013 ? . in fact it
>>>>>     sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder
>>>>>     different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new
>>>>>     meeting format starting in 2016.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be
>>>>     exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive ? cities.
>>>>     I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can
>>>>     get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are
>>>>     large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to
>>>>     find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city
>>>>     strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part
>>>>     of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>>
>>>>     Best,
>>>>
>>>>     Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>         A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions? from
>>>>>         Monday? can be found here:?
>>>>>         https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f? .
>>>>>
>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>         Ed
>>>>>
>>>>>         Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/500f6154/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Oct  2 17:32:34 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:32:34 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
Message-ID: <09D05513-A797-4AE3-80DC-C293B97BA533@ipjustice.org>

Let's propose teaming-up with Phil Corwin and the BC and file a Reconsideration Request on this process breach.  At least the board will have to explain their rationale in writing (or rather Jones Day will write it for them and sign their name).  And with two sides usually warring on the same side of this issue, it could get more serious consideration than the usual rubber stamp denial one gets from ICANN's Recon Requests.  They need to explain this, in writing, on the website, where it can be subject to scrutiny.

Thanks,
Robin

On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:28 AM, Edward Morris wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
> 
> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
> 
> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others, but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ed,
>> 
>> 
>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>> Hi Rafik,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>>  
>> 
>> Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning, view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>> 
>> We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.  
>> 
>> 
>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>>> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.
>>> 
>> 
>> We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from Monday can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/62e7bb90/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/62e7bb90/attachment-0001.sig>


From egmorris1  Fri Oct  2 17:40:00 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:40:00 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <560E9479.1030807@kathykleiman.com>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
	<79CC553C-6F56-42AB-8613-A93E01FEEF11@toast.net>
	<560E9479.1030807@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <BBD2EAB5-FF6D-438B-8EFB-33DD5F11F5B2@toast.net>

Hi Kathy,

That's exactly what's happening. On renewal agreements with .CAT, .PRO and .TRAVEL ICANN "negotiated" URS and other RPM's into the renewal agreements. Rather than properly create consensus policy on this issue through a PDP staff is creating de facto consensus policies through contract. If we don't stop this technique now the potency of the GNSO will forever be reduced.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> 
> Ed,
> In that case, I agree completely. No, URS was never created as consensus policy for legacy TLDs. It was expressly, solely and completely adopted (in writing) as consensus policy only for New gTLDs. If it is being used beyond that, please stamp it out in every way possible.
> 
> Tx you,
> Kathy
> 
> :
>> Hi Kathy,
>> 
>> I believe that this is consensus policy relating to the new GTLD program. The issue here is that ICANN is taking this policy and extending it to legacy TLD's through contract. Perhaps I need a bit more education: was the URS ever made consensus policy for legacy TLD's? If it was then obviously I'm mistaken about the need for an Issues Report.
>> 
>> Thanks for clarifying,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Ed,
>>> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin. 
>>> 
>>> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for and won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the policy.
>>> 
>>> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
>>> Best,
>>> Kathy
>>> 
>>> :
>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>> 
>>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>>> 
>>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others, but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>>>>>> ? 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning, view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help. ? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik? 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work. ? 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> well you can 2 times for ? Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not Singapore, was Beijing in ? 2013 ? . in fact it sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive ? cities. I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions? from Monday? can be found here:? https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f? .
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/401abdaf/attachment-0001.html>


From kathy  Fri Oct  2 17:58:58 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:58:58 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <BBD2EAB5-FF6D-438B-8EFB-33DD5F11F5B2@toast.net>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
	<79CC553C-6F56-42AB-8613-A93E01FEEF11@toast.net>
	<560E9479.1030807@kathykleiman.com>
	<BBD2EAB5-FF6D-438B-8EFB-33DD5F11F5B2@toast.net>
Message-ID: <560E9BB2.6010605@kathykleiman.com>

Please kill this practice, Ed. It goes against the whole rationale of a 
special set of protections solely and completely for New gTLDs.
Extending the Trademark Clearinghouse would be a similar travesty.

Best,
Kathy
:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> That's exactly what's happening. On renewal agreements with .CAT, .PRO 
> and .TRAVEL ICANN "negotiated" URS and other RPM's into the renewal 
> agreements. Rather than properly create consensus policy on this issue 
> through a PDP staff is creating de facto consensus policies through 
> contract. If we don't stop this technique now the potency of the GNSO 
> will forever be reduced.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
>> Ed,
>> In that case, I agree completely. No, URS was never created as 
>> consensus policy for legacy TLDs. It was expressly, solely and 
>> completely adopted (in writing) as consensus policy only for New 
>> gTLDs. If it is being used beyond that, please stamp it out in every 
>> way possible.
>>
>> Tx you,
>> Kathy
>>
>> :
>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>
>>> I believe that this is consensus policy relating to the new GTLD 
>>> program. The issue here is that ICANN is taking this policy and 
>>> extending it to legacy TLD's through contract. Perhaps I need a bit 
>>> more education: was the URS ever made consensus policy for legacy 
>>> TLD's? If it was then obviously I'm mistaken about the need for an 
>>> Issues Report.
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying,
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus 
>>>> policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came 
>>>> from IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the 
>>>> GNSO PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all 
>>>> stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team 
>>>> was me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.
>>>>
>>>> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for 
>>>> and won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the 
>>>> policy.
>>>>
>>>> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
>>>> Best,
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>> :
>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>
>>>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via 
>>>>> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this 
>>>>> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and 
>>>>> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore 
>>>>> this issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto 
>>>>> consensus policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO 
>>>>> as the creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this 
>>>>> staff encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go 
>>>>> the Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with 
>>>>> others, but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would 
>>>>> have a chance of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also 
>>>>> something we could consider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I
>>>>>>>     don't recall if there was any support at the public comment
>>>>>>>     period.
>>>>>>>     ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
>>>>>>     issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and
>>>>>>     winning, view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public
>>>>>>     comment process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit
>>>>>>     risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't
>>>>>>     think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although
>>>>>>     if someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help. ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM 
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host
>>>>>>>         of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in
>>>>>>>         Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will
>>>>>>>         be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other.
>>>>>>>         London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last
>>>>>>>         European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other.
>>>>>>>         That is more diverse than our last two Latin American
>>>>>>>         meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held
>>>>>>>         in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy
>>>>>>>         is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would
>>>>>>>         suggest it needs some work. ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     well you can 2 times for ? Singapore. the last Asian city ,
>>>>>>>     which is not Singapore, was Beijing in ? 2013 ? . in fact it
>>>>>>>     sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder
>>>>>>>     different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new
>>>>>>>     meeting format starting in 2016.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be
>>>>>>     exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive ? cities.
>>>>>>     I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can
>>>>>>     get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are
>>>>>>     large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to
>>>>>>     find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub
>>>>>>     city strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as
>>>>>>     part of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions? from
>>>>>>>         Monday? can be found here:?
>>>>>>>         https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f? .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Ed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/202646e3/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Fri Oct  2 18:03:34 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:03:34 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <560E9CC6.5040304@acm.org>

Hi,

I am not sure I can accept that it ever went through the PDP process.

avri


On 02-Oct-15 08:50, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Hi Ed,
> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus
> policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from
> IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO
> PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all
> stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was
> me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.
>
> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for and
> won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the policy.
>
> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> :
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via
>> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this
>> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and
>> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this
>> issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus
>> policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator
>> of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>
>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff
>> encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the
>> Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others,
>> but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance
>> of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ed,
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>>>
>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I
>>>>     don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>>>      
>>>
>>>     Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
>>>     issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning,
>>>     view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>>
>>>     We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky
>>>     in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a
>>>     Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone
>>>     has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.  
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM
>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>
>>> Rafik 
>>>
>>>
>>>>         In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of
>>>>         next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto
>>>>         Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in
>>>>         two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and
>>>>         Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings,
>>>>         are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse
>>>>         than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama
>>>>         City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the
>>>>         extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global
>>>>         outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city ,
>>>>     which is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it
>>>>     sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder
>>>>     different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting
>>>>     format starting in 2016.
>>>>
>>>
>>>     We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be
>>>     exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll
>>>     try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get
>>>     some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large
>>>     but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find
>>>     diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city
>>>     strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of
>>>     the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>     Best,
>>>>
>>>>     Rafik
>>>>
>>>>         A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from
>>>>         Monday can be found
>>>>         here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>>>>
>>>>         Best,
>>>>
>>>>         Ed
>>>>
>>>>         Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From egmorris1  Fri Oct  2 18:11:33 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:11:33 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <560E9BB2.6010605@kathykleiman.com>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
	<79CC553C-6F56-42AB-8613-A93E01FEEF11@toast.net>
	<560E9479.1030807@kathykleiman.com>
	<BBD2EAB5-FF6D-438B-8EFB-33DD5F11F5B2@toast.net>
	<560E9BB2.6010605@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <E20CB994-8EE1-45D8-B703-65EEACF4A6D4@toast.net>

Hi Kathy,

We tried.

Public comments were overwhelmingly against this power grab (only Donuts and the IPC supported it) yet the Board did it anyway. It's not just URS: the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure and the Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure are now all part of the legacy renewal agreements.

We're all busy. If people want to file a Recon I'm happy to help, although I doubt it would have any real effect. An Issues Report quite possibly could legitimize this power grab but it's all I can think of that we can do that might make things a bit better. Open to suggestions: I know what I'd do if the proposed reforms actually be one reality but not quite sure we currently have enough tools at our disposal.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:59 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> 
> Please kill this practice, Ed. It goes against the whole rationale of a special set of protections solely and completely for New gTLDs. 
> Extending the Trademark Clearinghouse would be a similar travesty.
> 
> Best,
> Kathy
> :
>> Hi Kathy,
>> 
>> That's exactly what's happening. On renewal agreements with .CAT, .PRO and .TRAVEL ICANN "negotiated" URS and other RPM's into the renewal agreements. Rather than properly create consensus policy on this issue through a PDP staff is creating de facto consensus policies through contract. If we don't stop this technique now the potency of the GNSO will forever be reduced.
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ed,
>>> In that case, I agree completely. No, URS was never created as consensus policy for legacy TLDs. It was expressly, solely and completely adopted (in writing) as consensus policy only for New gTLDs. If it is being used beyond that, please stamp it out in every way possible.
>>> 
>>> Tx you,
>>> Kathy
>>> 
>>> :
>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>> 
>>>> I believe that this is consensus policy relating to the new GTLD program. The issue here is that ICANN is taking this policy and extending it to legacy TLD's through contract. Perhaps I need a bit more education: was the URS ever made consensus policy for legacy TLD's? If it was then obviously I'm mistaken about the need for an Issues Report.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for clarifying,
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for and won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the policy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>> 
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others, but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>>>>>>>> ? 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning, view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help. ? 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik? 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work. ? 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> well you can 2 times for ? Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not Singapore, was Beijing in ? 2013 ? . in fact it sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive ? cities. I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions? from Monday? can be found here:? https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f? .
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/8fbc111b/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Oct  2 19:16:54 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 01:16:54 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <09D05513-A797-4AE3-80DC-C293B97BA533@ipjustice.org>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<09D05513-A797-4AE3-80DC-C293B97BA533@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkeGa-L+poXw3mQAimfJh40YbT9E7sML92hk07zriczEA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I guess if there is consensus, we can work on that. nice timing before
Dublin meeting and within the context of discussion on CCWG :)

Rafik

2015-10-02 23:32 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:

> Let's propose teaming-up with Phil Corwin and the BC and file a
> Reconsideration Request on this process breach.  At least the board will
> have to explain their rationale in writing (or rather Jones Day will write
> it for them and sign their name).  And with two sides usually warring on
> the same side of this issue, it could get more serious consideration than
> the usual rubber stamp denial one gets from ICANN's Recon Requests.  They
> need to explain this, in writing, on the website, where it can be subject
> to scrutiny.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:28 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via contact.
> It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this problem would be to
> request an issues report on the URS use and hopefully have it rejected for
> use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this issue and allow ICANN to continue to
> create de facto consensus policies by contract the role and position of the
> GNSO as the creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>
> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff
> encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the
> Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others, but
> until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance of
> success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ed,
>
>
> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>>
>>>
>> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall
>> if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this issue
>> against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning, view. It sort of
>> makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>
>> We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky in that
>> it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a Reconsideration
>> would be worth the effort, although if someone has the time to do one I'd
>> be happy to help.
>>
>>
> I thought there is already a report about all RPM
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>
> Rafik
>
>>
>> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers
>>> ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings
>>> for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other.
>>> London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are
>>> about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two
>>> Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in
>>> Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's
>>> global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.
>>>
>>>
>> well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not
>> Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it sounds with the meetings
>> requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it
>> will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.
>>
>>
>> We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be exclusively cost;
>> London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll try to talk to Meetings staff
>> in Dublin and see if I can get some background to share with everyone. The
>> meetings are large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to
>> find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy
>> but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global outreach
>> initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from Monday can be found
>>> here:
>>> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f
>>>  .
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151003/414bf8c5/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Fri Oct  2 19:36:40 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:36:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkeGa-L+poXw3mQAimfJh40YbT9E7sML92hk07zriczEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<09D05513-A797-4AE3-80DC-C293B97BA533@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThkeGa-L+poXw3mQAimfJh40YbT9E7sML92hk07zriczEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61EB6237-7347-49B8-B420-B5E613CCCA13@toast.net>

Sounds great!

Just need to note that if it was posted to the list I didn't get Robin's email
so if I duplicated some thoughts my apologies. Great thoughts they were though!

If we're going to do the Reconsideration it can't wait until Dublin. We have 14 days to file from
the date we became aware of the Board action. I wouldn't press it: be nice to get it in by October 12th, two weeks from the date of the Board meeting.

I guess we wait to hear from Phil? We also have some changes in Board composition coming. Maybe we do have a chance this time!

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I guess if there is consensus, we can work on that. nice timing before Dublin meeting and within the context of discussion on CCWG :)
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2015-10-02 23:32 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:
>> Let's propose teaming-up with Phil Corwin and the BC and file a Reconsideration Request on this process breach.  At least the board will have to explain their rationale in writing (or rather Jones Day will write it for them and sign their name).  And with two sides usually warring on the same side of this issue, it could get more serious consideration than the usual rubber stamp denial one gets from ICANN's Recon Requests.  They need to explain this, in writing, on the website, where it can be subject to scrutiny.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:28 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>> 
>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>> 
>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others, but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning, view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.  
>>>> 
>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings, are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city , which is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting format starting in 2016.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ed
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from Monday can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/05b18250/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Oct  4 07:39:52 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 13:39:52 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Public Comment] list of open public comment
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=LU=d3USZ_OrE=UNHQ6s7RfLF_CCOe1nRNbYLX8+Wvqw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

we have several public comment where we should submit a NCSG statement, you
will find below the link to the report and to our google doc

   1. New gTLD subsequent rounds (by 30th Oct):
   https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en
   &
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dEgQxOP0NYc6JtVx_GWDqwn9bihI8U09KTBbhbOBz3Q/edit
   2. -Auctions proceeds (8th Nov):
   https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en
   &
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Im-BTA6D32M_Rtn-IxrvjVAi5IjAZM5V-WQJC_wlIc/edit
   3. Review of new gTLD program implementation (7th Dec):
   https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-draft-review-2015-09-23-en
   &
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eQtKfuAvenHv4xJwtt4XaZwwa8ARLuXKL7Ketb-2298/edit
   4. Phase 1 Assessment of the Competitive Effects Associated with the
   NewgTLD Program (7th Nov):
   https://www.icann.org/public-comments/competitive-effects-assessment-2015-09-28-en
   &
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/17dIlFzbTqvkweqsXnNxW94FDct9jVlILKQhFkc81WC4/edit?usp=sharing

there will be some sessions in Dublin meeting about those topics, and it is
possible to attend remotely

Best Regards,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151004/a3599006/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Oct  4 07:41:50 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 13:41:50 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] the review teams starting?
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnk_bQ+218X85hrELD7Hq9sT_p9uxpzDqvsLV3xx8qsiA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

it seems that process with AoC related review teams is starting: there is
call for volunteers for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice
Review Team https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-10-01-en

can councillors check about other review teams and the process to get
volunteers in consumer and other teams?

best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151004/7659a813/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Oct  4 20:40:33 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 19:40:33 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: CPH Nomination For GNSO Chair
References: <f6082197e2554f69a67f5eff78f3a5b8@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <12E79D3E-036D-450B-9BAE-830E22955D6C@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thought folks here who are not subscribed to the council list may be interested to check this out. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: October 4, 2015 at 6:31:38 PM GMT+2
> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] FW: CPH Nomination For GNSO Chair
> 
> James Bladel's candidate statement.
> Candidate statements are also posted on page:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
> under Candidate Statements
> 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Glen
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151004/b840a121/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Candidate Statement - Bladel.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35873 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151004/b840a121/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151004/b840a121/attachment-0003.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Oct  5 10:03:55 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 16:03:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] prep confcall about NCSG-Board session
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=dx0oJKnwzbUTskJehvmJYE2T--j3nWJgq-vyhRS_Xbg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

as suggested before to improve NCSG-Board session, we will have an ad-hoc
call with Markus  this Friday 1400 UTC to discuss the current topics
proposals and tweak them.
I thought that having the discussion with a small group would be effective,
if we want to extend to the whole membership, I need to check with  Markus.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151005/b64b01f8/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Oct  6 22:50:01 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 21:50:01 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.

Thanks.

Amr

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Dear Councillors,
>  
> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair that are posted on page:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections>
>  
> and can be directly viewed at:
>  
> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf>
>  
> James Bladel
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf>
>  
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>  
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>
>  
> From: Heather Forrest 
> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
> To: Glen de Saint G?ry 
> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan < 
> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>  
> Dear Glen,
>  
> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>  
> With very best wishes,
>  
> Heather Forrest

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151006/aa19d8f2/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 323178 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151006/aa19d8f2/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151006/aa19d8f2/attachment-0003.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Oct  7 02:26:35 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:26:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update
Message-ID: <521c1381f8ab4959b7ec9963b6485822@toast.net>

Hi,
  
 I just wanted to update everyone about the potential joint reconsideration 
request on staff creation of consensus policy through contract (the .cat, 
.travel etc. renewal agreements).
  
 Phil Corwin brought the matter before the BC EC today and found general 
support for working with us on this. Their participation will, hopefully, 
be confirmed at their general  meeting Thursday afternoon. We've started 
throwing around some ideas as to how to approach this; once Phil gets the 
go ahead I'll send them out for comment here  and ask for any  help and 
input folks are able to give. We're both going to try to reach out and get 
some CPH participation on this as well.
  
 Ideas / comments most welcome.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed
  
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151006/9a5253b2/attachment.html>


From kathy  Wed Oct  7 03:40:44 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 20:40:44 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update
In-Reply-To: <521c1381f8ab4959b7ec9963b6485822@toast.net>
References: <521c1381f8ab4959b7ec9963b6485822@toast.net>
Message-ID: <56146A0C.8020307@kathykleiman.com>

Terrific, and thank you, Ed. And thanks to Phil too. This is important 
work. Please let me know what I can do to help.
Best,
Kathy:
> Hi,
> I just wanted to update everyone about the potential joint 
> reconsideration request on staff creation of consensus policy through 
> contract (the .cat, .travel etc. renewal agreements).
> Phil Corwin brought the matter before the BC EC today and found 
> general support for working with us on this. Their participation will, 
> hopefully, be confirmed at their general  meeting Thursday afternoon. 
> We've started throwing around some ideas as to how to approach this; 
> once Phil gets the go ahead I'll send them out for comment here  and 
> ask for any help and input folks are able to give. We're both going to 
> try to reach out and get some CPH participation on this as well.
> Ideas / comments most welcome.
> Best,
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151006/5f083e02/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Oct  7 07:17:00 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:17:00 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update
In-Reply-To: <521c1381f8ab4959b7ec9963b6485822@toast.net>
References: <521c1381f8ab4959b7ec9963b6485822@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=e0nTS+W2R4nTAWH7_ijsbGnFvzXOg433o7xT8ODLSWQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

thanks, as I indicated previously I am fine with this.
can you please clarify when is the deadline for reconsideration request?

Best,

Rafik

2015-10-07 8:26 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to update everyone about the potential joint reconsideration
> request on staff creation of consensus policy through contract (the .cat,
> .travel etc. renewal agreements).
>
> Phil Corwin brought the matter before the BC EC today and found general
> support for working with us on this. Their participation will, hopefully,
> be confirmed at their general  meeting Thursday afternoon. We've started
> throwing around some ideas as to how to approach this; once Phil gets the
> go ahead I'll send them out for comment here  and ask for any  help and
> input folks are able to give. We're both going to try to reach out and get
> some CPH participation on this as well.
>
> Ideas / comments most welcome.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151007/71587fb6/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Oct  7 10:43:32 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:43:32 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=e0nTS+W2R4nTAWH7_ijsbGnFvzXOg433o7xT8ODLSWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <521c1381f8ab4959b7ec9963b6485822@toast.net>
	<CAH5sTh=e0nTS+W2R4nTAWH7_ijsbGnFvzXOg433o7xT8ODLSWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B65B0F9D-040D-4820-8E0F-5F8BEC0843C4@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

The deadline is 13 October.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:17 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> thanks, as I indicated previously I am fine with this.
> can you please clarify when is the deadline for reconsideration request?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-10-07 8:26 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>> Hi,
>>  
>> I just wanted to update everyone about the potential joint reconsideration request on staff creation of consensus policy through contract (the .cat, .travel etc. renewal agreements).
>>  
>> Phil Corwin brought the matter before the BC EC today and found general support for working with us on this. Their participation will, hopefully, be confirmed at their general  meeting Thursday afternoon. We've started throwing around some ideas as to how to approach this; once Phil gets the go ahead I'll send them out for comment here  and ask for any  help and input folks are able to give. We're both going to try to reach out and get some CPH participation on this as well.
>>  
>> Ideas / comments most welcome.
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> Ed
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151007/1c5009db/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Oct  8 23:58:26 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 05:58:26 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Options for Increasing CCWG Discussions at ICANN54
In-Reply-To: <D23C94BE.44AEF%david.olive@icann.org>
References: <D23C94BE.44AEF%david.olive@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm83Ln5k1_6knjcBNdJNoz_4xwv5QsHsZTNZtuG=c+XUw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

There is discussion about increasing the allocated time for CCWG in dublin.
Several options are proposed in the attached document.
Personally, I doubt that putting more hours would be effective for CCWG
discussions.

Best.

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/4359c8b1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Options for Increasing Cross-Community Discussions on CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Recommendations at ICANN54[2].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 108669 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/4359c8b1/attachment-0001.pdf>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Oct  9 13:50:19 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:50:19 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Options for Increasing CCWG Discussions at ICANN54
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm83Ln5k1_6knjcBNdJNoz_4xwv5QsHsZTNZtuG=c+XUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D23C94BE.44AEF%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThm83Ln5k1_6knjcBNdJNoz_4xwv5QsHsZTNZtuG=c+XUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmydKuNmO8g-P741kjUx_ODm8hfdZofj8Xk8Ych_aPZig@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

any comment?

Rafik

2015-10-09 5:58 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> There is discussion about increasing the allocated time for CCWG in
> dublin. Several options are proposed in the attached document.
> Personally, I doubt that putting more hours would be effective for CCWG
> discussions.
>
> Best.
>
> Rafik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/90114f3a/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Fri Oct  9 14:15:25 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:15:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Options for Increasing CCWG Discussions at ICANN54
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmydKuNmO8g-P741kjUx_ODm8hfdZofj8Xk8Ych_aPZig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D23C94BE.44AEF%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThm83Ln5k1_6knjcBNdJNoz_4xwv5QsHsZTNZtuG=c+XUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmydKuNmO8g-P741kjUx_ODm8hfdZofj8Xk8Ych_aPZig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2533DD81-9BC4-46F0-92E5-FF18AE47B73A@gmail.com>

I favor option B, it would be highly problematic to compete with the one day specifically designated for community groups.

BD

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:50 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> any comment?
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-10-09 5:58 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> Hi,
> 
> There is discussion about increasing the allocated time for CCWG in dublin. Several options are proposed in the attached document.
> Personally, I doubt that putting more hours would be effective for CCWG discussions.
> 
> Best.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/a7b27925/attachment.html>


From mshears  Fri Oct  9 14:32:47 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 07:32:47 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Options for Increasing CCWG Discussions at ICANN54
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmydKuNmO8g-P741kjUx_ODm8hfdZofj8Xk8Ych_aPZig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D23C94BE.44AEF%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThm83Ln5k1_6knjcBNdJNoz_4xwv5QsHsZTNZtuG=c+XUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmydKuNmO8g-P741kjUx_ODm8hfdZofj8Xk8Ych_aPZig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5617A5DF.1030208@cdt.org>

Well if we don't we will have to do it anyway after Dublin and then it 
is no longer F2F and we lose an opportunity for possible wrapping this 
up in some form and things get delayed.....

I would support extra time.

On 09/10/2015 06:50, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> any comment?
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-09 5:58 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     There is discussion about increasing the allocated time for CCWG
>     in dublin. Several options are proposed in the attached document.
>     Personally, I doubt that putting more hours would be effective for
>     CCWG discussions.
>
>     Best.
>
>     Rafik
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/af084d56/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Fri Oct  9 15:13:27 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:13:27 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Options for Increasing CCWG Discussions at ICANN54
In-Reply-To: <5617A5DF.1030208@cdt.org>
References: <D23C94BE.44AEF%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThm83Ln5k1_6knjcBNdJNoz_4xwv5QsHsZTNZtuG=c+XUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmydKuNmO8g-P741kjUx_ODm8hfdZofj8Xk8Ych_aPZig@mail.gmail.com>
	<5617A5DF.1030208@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5617AF67.2030805@yorku.ca>

Policy Colleagues,

The IANA Transition Proposal is the raging gorilla in the room for 
Dublin. While I have my doubts about what more will get accomplished on 
it in Dublin I see no way of stopping this so though I prefer no change, 
I reluctantly accept the second option, and would object to the third on 
two grounds. It would impact heavily on other business and it probably 
would not produce more progress that the second option.
(/This list does like like the standard "Goldilocks Option" - present 
three options, one too hot, one too cold, and the one in the middle 
"just right"/. ;-)   )

Sam



On 09/10/2015 7:32 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> Well if we don't we will have to do it anyway after Dublin and then it 
> is no longer F2F and we lose an opportunity for possible wrapping this 
> up in some form and things get delayed.....
>
> I would support extra time.
>
> On 09/10/2015 06:50, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> any comment?
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-10-09 5:58 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     There is discussion about increasing the allocated time for CCWG
>>     in dublin. Several options are proposed in the attached document.
>>     Personally, I doubt that putting more hours would be effective
>>     for CCWG discussions.
>>
>>     Best.
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/81ca63ec/attachment-0001.html>


From maria.farrell  Fri Oct  9 15:37:39 2015
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:37:39 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Options for Increasing CCWG Discussions at ICANN54
In-Reply-To: <5617AF67.2030805@yorku.ca>
References: <D23C94BE.44AEF%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThm83Ln5k1_6knjcBNdJNoz_4xwv5QsHsZTNZtuG=c+XUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmydKuNmO8g-P741kjUx_ODm8hfdZofj8Xk8Ych_aPZig@mail.gmail.com>
	<5617A5DF.1030208@cdt.org> <5617AF67.2030805@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdBT78uTw5m7maxKAkwSHB_tn0NgWKvCB0UNVbWVo+usUA@mail.gmail.com>

It would be nice to be making this decision in a context where the Board
had signalled any serious willingness to listen and discuss, i.e. making it
worth everyone's extra time.

However...

That is not the world we live in but we still need to do what we can to
make this work. I support Option B.

Maria

On 9 October 2015 at 13:13, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Policy Colleagues,
>
> The IANA Transition Proposal is the raging gorilla in the room for Dublin.
> While I have my doubts about what more will get accomplished on it in
> Dublin I see no way of stopping this so though I prefer no change, I
> reluctantly accept the second option, and would object to the third on two
> grounds. It would impact heavily on other business and it probably would
> not produce more progress that the second option.
> (*This list does like like the standard "Goldilocks Option" - present
> three options, one too hot, one too cold, and the one in the middle "just
> right"*.  ;-)   )
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> On 09/10/2015 7:32 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> Well if we don't we will have to do it anyway after Dublin and then it is
> no longer F2F and we lose an opportunity for possible wrapping this up in
> some form and things get delayed.....
>
> I would support extra time.
>
> On 09/10/2015 06:50, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> any comment?
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-09 5:58 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is discussion about increasing the allocated time for CCWG in
>> dublin. Several options are proposed in the attached document.
>> Personally, I doubt that putting more hours would be effective for CCWG
>> discussions.
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/29391c36/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Thu Oct  8 17:32:16 2015
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:32:16 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER: NCSG-Board Session Ad hoc Call | 09 Oct 2015 |
	1400 UTC
Message-ID: <d2669a3f2860422c90cb4e47dfd7f4cf@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for the NCSG-Board Session Ad hoc call on Friday, 9th Oct 2015 at 14:00 UTC


Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/


Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1L4oUUj


Agenda: TBC


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<tel:0800-777-0519>
AUSTRALIA       ADELAIDE:       61-8-8121-4842  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       BRISBANE:       61-7-3102-0944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       CANBERRA:       61-2-6100-1944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       MELBOURNE:      61-3-9010-7713  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       PERTH:  61-8-9467-5223  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129  1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA         43-1-92-81-113  0800-005-259
BELGIUM         32-2-400-9861   0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                  0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>
CHILE                   1230-020-2863
CHINA   CHINA A:        86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670
CHINA   CHINA B:        86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                        01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC          420-2-25-98-56-64       800-700-177
DENMARK         45-7014-0284    8088-8324
ESTONIA                 800-011-1093
FINLAND         358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610
FRANCE  LYON:   33-4-26-69-12-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  MARSEILLE:      33-4-86-06-00-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  PARIS:  33-1-70-70-60-72        080-511-1496
GERMANY         49-69-2222-20362        0800-664-4247<tel:0800-664-4247>
GREECE          30-80-1-100-0687        00800-12-7312
HONG KONG               852-3001-3863   800-962-856
HUNGARY                 06-800-12755
INDIA   INDIA A:                000-800-852-1268
INDIA   INDIA B:                000-800-001-6305
INDIA   INDIA C:                1800-300-00491
INDONESIA                       001-803-011-3982
IRELAND         353-1-246-7646  1800-992-368
ISRAEL                  1-80-9216162
ITALY   MILAN:  39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383
JAPAN   OSAKA:  81-6-7739-4799<tel:81-6-7739-4799>      0066-33-132439
JAPAN   TOKYO:  81-3-5539-5191<tel:81-3-5539-5191>      0066-33-132439
LATVIA                  8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG              352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA                        1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                  001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS             31-20-718-8588  0800-023-4378<tel:0800-023-4378>
NEW ZEALAND             64-9-970-4771   0800-447-722
NORWAY          47-21-590-062   800-15157
PANAMA                  011-001-800-5072065
PERU                    0800-53713
PHILIPPINES             63-2-858-3716
POLAND                  00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                        8008-14052
RUSSIA                  8-10-8002-0144011
SAUDI ARABIA                    800-8-110087
SINGAPORE               65-6883-9230    800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC         421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA                    080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA             82-2-6744-1083  00798-14800-7352
SPAIN           34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053
SWEDEN          46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND             41-44-580-6398  0800-120-032
TAIWAN          886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797
THAILAND                        001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM  BIRMINGHAM:     44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  GLASGOW:        44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LEEDS:  44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  MANCHESTER:     44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                 000-413-598-3421
USA             1-517-345-9004  866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                       0800-1-00-3702


Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.


Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151008/430adaa7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 7435 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151008/430adaa7/attachment-0001.ics>


From maryam.bakoshi  Fri Oct  9 16:34:07 2015
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:34:07 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER: NCSG-Board Session Ad hoc Call | 09 Oct 2015 |
	1400 UTC
Message-ID: <91f2f632974749fb8f95989854957bd5@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for the NCSG-Board Session Ad hoc call on Friday, 9th Oct 2015 at 14:00 UTC


Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/


Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1L4oUUj


Agenda: TBC


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<tel:0800-777-0519>
AUSTRALIA       ADELAIDE:       61-8-8121-4842  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       BRISBANE:       61-7-3102-0944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       CANBERRA:       61-2-6100-1944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       MELBOURNE:      61-3-9010-7713  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       PERTH:  61-8-9467-5223  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129  1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA         43-1-92-81-113  0800-005-259
BELGIUM         32-2-400-9861   0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                  0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>
CHILE                   1230-020-2863
CHINA   CHINA A:        86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670
CHINA   CHINA B:        86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                        01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC          420-2-25-98-56-64       800-700-177
DENMARK         45-7014-0284    8088-8324
ESTONIA                 800-011-1093
FINLAND         358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610
FRANCE  LYON:   33-4-26-69-12-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  MARSEILLE:      33-4-86-06-00-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  PARIS:  33-1-70-70-60-72        080-511-1496
GERMANY         49-69-2222-20362        0800-664-4247<tel:0800-664-4247>
GREECE          30-80-1-100-0687        00800-12-7312
HONG KONG               852-3001-3863   800-962-856
HUNGARY                 06-800-12755
INDIA   INDIA A:                000-800-852-1268
INDIA   INDIA B:                000-800-001-6305
INDIA   INDIA C:                1800-300-00491
INDONESIA                       001-803-011-3982
IRELAND         353-1-246-7646  1800-992-368
ISRAEL                  1-80-9216162
ITALY   MILAN:  39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383
JAPAN   OSAKA:  81-6-7739-4799<tel:81-6-7739-4799>      0066-33-132439
JAPAN   TOKYO:  81-3-5539-5191<tel:81-3-5539-5191>      0066-33-132439
LATVIA                  8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG              352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA                        1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                  001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS             31-20-718-8588  0800-023-4378<tel:0800-023-4378>
NEW ZEALAND             64-9-970-4771   0800-447-722
NORWAY          47-21-590-062   800-15157
PANAMA                  011-001-800-5072065
PERU                    0800-53713
PHILIPPINES             63-2-858-3716
POLAND                  00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                        8008-14052
RUSSIA                  8-10-8002-0144011
SAUDI ARABIA                    800-8-110087
SINGAPORE               65-6883-9230    800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC         421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA                    080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA             82-2-6744-1083  00798-14800-7352
SPAIN           34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053
SWEDEN          46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND             41-44-580-6398  0800-120-032
TAIWAN          886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797
THAILAND                        001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM  BIRMINGHAM:     44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  GLASGOW:        44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LEEDS:  44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  MANCHESTER:     44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                 000-413-598-3421
USA             1-517-345-9004  866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                       0800-1-00-3702


Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.


Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/12d424dd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 7435 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/12d424dd/attachment-0001.ics>


From wjdrake  Fri Oct  9 16:41:05 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:41:05 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER: NCSG-Board Session Ad hoc Call | 09 Oct
	2015 | 1400 UTC
In-Reply-To: <91f2f632974749fb8f95989854957bd5@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <91f2f632974749fb8f95989854957bd5@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <2208F8A7-2566-47ED-9468-E5388B05B150@gmail.com>

Apologies, I have another call at this time.

Bill

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:34 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Please find below participation details for the NCSG-Board Session Ad hoc call on Friday, 9th Oct 2015 at 14:00 UTC
> 
> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/>
> 
> Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1L4oUUj
> 
> Agenda: TBC
> 
> 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 <tel:0800-777-0519>
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> ADELAIDE:
> 
> 61-8-8121-4842
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> BRISBANE:
> 
> 61-7-3102-0944
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> CANBERRA:
> 
> 61-2-6100-1944
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> MELBOURNE:
> 
> 61-3-9010-7713
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> PERTH:
> 
> 61-8-9467-5223
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> SYDNEY:
> 
> 61-2-8205-8129
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRIA
> 
> 
> 43-1-92-81-113
> 
> 0800-005-259
> 
> BELGIUM
> 
> 
> 32-2-400-9861
> 
> 0800-3-8795
> 
> BRAZIL
> 
> 
> 
> 0800-7610651 <tel:0800-7610651>
> CHILE
> 
> 
> 
> 1230-020-2863
> 
> CHINA
> 
> CHINA A:
> 
> 86-400-810-4789
> 
> 10800-712-1670
> 
> CHINA
> 
> CHINA B:
> 
> 86-400-810-4789
> 
> 10800-120-1670
> 
> COLOMBIA
> 
> 
> 
> 01800-9-156474
> 
> CZECH REPUBLIC
> 
> 
> 420-2-25-98-56-64
> 
> 800-700-177
> 
> DENMARK
> 
> 
> 45-7014-0284
> 
> 8088-8324
> 
> ESTONIA
> 
> 
> 
> 800-011-1093
> 
> FINLAND
> 
> 
> 358-9-5424-7162
> 
> 0-800-9-14610
> 
> FRANCE
> 
> LYON:
> 
> 33-4-26-69-12-85
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE
> 
> MARSEILLE:
> 
> 33-4-86-06-00-85
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE
> 
> PARIS:
> 
> 33-1-70-70-60-72
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> GERMANY
> 
> 
> 49-69-2222-20362
> 
> 0800-664-4247 <tel:0800-664-4247>
> GREECE
> 
> 
> 30-80-1-100-0687
> 
> 00800-12-7312
> 
> HONG KONG
> 
> 
> 852-3001-3863
> 
> 800-962-856
> 
> HUNGARY
> 
> 
> 
> 06-800-12755
> 
> INDIA
> 
> INDIA A:
> 
> 
> 000-800-852-1268
> 
> INDIA
> 
> INDIA B:
> 
> 
> 000-800-001-6305
> 
> INDIA
> 
> INDIA C:
> 
> 
> 1800-300-00491
> 
> INDONESIA
> 
> 
> 
> 001-803-011-3982
> 
> IRELAND
> 
> 
> 353-1-246-7646
> 
> 1800-992-368
> 
> ISRAEL
> 
> 
> 
> 1-80-9216162
> 
> ITALY
> 
> MILAN:
> 
> 39-02-3600-6007
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> JAPAN
> 
> OSAKA:
> 
> 81-6-7739-4799 <tel:81-6-7739-4799>	
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> JAPAN
> 
> TOKYO:
> 
> 81-3-5539-5191 <tel:81-3-5539-5191>	
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> LATVIA
> 
> 
> 
> 8000-3185
> 
> LUXEMBOURG
> 
> 
> 352-27-000-1364
> 
> MALAYSIA
> 
> 
> 
> 1-800-81-3065
> 
> MEXICO
> 
> 
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> NETHERLANDS
> 
> 
> 31-20-718-8588
> 
> 0800-023-4378 <tel:0800-023-4378>
> NEW ZEALAND
> 
> 
> 64-9-970-4771
> 
> 0800-447-722
> 
> NORWAY
> 
> 
> 47-21-590-062
> 
> 800-15157
> 
> PANAMA
> 
> 
> 
> 011-001-800-5072065
> 
> PERU
> 
> 
> 
> 0800-53713
> 
> PHILIPPINES
> 
> 
> 63-2-858-3716
> 
> POLAND
> 
> 
> 
> 00-800-1212572
> 
> PORTUGAL
> 
> 
> 
> 8008-14052
> 
> RUSSIA
> 
> 
> 
> 8-10-8002-0144011
> 
> SAUDI ARABIA
> 
> 
> 
> 800-8-110087
> 
> SINGAPORE
> 
> 
> 65-6883-9230
> 
> 800-120-4663
> 
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
> 
> 
> 421-2-322-422-25
> 
> SOUTH AFRICA
> 
> 
> 
> 080-09-80414
> 
> SOUTH KOREA
> 
> 
> 82-2-6744-1083
> 
> 00798-14800-7352
> 
> SPAIN
> 
> 
> 34-91-414-25-33
> 
> 800-300-053
> 
> SWEDEN
> 
> 
> 46-8-566-19-348
> 
> 0200-884-622
> 
> SWITZERLAND
> 
> 
> 41-44-580-6398
> 
> 0800-120-032
> 
> TAIWAN
> 
> 
> 886-2-2795-7379
> 
> 00801-137-797
> 
> THAILAND
> 
> 
> 
> 001-800-1206-66056
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> BIRMINGHAM:
> 
> 44-121-210-9025
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> GLASGOW:
> 
> 44-141-202-3225
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> LEEDS:
> 
> 44-113-301-2125
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> LONDON:
> 
> 44-20-7108-6370
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> MANCHESTER:
> 
> 44-161-601-1425
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> URUGUAY
> 
> 
> 
> 000-413-598-3421
> 
> USA
> 
> 
> 1-517-345-9004
> 
> 866-692-5726
> 
> VENEZUELA
> 
> 
> 
> 0800-1-00-3702
> 
> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.
> 
> Many thanks,
> --
> Maryam Bakoshi
> Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
> Mobile: +44 7737 698036
> Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
> 
> <Mail Attachment.ics>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

*********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/8c210e48/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Oct  9 21:44:24 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 20:44:24 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <560E9CC6.5040304@acm.org>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com> <560E9CC6.5040304@acm.org>
Message-ID: <C2467BFA-0E08-46FC-8B9B-CB9B918F2D3B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Apologies for not responding to this sooner, but to the extent of my understanding (which may very well be lacking), I agree with Avri. I have no knowledge of the URS ever going through the GNSO?s PDP.

There is a summary of the chronological development of the URS over 2012/2013 here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs. This may be missing some details, but I am generally unfamiliar with a GNSO PDP discussing the URS, or any GNSO Council motion recommending that the ICANN board adopt the URS for new or legacy gTLDs.

If there was a GNSO process that discussed this, can somebody please point me in the right direction?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am not sure I can accept that it ever went through the PDP process.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 02-Oct-15 08:50, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> Hi Ed,
>> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus
>> policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from
>> IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO
>> PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all
>> stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was
>> me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.
>> 
>> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for and
>> won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the policy.
>> 
>> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>> 
>> :
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>> 
>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via
>>> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this
>>> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and
>>> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this
>>> issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus
>>> policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator
>>> of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>> 
>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff
>>> encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the
>>> Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others,
>>> but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance
>>> of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>>>> 
>>>>    Hi Rafik,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>    thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I
>>>>>    don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
>>>>    issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning,
>>>>    view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>>> 
>>>>    We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky
>>>>    in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a
>>>>    Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone
>>>>    has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM
>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>        In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of
>>>>>        next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto
>>>>>        Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in
>>>>>        two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and
>>>>>        Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings,
>>>>>        are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse
>>>>>        than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama
>>>>>        City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the
>>>>>        extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global
>>>>>        outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>    well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city ,
>>>>>    which is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it
>>>>>    sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder
>>>>>    different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting
>>>>>    format starting in 2016.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be
>>>>    exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll
>>>>    try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get
>>>>    some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large
>>>>    but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find
>>>>    diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city
>>>>    strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of
>>>>    the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>> 
>>>>    Best,
>>>> 
>>>>    Ed
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>    Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>>        A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from
>>>>>        Monday can be found
>>>>>        here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Ed
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>>        PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>        PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>        http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Fri Oct  9 21:56:09 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 20:56:09 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Options for Increasing CCWG Discussions at ICANN54
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdBT78uTw5m7maxKAkwSHB_tn0NgWKvCB0UNVbWVo+usUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D23C94BE.44AEF%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThm83Ln5k1_6knjcBNdJNoz_4xwv5QsHsZTNZtuG=c+XUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmydKuNmO8g-P741kjUx_ODm8hfdZofj8Xk8Ych_aPZig@mail.gmail.com>
	<5617A5DF.1030208@cdt.org> <5617AF67.2030805@yorku.ca>
	<CAC7qwdBT78uTw5m7maxKAkwSHB_tn0NgWKvCB0UNVbWVo+usUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E3AC695D-CE28-4C92-805D-E04E8B1F69C4@egyptig.org>

Hi,

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> It would be nice to be making this decision in a context where the Board had signalled any serious willingness to listen and discuss, i.e. making it worth everyone's extra time.

Ha!! Good point.

> However...
> 
> That is not the world we live in but we still need to do what we can to make this work. I support Option B.

+1. Certainly not option C!!

Thanks.

Amr


From Stefania.Milan  Fri Oct  9 21:47:21 2015
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:47:21 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER: NCSG-Board Session Ad hoc Call | 09 Oct
 2015 | 1400 UTC
In-Reply-To: <2208F8A7-2566-47ED-9468-E5388B05B150@gmail.com>
References: <91f2f632974749fb8f95989854957bd5@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>,
	<2208F8A7-2566-47ED-9468-E5388B05B150@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521A0A900F9BFB97B11F381F7340@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Apologies, was stuck in planes and trains whole day

________________________________
Da: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Inviato: venerd? 9 ottobre 2015 15.41
A: Maryam Bakoshi
Cc: ICANN Policy Calendar; Markus Kummer; Rafik Dammak; Avri Doria; David Cake; Amr Elsadr; Milan, Stefania; Edward Morris; Marilia Maciel; Matt Shears; Joy Liddicoat; Klaus Stoll; Sam Lanfranco; Stephanie Perrin; NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER: NCSG-Board Session Ad hoc Call | 09 Oct 2015 | 1400 UTC

Apologies, I have another call at this time.

Bill

On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:34 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find below participation details for the NCSG-Board Session Ad hoc call on Friday, 9th Oct 2015 at 14:00 UTC

Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/

Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1L4oUUj

Agenda: TBC

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<tel:0800-777-0519>


AUSTRALIA


ADELAIDE:


61-8-8121-4842


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


BRISBANE:


61-7-3102-0944


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


CANBERRA:


61-2-6100-1944


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


MELBOURNE:


61-3-9010-7713


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


PERTH:


61-8-9467-5223


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


SYDNEY:


61-2-8205-8129


1-800-657-260


AUSTRIA



43-1-92-81-113


0800-005-259


BELGIUM



32-2-400-9861


0800-3-8795


BRAZIL




0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>


CHILE




1230-020-2863


CHINA


CHINA A:


86-400-810-4789


10800-712-1670


CHINA


CHINA B:


86-400-810-4789


10800-120-1670


COLOMBIA




01800-9-156474


CZECH REPUBLIC



420-2-25-98-56-64


800-700-177


DENMARK



45-7014-0284


8088-8324


ESTONIA




800-011-1093


FINLAND



358-9-5424-7162


0-800-9-14610


FRANCE


LYON:


33-4-26-69-12-85


080-511-1496


FRANCE


MARSEILLE:


33-4-86-06-00-85


080-511-1496


FRANCE


PARIS:


33-1-70-70-60-72


080-511-1496


GERMANY



49-69-2222-20362


0800-664-4247<tel:0800-664-4247>


GREECE



30-80-1-100-0687


00800-12-7312


HONG KONG



852-3001-3863


800-962-856


HUNGARY




06-800-12755


INDIA


INDIA A:



000-800-852-1268


INDIA


INDIA B:



000-800-001-6305


INDIA


INDIA C:



1800-300-00491


INDONESIA




001-803-011-3982


IRELAND



353-1-246-7646


1800-992-368


ISRAEL




1-80-9216162


ITALY


MILAN:


39-02-3600-6007


800-986-383


JAPAN


OSAKA:


81-6-7739-4799<tel:81-6-7739-4799>


0066-33-132439


JAPAN


TOKYO:


81-3-5539-5191<tel:81-3-5539-5191>


0066-33-132439


LATVIA




8000-3185


LUXEMBOURG



352-27-000-1364


MALAYSIA




1-800-81-3065


MEXICO




001-866-376-9696


NETHERLANDS



31-20-718-8588


0800-023-4378<tel:0800-023-4378>


NEW ZEALAND



64-9-970-4771


0800-447-722


NORWAY



47-21-590-062


800-15157


PANAMA




011-001-800-5072065


PERU




0800-53713


PHILIPPINES



63-2-858-3716


POLAND




00-800-1212572


PORTUGAL




8008-14052


RUSSIA




8-10-8002-0144011


SAUDI ARABIA




800-8-110087


SINGAPORE



65-6883-9230


800-120-4663


SLOVAK REPUBLIC



421-2-322-422-25


SOUTH AFRICA




080-09-80414


SOUTH KOREA



82-2-6744-1083


00798-14800-7352


SPAIN



34-91-414-25-33


800-300-053


SWEDEN



46-8-566-19-348


0200-884-622


SWITZERLAND



41-44-580-6398


0800-120-032


TAIWAN



886-2-2795-7379


00801-137-797


THAILAND




001-800-1206-66056


UNITED KINGDOM


BIRMINGHAM:


44-121-210-9025


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


GLASGOW:


44-141-202-3225


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


LEEDS:


44-113-301-2125


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


LONDON:


44-20-7108-6370


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


MANCHESTER:


44-161-601-1425


0808-238-6029


URUGUAY




000-413-598-3421


USA



1-517-345-9004


866-692-5726


VENEZUELA




0800-1-00-3702


Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

<Mail Attachment.ics>_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

*********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org>
william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org>
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************


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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/a7d04a8c/attachment-0001.html>


From kathy  Fri Oct  9 21:35:42 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:35:42 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <C2467BFA-0E08-46FC-8B9B-CB9B918F2D3B@egyptig.org>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com> <560E9CC6.5040304@acm.org>
	<C2467BFA-0E08-46FC-8B9B-CB9B918F2D3B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <561808FE.7070304@kathykleiman.com>

Hi Amr and All,
It did. It went through what would be considered an expedited process, 
with all constituencies represented. It was approved unanimously by the 
GNSO Council, under Chairman Chuck Gomes who wrote about the immense 
hard work that the GNSO STI devoted to this process. It was sent to the 
Board and approved.

I'm out of the office right now, so no references, but it was part of 
the consensus policies approved for the New gTLDs.... it was pre-NCSG 
and NCUC stopped the IRT on this issue and sent it back to consensus 
policies as they existed at the time.

Best,
Kathy:
> Hi,
>
> Apologies for not responding to this sooner, but to the extent of my understanding (which may very well be lacking), I agree with Avri. I have no knowledge of the URS ever going through the GNSO?s PDP.
>
> There is a summary of the chronological development of the URS over 2012/2013 here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs. This may be missing some details, but I am generally unfamiliar with a GNSO PDP discussing the URS, or any GNSO Council motion recommending that the ICANN board adopt the URS for new or legacy gTLDs.
>
> If there was a GNSO process that discussed this, can somebody please point me in the right direction?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am not sure I can accept that it ever went through the PDP process.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 02-Oct-15 08:50, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>> Hi Ed,
>>> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus
>>> policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from
>>> IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO
>>> PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all
>>> stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was
>>> me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.
>>>
>>> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for and
>>> won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the policy.
>>>
>>> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
>>> Best,
>>> Kathy
>>>
>>> :
>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>
>>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via
>>>> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this
>>>> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and
>>>> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this
>>>> issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus
>>>> policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator
>>>> of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff
>>>> encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the
>>>> Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others,
>>>> but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance
>>>> of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>>>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I
>>>>>>     don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>     Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
>>>>>     issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning,
>>>>>     view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>>>>
>>>>>     We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky
>>>>>     in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a
>>>>>     Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone
>>>>>     has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>         In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of
>>>>>>         next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto
>>>>>>         Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in
>>>>>>         two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and
>>>>>>         Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings,
>>>>>>         are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse
>>>>>>         than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama
>>>>>>         City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the
>>>>>>         extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global
>>>>>>         outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city ,
>>>>>>     which is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it
>>>>>>     sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder
>>>>>>     different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting
>>>>>>     format starting in 2016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>     We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be
>>>>>     exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll
>>>>>     try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get
>>>>>     some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large
>>>>>     but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find
>>>>>     diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city
>>>>>     strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of
>>>>>     the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Ed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from
>>>>>>         Monday can be found
>>>>>>         here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Fri Oct  9 22:05:29 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 21:05:29 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
In-Reply-To: <E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for GNSO Council Chair.

I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner our votes.

Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more thoughts on this.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
>> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> 
>> Dear Councillors,
>>  
>> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair that are posted on page:
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
>>  
>> and can be directly viewed at:
>>  
>> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
>>  
>> James Bladel
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
>>  
>> Thank you.
>> Kind regards,
>> Glen
>>  
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>  
>> From: Heather Forrest 
>> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry 
>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan < 
>> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>  
>> Dear Glen,
>>  
>> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>>  
>> With very best wishes,
>>  
>> Heather Forrest
> <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Fri Oct  9 22:12:46 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:12:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Options for Increasing CCWG Discussions at ICANN54
In-Reply-To: <E3AC695D-CE28-4C92-805D-E04E8B1F69C4@egyptig.org>
References: <D23C94BE.44AEF%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThm83Ln5k1_6knjcBNdJNoz_4xwv5QsHsZTNZtuG=c+XUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmydKuNmO8g-P741kjUx_ODm8hfdZofj8Xk8Ych_aPZig@mail.gmail.com>
	<5617A5DF.1030208@cdt.org> <5617AF67.2030805@yorku.ca>
	<CAC7qwdBT78uTw5m7maxKAkwSHB_tn0NgWKvCB0UNVbWVo+usUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E3AC695D-CE28-4C92-805D-E04E8B1F69C4@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <561811AE.8000602@acm.org>

Hi,

I am fine with C.
But I agree, Goldilocks will make the choice.

avri

On 09-Oct-15 14:56, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> It would be nice to be making this decision in a context where the Board had signalled any serious willingness to listen and discuss, i.e. making it worth everyone's extra time.
> Ha!! Good point.
>
>> However...
>>
>> That is not the world we live in but we still need to do what we can to make this work. I support Option B.
> +1. Certainly not option C!!
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From avri  Fri Oct  9 22:13:36 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:13:36 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
In-Reply-To: <99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <561811E0.60507@acm.org>

Hi,

I will not longer have a vote, but I see it similarly.

avri

On 09-Oct-15 15:05, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for GNSO Council Chair.
>
> I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner our votes.
>
> Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more thoughts on this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
>>> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>
>>> Dear Councillors,
>>>  
>>> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair that are posted on page:
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
>>>  
>>> and can be directly viewed at:
>>>  
>>> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
>>>  
>>> James Bladel
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
>>>  
>>> Thank you.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Glen
>>>  
>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>  
>>> From: Heather Forrest 
>>> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
>>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry 
>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan < 
>>> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>>  
>>> Dear Glen,
>>>  
>>> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>>>  
>>> With very best wishes,
>>>  
>>> Heather Forrest
>> <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Fri Oct  9 22:29:11 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 21:29:11 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <561808FE.7070304@kathykleiman.com>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com> <560E9CC6.5040304@acm.org>
	<C2467BFA-0E08-46FC-8B9B-CB9B918F2D3B@egyptig.org>
	<561808FE.7070304@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <5D763437-7FDB-459E-88A2-C350C267AA57@egyptig.org>

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I was familiar with the work of the STI, but had two misperceptions about it that are now clearer to me:

1. I had thought that the STI only worked on the specifics of the TMCH, not the URS. Going over the final report of the STI (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf), I now see that I was mistaken about this.

2. I thought the STI was an ad-hoc group created by the ICANN board. Again, I was wrong about this. It was a (non-PDP) review team chartered by the GNSO Council.

Still?, I would still say that despite the multistakeholder representation in the STI, it would not be entirely accurate to say that URS went through the proper GNSO PDP as outlined in the operating procedures and ICANN bylaws to develop Consensus Policy (capital C and P). As far as I can tell, there are clear differences between the two processes, with the traditional GNSO process allowing for broader participation than was permitted in the STI, as well as more rounds of public comments along the process from issue scoping to development of the final recommendations by the working group.

The process followed by the working group is described in detail in the STI report, as well as here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2010/sti.

Thanks.

Amr

PS: If there was no URS today, I don?t believe the URS would be suitable for the now formal Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP). It wouldn?t qualify for this process IMHO, and would need to go through a traditional PDP.


> On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:35 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr and All,
> It did. It went through what would be considered an expedited process, with all constituencies represented. It was approved unanimously by the GNSO Council, under Chairman Chuck Gomes who wrote about the immense hard work that the GNSO STI devoted to this process. It was sent to the Board and approved.
> 
> I'm out of the office right now, so no references, but it was part of the consensus policies approved for the New gTLDs.... it was pre-NCSG and NCUC stopped the IRT on this issue and sent it back to consensus policies as they existed at the time.
> 
> Best,
> Kathy:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Apologies for not responding to this sooner, but to the extent of my understanding (which may very well be lacking), I agree with Avri. I have no knowledge of the URS ever going through the GNSO?s PDP.
>> 
>> There is a summary of the chronological development of the URS over 2012/2013 here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs. This may be missing some details, but I am generally unfamiliar with a GNSO PDP discussing the URS, or any GNSO Council motion recommending that the ICANN board adopt the URS for new or legacy gTLDs.
>> 
>> If there was a GNSO process that discussed this, can somebody please point me in the right direction?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I am not sure I can accept that it ever went through the PDP process.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 02-Oct-15 08:50, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus
>>>> policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from
>>>> IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO
>>>> PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all
>>>> stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was
>>>> me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.
>>>> 
>>>> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for and
>>>> won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the policy.
>>>> 
>>>> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
>>>> Best,
>>>> Kathy
>>>> 
>>>> :
>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via
>>>>> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this
>>>>> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and
>>>>> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this
>>>>> issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus
>>>>> policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator
>>>>> of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff
>>>>> encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the
>>>>> Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others,
>>>>> but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance
>>>>> of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ed
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>>>>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I
>>>>>>>    don't recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
>>>>>>    issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning,
>>>>>>    view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky
>>>>>>    in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a
>>>>>>    Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone
>>>>>>    has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>        In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of
>>>>>>>        next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto
>>>>>>>        Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in
>>>>>>>        two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and
>>>>>>>        Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings,
>>>>>>>        are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse
>>>>>>>        than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama
>>>>>>>        City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the
>>>>>>>        extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global
>>>>>>>        outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city ,
>>>>>>>    which is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it
>>>>>>>    sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder
>>>>>>>    different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting
>>>>>>>    format starting in 2016.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be
>>>>>>    exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll
>>>>>>    try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get
>>>>>>    some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large
>>>>>>    but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find
>>>>>>    diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city
>>>>>>    strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of
>>>>>>    the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Ed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>        A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from
>>>>>>>        Monday can be found
>>>>>>>        here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>        Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>        Ed
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>        Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>        PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>        PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>        http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From kathy  Fri Oct  9 22:26:49 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:26:49 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <5D763437-7FDB-459E-88A2-C350C267AA57@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <3513f089e62231313eb0457b3ce43379861520cc@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com>

Hi Amr, 
I look forward to talking with you about this in Dublin!

Overall, the history of the STI is based on the IRT (a truly
unauthorized group to which we were responding), and the process of
creating the new rules of the URS and STI. NCUC stopped the IRT work
in a huge showdown at the ICANN Sydney meeting - and we said that
ICANN could not move forward with IRT recommendations until the IRT
"recommendations" ran through the GNSO. Otherwise, the IRT work would
have been incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook wholehog.
Konstantinos, Robin, Wendy and I were on the STI Team. 

Happy to delve into more histories and past work. Was the PDP in full
form prior to full SGs?? 

Best and see you soon,
Kathy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Amr Elsadr" 
To:
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 9 Oct 2015 21:29:11 +0200
Subject:Re: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected

 Hi Kathy,

 Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I was familiar with
the work of the STI, but had two misperceptions about it that are now
clearer to me:

 1. I had thought that the STI only worked on the specifics of the
TMCH, not the URS. Going over the final report of the STI
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf),
I now see that I was mistaken about this.

 2. I thought the STI was an ad-hoc group created by the ICANN board.
Again, I was wrong about this. It was a (non-PDP) review team
chartered by the GNSO Council.

 Still?, I would still say that despite the multistakeholder
representation in the STI, it would not be entirely accurate to say
that URS went through the proper GNSO PDP as outlined in the operating
procedures and ICANN bylaws to develop Consensus Policy (capital C and
P). As far as I can tell, there are clear differences between the two
processes, with the traditional GNSO process allowing for broader
participation than was permitted in the STI, as well as more rounds of
public comments along the process from issue scoping to development of
the final recommendations by the working group.

 The process followed by the working group is described in detail in
the STI report, as well as here:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2010/sti.

 Thanks.

 Amr

 PS: If there was no URS today, I don?t believe the URS would be
suitable for the now formal Expedited Policy Development Process
(EPDP). It wouldn?t qualify for this process IMHO, and would need to
go through a traditional PDP.

 > On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:35 PM, Kathy Kleiman  wrote:
 > 
 > Hi Amr and All,
 > It did. It went through what would be considered an expedited
process, with all constituencies represented. It was approved
unanimously by the GNSO Council, under Chairman Chuck Gomes who wrote
about the immense hard work that the GNSO STI devoted to this process.
It was sent to the Board and approved.
 > 
 > I'm out of the office right now, so no references, but it was part
of the consensus policies approved for the New gTLDs.... it was
pre-NCSG and NCUC stopped the IRT on this issue and sent it back to
consensus policies as they existed at the time.
 > 
 > Best,
 > Kathy:
 >> Hi,
 >> 
 >> Apologies for not responding to this sooner, but to the extent of
my understanding (which may very well be lacking), I agree with Avri
I have no knowledge of the URS ever going through the GNSO?s PDP.
 >> 
 >> There is a summary of the chronological development of the URS
over 2012/2013 here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs. This
may be missing some details, but I am generally unfamiliar with a GNSO
PDP discussing the URS, or any GNSO Council motion recommending that
the ICANN board adopt the URS for new or legacy gTLDs.
 >> 
 >> If there was a GNSO process that discussed this, can somebody
please point me in the right direction?
 >> 
 >> Thanks.
 >> 
 >> Amr
 >> 
 >>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Avri Doria  wrote:
 >>> 
 >>> Hi,
 >>> 
 >>> I am not sure I can accept that it ever went through the PDP
process.
 >>> 
 >>> avri
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>> On 02-Oct-15 08:50, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
 >>>> Hi Ed,
 >>>> If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus
 >>>> policy. It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came
from
 >>>> IP interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the
GNSO
 >>>> PDP process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all
 >>>> stakeholders were actively and aggressively represented. Our
team was
 >>>> me, Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.
 >>>> 
 >>>> Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought
for and
 >>>> won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the
policy.
 >>>> 
 >>>> But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
 >>>> Best,
 >>>> Kathy
 >>>> 
 >>>> :
 >>>>> Hi Rafik,
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such
via
 >>>>> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this
 >>>>> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and
 >>>>> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we
ignore this
 >>>>> issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus
 >>>>> policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the
creator
 >>>>> of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this
staff
 >>>>> encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the
 >>>>> Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with
others,
 >>>>> but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a
chance
 >>>>> of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could
consider.
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Thoughts?
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Ed
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Sent from my iPhone
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak  wrote:
 >>>>> 
 >>>>>> Hi Ed,
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris >>>>> >:
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Hi Rafik,
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I
 >>>>>>> don't recall if there was any support at the public comment
period.
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
 >>>>>> issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning,
 >>>>>> view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment
process.
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit
risky
 >>>>>> in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a
 >>>>>> Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone
 >>>>>> has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM
 >>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Rafik
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of
 >>>>>>> next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto
 >>>>>>> Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in
 >>>>>>> two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and
 >>>>>>> Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings,
 >>>>>>> are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse
 >>>>>>> than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama
 >>>>>>> City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the
 >>>>>>> extent ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global
 >>>>>>> outreach strategy I would suggest it needs some work.
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> well you can 2 times for Singapore. the last Asian city ,
 >>>>>>> which is not Singapore, was Beijing in 2013 . in fact it
 >>>>>>> sounds with the meetings requirements, it become more harder
 >>>>>>> different hosts. again wondering how it will be the new
meeting
 >>>>>>> format starting in 2016.
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>> We need to ascertain what is going on here It can't be
 >>>>>> exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive cities. I'll
 >>>>>> try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get
 >>>>>> some background to share with everyone. The meetings are large
 >>>>>> but they are not the largest and other groups manage to find
 >>>>>> diverse locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city
 >>>>>> strategy but if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part
of
 >>>>>> the global outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Best,
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Ed
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> Best,
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> Rafik
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from
 >>>>>>> Monday can be found
 >>>>>>> here:
https://wwwicann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f
.
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> Best,
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> Ed
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
 >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
 >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
 >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> _______________________________________________
 >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
 >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
 >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
 >>>> 
 >>>> 
 >>>> _______________________________________________
 >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
 >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
 >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
 >>> 
 >>> ---
 >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
 >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>> _______________________________________________
 >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
 >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
 >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
 >> 
 >> _______________________________________________
 >> PC-NCSG mailing list
 >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
 >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
 > 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > PC-NCSG mailing list
 > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
 > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/016e00d4/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Oct  9 22:47:22 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 21:47:22 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <3513f089e62231313eb0457b3ce43379861520cc@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com>
References: <3513f089e62231313eb0457b3ce43379861520cc@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com>
Message-ID: <F0EB936E-8C61-4FFB-B53F-8ABD144CC1AA@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks again Kathy. I look forward to learning more about this from you, Robin and whoever else would be willing to bring me and others up-to-speed.

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:

[SNIP]

> Was the PDP in full form prior to full SGs?  

That?s a good question that I cannot answer, as it is about the same time I actually joined NCUC, and began to learn about GNSO processes. You and others would know more about this than I do.

Thanks again.

Amr


From avri  Fri Oct  9 22:11:36 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:11:36 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <561808FE.7070304@kathykleiman.com>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com> <560E9CC6.5040304@acm.org>
	<C2467BFA-0E08-46FC-8B9B-CB9B918F2D3B@egyptig.org>
	<561808FE.7070304@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <56181168.4020000@acm.org>



On 09-Oct-15 14:35, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> It went through what would be considered an expedited process, with
> all constituencies represented. 

But that was an ad-hoc process.  Additionally the proposal did not go to
the GNSO for approval.  It was a Board initiated action and not a PDP
with open WG and public comments and comment response &c. 

But I agree there was a process.

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From aelsadr  Fri Oct  9 23:46:30 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 22:46:30 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Preliminary Issue Report on a
	GNSO Policy Development Process to Review All Rights
	Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs
References: <0.0.7F.858.1D102D210E1A926.0@drone070.ral.icpbounce.com>
Message-ID: <D4A31C1A-A681-44E5-BCB5-1446840A39FF@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Just received this, and I guess it is relevant to a discussion on another thread.

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications at icann.org>
> Date: October 9, 2015 at 10:35:42 PM GMT+2
> To: <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Preliminary Issue Report on a GNSO Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs
> Reply-To: communications at icann.org
> 
> 
> News Alert
> 
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-10-09-en
> 
> Preliminary Issue Report on a GNSO Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs
> 9 October 2015
> 
> Forum Announcement:	Comment Period Opens	Date:	9 October 2015
> Categories/Tags:	Policy Processes
> Purpose (Brief):	The Preliminary Issue Report [PDF, 376 KB] is published for public comment to obtain community input on the issue of launching a GNSO Policy Development Process to Review all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs.
> Public Comment Box Link:	https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en
> 
> 
> This message was sent to aelsadr at egyptig.org from:
> ICANN News Alert | communications at icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
> Email Marketing by 
> 
> Manage Your Subscription
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151009/84b45d2a/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Sat Oct 10 14:05:47 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:05:47 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
In-Reply-To: <561811E0.60507@acm.org>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
	<561811E0.60507@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20151010110547.GA11379@tarvainen.info>

I don't have a vote either, but I'd tend to agree with Amr and Avri.

Tapani


On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 03:13:36PM -0400, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I will not longer have a vote, but I see it similarly.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 09-Oct-15 15:05, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for GNSO Council Chair.
> >
> > I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner our votes.
> >
> > Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more thoughts on this.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> >> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> >>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
> >>> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
> >>> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Councillors,
> >>>  
> >>> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair that are posted on page:
> >>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
> >>>  
> >>> and can be directly viewed at:
> >>>  
> >>> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
> >>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
> >>>  
> >>> James Bladel
> >>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
> >>>  
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> Glen
> >>>  
> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry
> >>> GNSO Secretariat
> >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> >>> http://gnso.icann.org
> >>>  
> >>> From: Heather Forrest 
> >>> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
> >>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry 
> >>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan < 
> >>> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
> >>>  
> >>> Dear Glen,
> >>>  
> >>> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
> >>>  
> >>> With very best wishes,
> >>>  
> >>> Heather Forrest
> >> <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>



From rafik.dammak  Sat Oct 10 16:04:55 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
In-Reply-To: <99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmF=hjvZdr+V2xMP4H1CWWr=kg6yq+iNtevNk2eUCr6UA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

I think there will be sessions for the 2 candidates before GNSO council?
good opportunity to hear from both. I expect that NCSG PC session in sunday
will include the GNSO chair election as an agenda item.
I would notice that we didn't hear anything from James or were approached.

Best,

Rafik

2015-10-10 4:05 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi again,
>
> Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was wondering
> if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for GNSO Council Chair.
>
> I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate statement
> almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner our votes.
>
> Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment with a
> chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is as likeable an
> IPC person as we will probably get for a job like this one. I?m willing to
> give her a chance for a year, but I (as do we all) still have time to
> decide. Would be grateful for more thoughts on this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have
> now been posted. Details in the email below.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> >> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
> >> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
> >> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>
> >> Dear Councillors,
> >>
> >> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair
> that are posted on page:
> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
> >>
> >> and can be directly viewed at:
> >>
> >> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
> >>
> >> James Bladel
> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Glen
> >>
> >> Glen de Saint G?ry
> >> GNSO Secretariat
> >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> >> http://gnso.icann.org
> >>
> >> From: Heather Forrest
> >> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
> >> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
> >> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan <
> >> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
> >>
> >> Dear Glen,
> >>
> >> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's
> Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good
> housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the
> lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House
> which has nominated me.
> >>
> >> With very best wishes,
> >>
> >> Heather Forrest
> > <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151010/14909e6a/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sat Oct 10 16:10:30 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:10:30 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
In-Reply-To: <56181168.4020000@acm.org>
References: <E3704F94-9434-47BF-BE85-5CB32501329D@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThmL_=LazKxeVQTPm82Jv6cJ7OwgXkj=H6FfNyCuu_jNhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<41A4A6E1-101D-440F-A1DD-BD20BFCF3811@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnmsbYk8Toucj8ODgjtJN-c034w052KkWx__JBuD7pAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<918533B5-FC11-4FB3-AEEE-08FC2946583C@toast.net>
	<560E7D86.8020409@kathykleiman.com> <560E9CC6.5040304@acm.org>
	<C2467BFA-0E08-46FC-8B9B-CB9B918F2D3B@egyptig.org>
	<561808FE.7070304@kathykleiman.com> <56181168.4020000@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn3=iZEJN62AAAywF5Yab=UK9WJ8-Xz2gH33h9+99Uxyg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

if I am not mistaking that was the STI and the group was set in Seoul
meeting 2009. that was my first ICANN meeting and I recall that was the hot
topic and how get representatives there.
we got the preliminary issues report and also this one
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en , we have to submit a
comment for the former.

Best,

Rafik

2015-10-10 4:11 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>
>
> On 09-Oct-15 14:35, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> > It went through what would be considered an expedited process, with
> > all constituencies represented.
>
> But that was an ad-hoc process.  Additionally the proposal did not go to
> the GNSO for approval.  It was a Board initiated action and not a PDP
> with open WG and public comments and comment response &c.
>
> But I agree there was a process.
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151010/b1eb40f3/attachment.html>


From kathy  Sat Oct 10 16:21:07 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:21:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement- I speak for
	James
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmF=hjvZdr+V2xMP4H1CWWr=kg6yq+iNtevNk2eUCr6UA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmF=hjvZdr+V2xMP4H1CWWr=kg6yq+iNtevNk2eUCr6UA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <561910C3.10703@kathykleiman.com>

Hi Amr,
I would urge you to look closely at both candidates, as Rafik discusses 
below. For my part, I would speak for James. He has been around for a 
long time in the ICANN world and deeply involved on many issues. I 
worked with him side by side for 18 months slogging through the Whois 
Review Team. When no one else stood with me on privacy, on the rights of 
registrants, on the concerns for registrant safety, privacy and data 
protection rights, he did.

We are now on the Proxy-Privacy Accreditation Working Group together (as 
you and David are too, Amr), along with a very strong group of 
Registrars who include Graeme, Volker, Luc, Darcy, Chris Pelling and 
more. James Gannon, Stephanie and I are working very closely with them, 
pushing back against the 20+ IPC representations who come back again and 
again and again to fight for issues they have lost before and seem to 
have no end of energy to fight for one more time.

I agree that Heather may be a wonderful individual, but the issues 
coming up on UDRP Review and WHOIS2 have never been bigger or more 
deadly for the interests of noncommercial registrants. We know these 
parties, we know how they have worked through the years, and who has 
manipulated what. The same parties are in play now; I suggest history IS 
an indicator of future action.

James Bladel has my vote, if I had a vote, for his integrity, 
credibility, honestly and support of issues important to his registrar, 
registrars generally and registrants worldwide. I would suggest that 
this is the time to strengthen our good relationships with registrars. 
It is a wonderful thing to have strong, active allies - and on the 
issues ahead, it will be critical and life-saving.

Best and tx for reading,
Kathy

Hi Amr,
>
> I think there will be sessions for the 2 candidates before GNSO 
> council? good opportunity to hear from both. I expect that NCSG PC 
> session in sunday will include the GNSO chair election as an agenda item.
> I would notice that we didn't hear anything from James or were approached.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-10 4:05 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>
>     Hi again,
>
>     Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was
>     wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for
>     GNSO Council Chair.
>
>     I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate
>     statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner
>     our votes.
>
>     Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment
>     with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is
>     as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like
>     this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as
>     do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more
>     thoughts on this.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>
>     > On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair
>     elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
>     >
>     > Thanks.
>     >
>     > Amr
>     >
>     >> Begin forwarded message:
>     >>
>     >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>     >> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>     >> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
>     >> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org
>     <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>)" <council at gnso.icann.org
>     <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>     >>
>     >> Dear Councillors,
>     >>
>     >> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO
>     Council chair that are posted on page:
>     >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
>     >>
>     >> and can be directly viewed at:
>     >>
>     >> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
>     >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
>     >>
>     >> James Bladel
>     >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
>     >>
>     >> Thank you.
>     >> Kind regards,
>     >> Glen
>     >>
>     >> Glen de Saint G?ry
>     >> GNSO Secretariat
>     >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>     >> http://gnso.icann.org
>     >>
>     >> From: Heather Forrest
>     >> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
>     >> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
>     >> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan <
>     >> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>     >>
>     >> Dear Glen,
>     >>
>     >> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my
>     Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council
>     Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve
>     Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the
>     Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>     >>
>     >> With very best wishes,
>     >>
>     >> Heather Forrest
>     > <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151010/ff7aada5/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Sat Oct 10 18:36:09 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:36:09 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement- I speak
	for James
In-Reply-To: <561910C3.10703@kathykleiman.com>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmF=hjvZdr+V2xMP4H1CWWr=kg6yq+iNtevNk2eUCr6UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<561910C3.10703@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <77D4A7BF-CDE7-4702-B577-5722BA058304@egyptig.org>

Hi Kathy,

Completely agree with you on all counts. I will also add that I have a lot of faith in James when it comes to standing up to the ICANN board and GAC in any attempts to circumvent GNSO processes to create gTLD policy. These instances are usually in favour of IP interests, so  I can?t say I have the same level of confidence in an IPC member doing the same. This, IMHO, is one of the key characteristics we need while considering voting for a GNSO Council Chair.

Thanks for the helpful thoughts, Kathy. Keep ?em coming.

Amr

> On Oct 10, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> I would urge you to look closely at both candidates, as Rafik discusses below. For my part, I would speak for James. He has been around for a long time in the ICANN world and deeply involved on many issues. I worked with him side by side for 18 months slogging through the Whois Review Team. When no one else stood with me on privacy, on the rights of registrants, on the concerns for registrant safety, privacy and data protection rights, he did. 
> 
> We are now on the Proxy-Privacy Accreditation Working Group together (as you and David are too, Amr), along with a very strong group of Registrars who include Graeme, Volker, Luc, Darcy, Chris Pelling and more. James Gannon, Stephanie and I are working very closely with them, pushing back against the 20+ IPC representations who come back again and again and again to fight for issues they have lost before and seem to have no end of energy to fight for one more time.
> 
> I agree that Heather may be a wonderful individual, but the issues coming up on UDRP Review and WHOIS2 have never been bigger or more deadly for the interests of noncommercial registrants. We know these parties, we know how they have worked through the years, and who has manipulated what. The same parties are in play now; I suggest history IS an indicator of future action. 
> 
> James Bladel has my vote, if I had a vote, for his integrity, credibility, honestly and support of issues important to his registrar, registrars generally and registrants worldwide. I would suggest that this is the time to strengthen our good relationships with registrars. It is a wonderful thing to have strong, active allies - and on the issues ahead, it will be critical and life-saving. 
> 
> Best and tx for reading,
> Kathy
> 
> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> I think there will be sessions for the 2 candidates before GNSO council? good opportunity to hear from both. I expect that NCSG PC session in sunday will include the GNSO chair election as an agenda item.
>> I would notice that we didn't hear anything from James or were approached.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2015-10-10 4:05 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for GNSO Council Chair.
>> 
>> I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner our votes.
>> 
>> Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more thoughts on this.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>>> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
>>>> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Councillors,
>>>> 
>>>> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair that are posted on page:
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
>>>> 
>>>> and can be directly viewed at:
>>>> 
>>>> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> James Bladel
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Glen
>>>> 
>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>> 
>>>> From: Heather Forrest
>>>> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
>>>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan <
>>>> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Glen,
>>>> 
>>>> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>>>> 
>>>> With very best wishes,
>>>> 
>>>> Heather Forrest
>>> <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From aelsadr  Sat Oct 10 18:35:39 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:35:39 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement- I speak
	for James
In-Reply-To: <561910C3.10703@kathykleiman.com>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmF=hjvZdr+V2xMP4H1CWWr=kg6yq+iNtevNk2eUCr6UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<561910C3.10703@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <3511ABC8-DF93-4F0F-8C7A-61DE8A6D1981@egyptig.org>

Hi Kathy,

Completely agree with you on all counts. I will also add that I have a lot of faith in James when it comes to standing up to the ICANN board and GAC in any attempts to circumvent GNSO processes to create gTLD policy. These instances are usually in favour of IP interests, so  I can?t say I have the same level of confidence in an IPC member doing the same. This, IMHO, is one of the key characteristics we need while considering voting for a GNSO Council Chair.

Thanks for the helpful thoughts, Kathy. Keep ?em coming.

Amr

> On Oct 10, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> I would urge you to look closely at both candidates, as Rafik discusses below. For my part, I would speak for James. He has been around for a long time in the ICANN world and deeply involved on many issues. I worked with him side by side for 18 months slogging through the Whois Review Team. When no one else stood with me on privacy, on the rights of registrants, on the concerns for registrant safety, privacy and data protection rights, he did. 
> 
> We are now on the Proxy-Privacy Accreditation Working Group together (as you and David are too, Amr), along with a very strong group of Registrars who include Graeme, Volker, Luc, Darcy, Chris Pelling and more. James Gannon, Stephanie and I are working very closely with them, pushing back against the 20+ IPC representations who come back again and again and again to fight for issues they have lost before and seem to have no end of energy to fight for one more time.
> 
> I agree that Heather may be a wonderful individual, but the issues coming up on UDRP Review and WHOIS2 have never been bigger or more deadly for the interests of noncommercial registrants. We know these parties, we know how they have worked through the years, and who has manipulated what. The same parties are in play now; I suggest history IS an indicator of future action. 
> 
> James Bladel has my vote, if I had a vote, for his integrity, credibility, honestly and support of issues important to his registrar, registrars generally and registrants worldwide. I would suggest that this is the time to strengthen our good relationships with registrars. It is a wonderful thing to have strong, active allies - and on the issues ahead, it will be critical and life-saving. 
> 
> Best and tx for reading,
> Kathy
> 
> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> I think there will be sessions for the 2 candidates before GNSO council? good opportunity to hear from both. I expect that NCSG PC session in sunday will include the GNSO chair election as an agenda item.
>> I would notice that we didn't hear anything from James or were approached.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2015-10-10 4:05 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for GNSO Council Chair.
>> 
>> I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner our votes.
>> 
>> Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more thoughts on this.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>>> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
>>>> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Councillors,
>>>> 
>>>> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair that are posted on page:
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
>>>> 
>>>> and can be directly viewed at:
>>>> 
>>>> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> James Bladel
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Glen
>>>> 
>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>> 
>>>> From: Heather Forrest
>>>> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
>>>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan <
>>>> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Glen,
>>>> 
>>>> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>>>> 
>>>> With very best wishes,
>>>> 
>>>> Heather Forrest
>>> <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From avri  Sat Oct 10 18:34:23 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:34:23 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement- I speak
 for James
In-Reply-To: <3511ABC8-DF93-4F0F-8C7A-61DE8A6D1981@egyptig.org>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmF=hjvZdr+V2xMP4H1CWWr=kg6yq+iNtevNk2eUCr6UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<561910C3.10703@kathykleiman.com>
	<3511ABC8-DF93-4F0F-8C7A-61DE8A6D1981@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56192FFF.7090508@acm.org>

Hi,

I consider always that for someone who is employed by a company, their
instincts are commercially based and based on their employers POV - if
they did not agree with their employers methods and motives, they would
work elsewhere.  Yes, they can be as neutral as anyone can be, but their
POV is essentially aligned with their employer.  I have co-chaired a
group with James and always valued his essentially commercial POV,
though he behaved with neutrality.

I also value the fact that one candidate is an academic.

There are several axis along which they will need to make decision IP &
Expression, Commercial & Non commercial, US centric & Global, Contracted
party & Non Contracted party &c.

I also agree with the idea of building alliances.  And the fact that we
can work in cooperation with our CSG sister SG on issues of common
interest is a really important consideration for me in this time of
accountability.

There are many considerations the voters will need to take into account.

It is excellent we have two good choices for the incoming council to
choose between.

avri

On 10-Oct-15 11:35, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Completely agree with you on all counts. I will also add that I have a lot of faith in James when it comes to standing up to the ICANN board and GAC in any attempts to circumvent GNSO processes to create gTLD policy. These instances are usually in favour of IP interests, so  I can?t say I have the same level of confidence in an IPC member doing the same. This, IMHO, is one of the key characteristics we need while considering voting for a GNSO Council Chair.
>
> Thanks for the helpful thoughts, Kathy. Keep ?em coming.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 10, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>> I would urge you to look closely at both candidates, as Rafik discusses below. For my part, I would speak for James. He has been around for a long time in the ICANN world and deeply involved on many issues. I worked with him side by side for 18 months slogging through the Whois Review Team. When no one else stood with me on privacy, on the rights of registrants, on the concerns for registrant safety, privacy and data protection rights, he did. 
>>
>> We are now on the Proxy-Privacy Accreditation Working Group together (as you and David are too, Amr), along with a very strong group of Registrars who include Graeme, Volker, Luc, Darcy, Chris Pelling and more. James Gannon, Stephanie and I are working very closely with them, pushing back against the 20+ IPC representations who come back again and again and again to fight for issues they have lost before and seem to have no end of energy to fight for one more time.
>>
>> I agree that Heather may be a wonderful individual, but the issues coming up on UDRP Review and WHOIS2 have never been bigger or more deadly for the interests of noncommercial registrants. We know these parties, we know how they have worked through the years, and who has manipulated what. The same parties are in play now; I suggest history IS an indicator of future action. 
>>
>> James Bladel has my vote, if I had a vote, for his integrity, credibility, honestly and support of issues important to his registrar, registrars generally and registrants worldwide. I would suggest that this is the time to strengthen our good relationships with registrars. It is a wonderful thing to have strong, active allies - and on the issues ahead, it will be critical and life-saving. 
>>
>> Best and tx for reading,
>> Kathy
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>>> I think there will be sessions for the 2 candidates before GNSO council? good opportunity to hear from both. I expect that NCSG PC session in sunday will include the GNSO chair election as an agenda item.
>>> I would notice that we didn't hear anything from James or were approached.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2015-10-10 4:05 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for GNSO Council Chair.
>>>
>>> I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner our votes.
>>>
>>> Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more thoughts on this.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>>>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>>>> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
>>>>> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Councillors,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair that are posted on page:
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
>>>>>
>>>>> and can be directly viewed at:
>>>>>
>>>>> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> James Bladel
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Glen
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Heather Forrest
>>>>> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
>>>>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan <
>>>>> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Glen,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>>>>>
>>>>> With very best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Heather Forrest
>>>> <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From kathy  Sat Oct 10 19:31:01 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:31:01 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement- I speak
	for James
In-Reply-To: <3511ABC8-DF93-4F0F-8C7A-61DE8A6D1981@egyptig.org>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmF=hjvZdr+V2xMP4H1CWWr=kg6yq+iNtevNk2eUCr6UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<561910C3.10703@kathykleiman.com>
	<3511ABC8-DF93-4F0F-8C7A-61DE8A6D1981@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56193D45.4030706@kathykleiman.com>

Hi Amr,
Agreed!

Hi Amr, Avri, All,
Tx for your thoughts. If anyone has any questions, or wants to hear more 
war stories about work with James over the years, please let me know. 
These are important times, and this is an important election.

Best,
Kathy
:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Completely agree with you on all counts. I will also add that I have a lot of faith in James when it comes to standing up to the ICANN board and GAC in any attempts to circumvent GNSO processes to create gTLD policy. These instances are usually in favour of IP interests, so  I can?t say I have the same level of confidence in an IPC member doing the same. This, IMHO, is one of the key characteristics we need while considering voting for a GNSO Council Chair.
>
> Thanks for the helpful thoughts, Kathy. Keep ?em coming.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 10, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>> I would urge you to look closely at both candidates, as Rafik discusses below. For my part, I would speak for James. He has been around for a long time in the ICANN world and deeply involved on many issues. I worked with him side by side for 18 months slogging through the Whois Review Team. When no one else stood with me on privacy, on the rights of registrants, on the concerns for registrant safety, privacy and data protection rights, he did.
>>
>> We are now on the Proxy-Privacy Accreditation Working Group together (as you and David are too, Amr), along with a very strong group of Registrars who include Graeme, Volker, Luc, Darcy, Chris Pelling and more. James Gannon, Stephanie and I are working very closely with them, pushing back against the 20+ IPC representations who come back again and again and again to fight for issues they have lost before and seem to have no end of energy to fight for one more time.
>>
>> I agree that Heather may be a wonderful individual, but the issues coming up on UDRP Review and WHOIS2 have never been bigger or more deadly for the interests of noncommercial registrants. We know these parties, we know how they have worked through the years, and who has manipulated what. The same parties are in play now; I suggest history IS an indicator of future action.
>>
>> James Bladel has my vote, if I had a vote, for his integrity, credibility, honestly and support of issues important to his registrar, registrars generally and registrants worldwide. I would suggest that this is the time to strengthen our good relationships with registrars. It is a wonderful thing to have strong, active allies - and on the issues ahead, it will be critical and life-saving.
>>
>> Best and tx for reading,
>> Kathy
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>>> I think there will be sessions for the 2 candidates before GNSO council? good opportunity to hear from both. I expect that NCSG PC session in sunday will include the GNSO chair election as an agenda item.
>>> I would notice that we didn't hear anything from James or were approached.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2015-10-10 4:05 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for GNSO Council Chair.
>>>
>>> I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner our votes.
>>>
>>> Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more thoughts on this.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>>>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>>>> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
>>>>> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Councillors,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair that are posted on page:
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
>>>>>
>>>>> and can be directly viewed at:
>>>>>
>>>>> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> James Bladel
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Glen
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Heather Forrest
>>>>> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
>>>>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan <
>>>>> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Glen,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>>>>>
>>>>> With very best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Heather Forrest
>>>> <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Sat Oct 10 20:23:47 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:23:47 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] on another topic
Message-ID: <561949A3.1060405@acm.org>



are there downsides to NCSG declaring itself an unincorporated
association unilaterally.

upsides?

if upsides are greater than downsides, should we try to do it?

It might require change to our charter which would need to be approved
by the Board, but it might be worth the effort.
The discuss list discussion could be interesting as well.

just a thought i had while walking back from the street market.

cheers

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From lanfran  Sat Oct 10 22:17:03 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:17:03 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] on another topic
In-Reply-To: <561949A3.1060405@acm.org>
References: <561949A3.1060405@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5619642F.3050100@yorku.ca>

/Avri Doria wrote:  "are there downsides to NCSG declaring itself an 
unincorporated association unilaterally"/

Avri & PC Colleagues

I have had to deal with this elsewhere, and while I may be off with 
regard to what is meant by the question, I will offer these brief 
comments. While any group can call itself a group, and decide how it 
wants to govern itself, take stands on things, and even undertake 
projects there are always several complications. The first has to do 
with finances. The group cannot, as a group, be the recipient of 
financing from most sources. It could sell lemonade and cupcakes 
but..that is a slow road to finances, and in some countries it cannot 
even have a bank account. If it has project aspirations it has to work 
with a registered group that has a similar mandate and can receive 
funding. Another issue is liability. Groups I know have recently 
terminated their not-for-profit charters because liability insurance and 
growing financial accountability costs were bigger than their modest 
annual budgets. In Canada if a group (incorporated or not) runs afoul of 
tax laws the revenue agency will target the deeper pocketed individuals 
[I am safe there :-) ] in the governance structures, so it needs 
liability insurance.

Additionally, there are emerging clauses in multilateral agreements like 
the TTP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), that are making volunteer groups 
harder to sustain. I would not be surprised if down the road those 
agreements pose problems for ICANN's multistakeholder model. There are a 
number of issues around what is the association, what constitutes 
membership, and the relationship between membership and organizational 
governance.

There are some very good not-for-profit lawyers coming to Dublin, at 
ICANN's expense. Might want to corner them over a beer and pepper them 
with questions around this.

Sam

Avri Doria wrote:
>
> are there downsides to NCSG declaring itself an unincorporated
> association unilaterally.
>
> upsides?
>
> if upsides are greater than downsides, should we try to do it?
>
> It might require change to our charter which would need to be approved
> by the Board, but it might be worth the effort.
> The discuss list discussion could be interesting as well.
>
> just a thought i had while walking back from the street market.
>
> cheers
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> 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


-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151010/d79aa713/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Oct 11 08:10:54 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 01:10:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement- I speak
 for James
In-Reply-To: <561910C3.10703@kathykleiman.com>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmF=hjvZdr+V2xMP4H1CWWr=kg6yq+iNtevNk2eUCr6UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<561910C3.10703@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <5619EF5E.6060509@mail.utoronto.ca>

Well said.  He already had my vote a while ago.  My only reservation was 
whether it was wise to have such a great ally tied up being a neutral 
chair.  But I will vote for him.
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-10-10 9:21, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Hi Amr,
> I would urge you to look closely at both candidates, as Rafik 
> discusses below. For my part, I would speak for James. He has been 
> around for a long time in the ICANN world and deeply involved on many 
> issues. I worked with him side by side for 18 months slogging through 
> the Whois Review Team. When no one else stood with me on privacy, on 
> the rights of registrants, on the concerns for registrant safety, 
> privacy and data protection rights, he did.
>
> We are now on the Proxy-Privacy Accreditation Working Group together 
> (as you and David are too, Amr), along with a very strong group of 
> Registrars who include Graeme, Volker, Luc, Darcy, Chris Pelling and 
> more. James Gannon, Stephanie and I are working very closely with 
> them, pushing back against the 20+ IPC representations who come back 
> again and again and again to fight for issues they have lost before 
> and seem to have no end of energy to fight for one more time.
>
> I agree that Heather may be a wonderful individual, but the issues 
> coming up on UDRP Review and WHOIS2 have never been bigger or more 
> deadly for the interests of noncommercial registrants. We know these 
> parties, we know how they have worked through the years, and who has 
> manipulated what. The same parties are in play now; I suggest history 
> IS an indicator of future action.
>
> James Bladel has my vote, if I had a vote, for his integrity, 
> credibility, honestly and support of issues important to his 
> registrar, registrars generally and registrants worldwide. I would 
> suggest that this is the time to strengthen our good relationships 
> with registrars. It is a wonderful thing to have strong, active allies 
> - and on the issues ahead, it will be critical and life-saving.
>
> Best and tx for reading,
> Kathy
>
> Hi Amr,
>>
>> I think there will be sessions for the 2 candidates before GNSO 
>> council? good opportunity to hear from both. I expect that NCSG PC 
>> session in sunday will include the GNSO chair election as an agenda item.
>> I would notice that we didn't hear anything from James or were 
>> approached.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-10-10 4:05 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>
>>     Hi again,
>>
>>     Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was
>>     wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates
>>     for GNSO Council Chair.
>>
>>     I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate
>>     statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner
>>     our votes.
>>
>>     Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment
>>     with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is
>>     as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like
>>     this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as
>>     do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more
>>     thoughts on this.
>>
>>     Thanks.
>>
>>     Amr
>>
>>     > On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>     >
>>     > Hi,
>>     >
>>     > Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair
>>     elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
>>     >
>>     > Thanks.
>>     >
>>     > Amr
>>     >
>>     >> Begin forwarded message:
>>     >>
>>     >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>     >> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>     >> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
>>     >> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)"
>>     <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>     >>
>>     >> Dear Councillors,
>>     >>
>>     >> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO
>>     Council chair that are posted on page:
>>     >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
>>     >>
>>     >> and can be directly viewed at:
>>     >>
>>     >> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
>>     >>
>>     http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
>>     >>
>>     >> James Bladel
>>     >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
>>     >>
>>     >> Thank you.
>>     >> Kind regards,
>>     >> Glen
>>     >>
>>     >> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>     >> GNSO Secretariat
>>     >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>     <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>>     >> http://gnso.icann.org
>>     >>
>>     >> From: Heather Forrest
>>     >> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
>>     >> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
>>     >> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan <
>>     >> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>     >>
>>     >> Dear Glen,
>>     >>
>>     >> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my
>>     Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council
>>     Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and
>>     Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others
>>     in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>>     >>
>>     >> With very best wishes,
>>     >>
>>     >> Heather Forrest
>>     > <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151011/7ec2a362/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Oct 11 10:23:39 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:23:39 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] on another topic
In-Reply-To: <561949A3.1060405@acm.org>
References: <561949A3.1060405@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=9rhzhR5fjE69E=5kuS27M70ERU325YW5rTQ_5dDOr0g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

Thanks for this. yes definitely with the current context, we should have
this discussion and kick-off it.

Best,

Rafik

2015-10-11 2:23 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>
>
> are there downsides to NCSG declaring itself an unincorporated
> association unilaterally.
>
> upsides?
>
> if upsides are greater than downsides, should we try to do it?
>
> It might require change to our charter which would need to be approved
> by the Board, but it might be worth the effort.
> The discuss list discussion could be interesting as well.
>
> just a thought i had while walking back from the street market.
>
> cheers
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151011/b742ac9d/attachment.html>


From dave  Sun Oct 11 16:30:31 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:30:31 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
In-Reply-To: <99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
References: <14b556b3cc3441f3844e076410d956db@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<E29E9A83-E0C5-40B6-830F-78AC9D99E8C8@egyptig.org>
	<99FA6D64-A2F4-427A-B779-A945202CD933@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <1DA16FE4-22D6-4A04-9125-483A5F560F4E@difference.com.au>

I think Heather is a fine candidate. I think she would be a fair chair, and I think she has tried hard to present herself as someone who does not fit within the narrow stereotype of an IPC trademark lawyer driven only by clients interests. She is smart, likeable, and a reasonable person.

That said, I still think James is a far stronger candidate. Note how Heather repeatedly mentions the CWG on Country and Territory Names - that is essentially because it is the only major policy work she has taken a major role in. James by contrast has a very long history of involvement in a very wide range of GNSO work, and I think probably knows the GNSO policy process as well as anyone actively involved. And I think James will be a far stronger advocate for the GNSO vs the GAC, as he already has been. Plus we have a number of crucial privacy relevant policy processes coming up in the next year, and we know James will be a strong advocate for privacy where appropriate (as he consistently has been this year).

So while I have no inclination to ?vote against? Heather, I still think I have likely to vote for James. To be convinced otherwise, I?d really need to hear arguments against James as a very strong candidate - so far, the only one I?ve really heard is that if he was chair he is likely to take a less strong advocacy role himself.

David

> On 10 Oct 2015, at 3:05 am, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> Following the publication of the two candidate statements, I was wondering if anyone has any new thoughts on the two candidates for GNSO Council Chair.
> 
> I ask, because I am tempted to vote for Heather. Her candidate statement almost seems tailored to impress NC folks, and garner our votes.
> 
> Still?, I?m thinking that if we will ever be able to experiment with a chair from the NCPH, this might be a good time. Heather is as likeable an IPC person as we will probably get for a job like this one. I?m willing to give her a chance for a year, but I (as do we all) still have time to decide. Would be grateful for more thoughts on this.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Statements by both candidates for the GNSO Council Chair elections have now been posted. Details in the email below.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>> Date: October 6, 2015 at 12:33:06 AM GMT+2
>>> To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> 
>>> Dear Councillors,
>>> 
>>> Please find the statements of the two candidates for GNSO Council chair that are posted on page:
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections
>>> 
>>> and can be directly viewed at:
>>> 
>>> Heather Forrest: (statement also attached)
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/forrest-statement-02oct15-en.pdf
>>> 
>>> James Bladel
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Glen
>>> 
>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>> 
>>> From: Heather Forrest
>>> Sent: vendredi 2 octobre 2015 14:02
>>> To: Glen de Saint G?ry
>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven Greg Shatan <
>>> Subject: GNSO Council Chair - Candidate's Statement
>>> 
>>> Dear Glen,
>>> 
>>> I am honoured to submit to you the attached document, my Candidate's Statement for the upcoming election of GNSO Council Chair.  For good housekeeping, I have copied Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz to confirm the lodgment of my statement to others in the Non-Contracted Parties House which has nominated me.
>>> 
>>> With very best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Heather Forrest
>> <GNSO Council Chair Statement H Forrest.pdf>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151011/da28fd62/attachment.sig>


From egmorris1  Mon Oct 12 15:53:59 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:53:59 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
Message-ID: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>

Hi guys,
  
  
 I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been working 
on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and the like but 
substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to submit. As the 
deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval is requested.
  
 The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy gTLD's 
through newel agreements. This is de facto development of consensus policy 
through contract by staff rather than through a properly constituted pop. 
As we've previously discussed on list this needs to be opposed if the GNSO 
hopes to maintain its current role.
  
 We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the substantive 
issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy to have the new 
RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that traditionally has not been our 
position. It's been a bit of a challenge to get language acceptable to both 
in this regard as Phil head some specific instructions but hopefully we've 
done do.
  
 I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see how / 
if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is tomorrow so 
this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG member to oppose ip 
expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope we can take advantage of 
this opportunity.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151012/891b17e3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PCSubRR.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 505230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151012/891b17e3/attachment-0001.obj>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Oct 12 16:58:02 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 22:58:02 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=9Ot9WCzAw8T+yXBY-5Umh9aOG-r6G8AmP++cvjXfSLw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

Thanks for this. we can have 24hours window to hear if there is objection
and why. after that we can submit the RR jointly with BC.

Best,

Rafik

2015-10-12 21:53 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi guys,
>
>
> I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been working
> on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and the like but
> substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to submit. As the
> deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval is requested.
>
> The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy gTLD's
> through newel agreements. This is de facto development of consensus policy
> through contract by staff rather than through a properly constituted pop.
> As we've previously discussed on list this needs to be opposed if the GNSO
> hopes to maintain its current role.
>
> We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the substantive
> issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy to have the new
> RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that traditionally has not been our
> position. It's been a bit of a challenge to get language acceptable to both
> in this regard as Phil head some specific instructions but hopefully we've
> done do.
>
> I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see how /
> if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is tomorrow so
> this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG member to oppose ip
> expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope we can take advantage of
> this opportunity.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151012/686c4a2c/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Mon Oct 12 17:20:15 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:20:15 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
Message-ID: <561BC19F.7050807@yorku.ca>

I am in support of this.

/Issue: The BC and NCSG believe that all members of the ICANN community 
are materially and adversely affected whenever ICANN staff seeks to 
impose de facto Consensus Policy in a top-down manner that is 
inconsistent with the Bylaws./

Even if we were to agree with the position taken, we have to get there 
through due process or procedures will mean nothing.


Sam
On 12/10/2015 8:53 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been 
> working on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and 
> the like but substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to 
> submit. As the deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval 
> is requested.
> The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy 
> gTLD's through newel agreements. This is de facto development of 
> consensus policy through contract by staff rather than through a 
> properly constituted pop. As we've previously discussed on list 
> this needs to be opposed if the GNSO hopes to maintain its current role.
> We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the 
> substantive issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy 
> to have the new RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that 
> traditionally has not been our position. It's been a bit of a 
> challenge to get language acceptable to both in this regard as Phil 
> head some specific instructions but hopefully we've done do.
> I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see 
> how / if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is 
> tomorrow so this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG 
> member to oppose ip expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope 
> we can take advantage of this opportunity.
> Best,
> Ed
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151012/7670bb2b/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Oct 12 19:19:24 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:24 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <561BC19F.7050807@yorku.ca>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
	<561BC19F.7050807@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <20151012161923.GA12645@roller.tarvainen.info>

Agreed. I very much believe in following due process,
Sam's got it exactly right.
And getting this kind of thing done in cooperation
with the BC is really something.

Great work, Ed!

Tapani

On Oct 12 10:20, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote:

> I am in support of this.
> 
> /Issue: The BC and NCSG believe that all members of the ICANN community are
> materially and adversely affected whenever ICANN staff seeks to impose de
> facto Consensus Policy in a top-down manner that is inconsistent with the
> Bylaws./
> 
> Even if we were to agree with the position taken, we have to get there
> through due process or procedures will mean nothing.
> 
> 
> Sam
> On 12/10/2015 8:53 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> >Hi guys,
> >I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been working
> >on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and the like but
> >substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to submit. As the
> >deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval is requested.
> >The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy gTLD's
> >through newel agreements. This is de facto development of consensus policy
> >through contract by staff rather than through a properly constituted pop.
> >As we've previously discussed on list this needs to be opposed if the GNSO
> >hopes to maintain its current role.
> >We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the substantive
> >issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy to have the new
> >RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that traditionally has not been our
> >position. It's been a bit of a challenge to get language acceptable to
> >both in this regard as Phil head some specific instructions but hopefully
> >we've done do.
> >I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see how /
> >if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is tomorrow so
> >this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG member to oppose ip
> >expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope we can take advantage of
> >this opportunity.
> >Best,
> >Ed
> >



From aelsadr  Mon Oct 12 20:49:30 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:49:30 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
Message-ID: <8F8A8CC5-1991-4F6B-B57A-BD90ED86B770@egyptig.org>

Hi Ed,

Thank you so much for following up on this issue ever since the public comment periods on the RA renewals. I will not object to NCSG being one of the submitters of this RR, however, I am a little puzzled. This RR seems less to me like an objection on bypassing due process provided by the the GNSO?s PDP (and also required by ICANN?s bylaws), and more like a request to ICANN to disclose correspondence with the registries to ensure that the inclusion of of the RPMs during RA renewals was a result of ?even-handed bilateral negotiations?. Am I reading this incorrectly?

I also want to point something out regarding some of the references to the principles in the Policy and Implementation (P&I) WG final report made on page 4 of the draft RR. These principles were part of the P&I WG final report and recommendations, which the GNSO Council adopted. The ICANN board, however, did not adopt the principles recommended by the WG. It only approved the creation of the new processes that the WG came up with. In the absence of these principles, the new processes are not going to serve their truly intended purposes. Furthermore, regardless of the new processes, these principles are very relevant to the traditional PDP, and would be a great point to make in this RR, had they actually been adopted. Not sure if this changes anything, but thought I should point it out.

Thanks again for the work you?ve done on this RR, and generally on this topic over the past few months.

Amr

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi guys,
>  
>  
> I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been working on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and the like but substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to submit. As the deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval is requested.
>  
> The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy gTLD's through newel agreements. This is de facto development of consensus policy through contract by staff rather than through a properly constituted pop. As we've previously discussed on list this needs to be opposed if the GNSO hopes to maintain its current role.
>  
> We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the substantive issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy to have the new RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that traditionally has not been our position. It's been a bit of a challenge to get language acceptable to both in this regard as Phil head some specific instructions but hopefully we've done do.
>  
> I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see how / if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is tomorrow so this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG member to oppose ip expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope we can take advantage of this opportunity.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Ed
> <PCSubRR.docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Mon Oct 12 22:48:34 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:48:34 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
Message-ID: <561C0E92.6070501@acm.org>

Hi,

Confused, it looks like it is just from Rafik in terms of the submission.

I thought i twas being submitted jointly.

avri

On 12-Oct-15 08:53, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi guys,
>  
>  
> I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been
> working on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and
> the like but substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to
> submit. As the deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval
> is requested.
>  
> The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy
> gTLD's through newel agreements. This is de facto development of
> consensus policy through contract by staff rather than through a
> properly constituted pop. As we've previously discussed on list
> this needs to be opposed if the GNSO hopes to maintain its current role.
>  
> We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the
> substantive issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy
> to have the new RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that
> traditionally has not been our position. It's been a bit of a
> challenge to get language acceptable to both in this regard as Phil
> head some specific instructions but hopefully we've done do.
>  
> I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see
> how / if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is
> tomorrow so this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG
> member to oppose ip expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope
> we can take advantage of this opportunity.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From rafik.dammak  Tue Oct 13 03:57:19 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:57:19 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] meeting with registrars SG Tuesday 20th Oct
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkqV_X8C2ZHBEKgF1Xor1=ZxdOD7qojQNhtSVEztRLG=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

we will have a meeting with registrars stakeholder group in Dublin. the
meeting will be in room Liffey Hall at 17:00 local time. it will be a good
opportunity to discuss on some topics of common interest.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151013/7afeb2dd/attachment.html>


From kathy  Tue Oct 13 04:33:16 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:33:16 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <20151012161923.GA12645@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
	<561BC19F.7050807@yorku.ca>
	<20151012161923.GA12645@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <561C5F5C.7040507@kathykleiman.com>

Tx to Ed and Phil!    +1 to Sam, Tapani comments.
Good luck and let's please file on time (as recon requests are dismissed 
for being late).
Best,
Kathy

On 10/12/2015 12:19 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Agreed. I very much believe in following due process,
> Sam's got it exactly right.
> And getting this kind of thing done in cooperation
> with the BC is really something.
>
> Great work, Ed!
>
> Tapani
>
> On Oct 12 10:20, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote:
>
>> I am in support of this.
>>
>> /Issue: The BC and NCSG believe that all members of the ICANN community are
>> materially and adversely affected whenever ICANN staff seeks to impose de
>> facto Consensus Policy in a top-down manner that is inconsistent with the
>> Bylaws./
>>
>> Even if we were to agree with the position taken, we have to get there
>> through due process or procedures will mean nothing.
>>
>>
>> Sam
>> On 12/10/2015 8:53 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>> I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been working
>>> on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and the like but
>>> substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to submit. As the
>>> deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval is requested.
>>> The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy gTLD's
>>> through newel agreements. This is de facto development of consensus policy
>>> through contract by staff rather than through a properly constituted pop.
>>> As we've previously discussed on list this needs to be opposed if the GNSO
>>> hopes to maintain its current role.
>>> We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the substantive
>>> issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy to have the new
>>> RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that traditionally has not been our
>>> position. It's been a bit of a challenge to get language acceptable to
>>> both in this regard as Phil head some specific instructions but hopefully
>>> we've done do.
>>> I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see how /
>>> if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is tomorrow so
>>> this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG member to oppose ip
>>> expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope we can take advantage of
>>> this opportunity.
>>> Best,
>>> Ed
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From rafik.dammak  Tue Oct 13 06:52:47 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:52:47 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <561C0E92.6070501@acm.org>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
	<561C0E92.6070501@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkuA2=3Hk+HKqEp4tmZCKvDjAtFXV-unOFsBrA1CQ0dmA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

I think Phil didn't put his name yet but he should do. he only put his
contact info.

Rafik

2015-10-13 4:48 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Confused, it looks like it is just from Rafik in terms of the submission.
>
> I thought i twas being submitted jointly.
>
> avri
>
> On 12-Oct-15 08:53, Edward Morris wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> >
> > I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been
> > working on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and
> > the like but substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to
> > submit. As the deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval
> > is requested.
> >
> > The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy
> > gTLD's through newel agreements. This is de facto development of
> > consensus policy through contract by staff rather than through a
> > properly constituted pop. As we've previously discussed on list
> > this needs to be opposed if the GNSO hopes to maintain its current role.
> >
> > We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the
> > substantive issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy
> > to have the new RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that
> > traditionally has not been our position. It's been a bit of a
> > challenge to get language acceptable to both in this regard as Phil
> > head some specific instructions but hopefully we've done do.
> >
> > I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see
> > how / if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is
> > tomorrow so this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG
> > member to oppose ip expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope
> > we can take advantage of this opportunity.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151013/5ed1b638/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Tue Oct 13 11:36:06 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:36:06 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkuA2=3Hk+HKqEp4tmZCKvDjAtFXV-unOFsBrA1CQ0dmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
	<561C0E92.6070501@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThkuA2=3Hk+HKqEp4tmZCKvDjAtFXV-unOFsBrA1CQ0dmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A1EEF9DA-A233-4873-9DA7-72D880D125B2@toast.net>

Hi,

The BC is still evaluating this internally for approval. Once granted, I believe that Steve DelBianco will be listed as the BC requestor.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:53 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> I think Phil didn't put his name yet but he should do. he only put his contact info.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-10-13 4:48 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Confused, it looks like it is just from Rafik in terms of the submission.
>> 
>> I thought i twas being submitted jointly.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 12-Oct-15 08:53, Edward Morris wrote:
>> > Hi guys,
>> >
>> >
>> > I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been
>> > working on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and
>> > the like but substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to
>> > submit. As the deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval
>> > is requested.
>> >
>> > The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy
>> > gTLD's through newel agreements. This is de facto development of
>> > consensus policy through contract by staff rather than through a
>> > properly constituted pop. As we've previously discussed on list
>> > this needs to be opposed if the GNSO hopes to maintain its current role.
>> >
>> > We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the
>> > substantive issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy
>> > to have the new RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that
>> > traditionally has not been our position. It's been a bit of a
>> > challenge to get language acceptable to both in this regard as Phil
>> > head some specific instructions but hopefully we've done do.
>> >
>> > I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see
>> > how / if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is
>> > tomorrow so this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG
>> > member to oppose ip expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope
>> > we can take advantage of this opportunity.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Ed
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151013/2dbc4c06/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Oct 13 14:08:23 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:08:23 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <A1EEF9DA-A233-4873-9DA7-72D880D125B2@toast.net>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
	<561C0E92.6070501@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThkuA2=3Hk+HKqEp4tmZCKvDjAtFXV-unOFsBrA1CQ0dmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A1EEF9DA-A233-4873-9DA7-72D880D125B2@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkHoypqpNzFzSq4h2=M48_SLYULSy=mL2a0Q5b5vThtfA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

less than 3 hours ( to be exact 2h52min) to hear any objection, after that
Ed can confirm with Phil and Steve, and submit the RR

Best,

Rafik

2015-10-13 17:36 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi,
>
> The BC is still evaluating this internally for approval. Once granted, I
> believe that Steve DelBianco will be listed as the BC requestor.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:53 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> I think Phil didn't put his name yet but he should do. he only put his
> contact info.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-13 4:48 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Confused, it looks like it is just from Rafik in terms of the submission.
>>
>> I thought i twas being submitted jointly.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 12-Oct-15 08:53, Edward Morris wrote:
>> > Hi guys,
>> >
>> >
>> > I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been
>> > working on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and
>> > the like but substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to
>> > submit. As the deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval
>> > is requested.
>> >
>> > The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy
>> > gTLD's through newel agreements. This is de facto development of
>> > consensus policy through contract by staff rather than through a
>> > properly constituted pop. As we've previously discussed on list
>> > this needs to be opposed if the GNSO hopes to maintain its current role.
>> >
>> > We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the
>> > substantive issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy
>> > to have the new RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that
>> > traditionally has not been our position. It's been a bit of a
>> > challenge to get language acceptable to both in this regard as Phil
>> > head some specific instructions but hopefully we've done do.
>> >
>> > I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see
>> > how / if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is
>> > tomorrow so this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG
>> > member to oppose ip expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope
>> > we can take advantage of this opportunity.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Ed
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151013/f9f96f94/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Oct 13 18:20:04 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:20:04 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkHoypqpNzFzSq4h2=M48_SLYULSy=mL2a0Q5b5vThtfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
	<561C0E92.6070501@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThkuA2=3Hk+HKqEp4tmZCKvDjAtFXV-unOFsBrA1CQ0dmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A1EEF9DA-A233-4873-9DA7-72D880D125B2@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThkHoypqpNzFzSq4h2=M48_SLYULSy=mL2a0Q5b5vThtfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <561D2124.5090208@acm.org>

Hi,

I have no objection as long as it is submitted jointly, with both names
listed.

avri


On 13-Oct-15 07:08, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> less than 3 hours ( to be exact 2h52min) to hear any objection, after
> that Ed can confirm with Phil and Steve, and submit the RR
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-13 17:36 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     The BC is still evaluating this internally for approval. Once
>     granted, I believe that Steve DelBianco will be listed as the BC
>     requestor.
>
>     Ed
>
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
>     On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:53 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>     Hi Avri,
>>
>>     I think Phil didn't put his name yet but he should do. he only
>>     put his contact info.
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     2015-10-13 4:48 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         Confused, it looks like it is just from Rafik in terms of the
>>         submission.
>>
>>         I thought i twas being submitted jointly.
>>
>>         avri
>>
>>         On 12-Oct-15 08:53, Edward Morris wrote:
>>         > Hi guys,
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request
>>         I've been
>>         > working on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in
>>         grammar and
>>         > the like but substantially this is likely to be what we'd
>>         hope to
>>         > submit. As the deadline for submission is tomorrow comments
>>         / approval
>>         > is requested.
>>         >
>>         > The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on
>>         legacy
>>         > gTLD's through newel agreements. This is de facto
>>         development of
>>         > consensus policy through contract by staff rather than
>>         through a
>>         > properly constituted pop. As we've previously discussed on list
>>         > this needs to be opposed if the GNSO hopes to maintain its
>>         current role.
>>         >
>>         > We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the
>>         > substantive issue involved here; that is, the BC would be
>>         very happy
>>         > to have the new RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that
>>         > traditionally has not been our position. It's been a bit of a
>>         > challenge to get language acceptable to both in this regard
>>         as Phil
>>         > head some specific instructions but hopefully we've done do.
>>         >
>>         > I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head
>>         honcho to see
>>         > how / if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission
>>         deadline is
>>         > tomorrow so this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get
>>         a CSG
>>         > member to oppose ip expansion, even on a procedural basis,
>>         so I hope
>>         > we can take advantage of this opportunity.
>>         >
>>         > Best,
>>         >
>>         > Ed
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > _______________________________________________
>>         > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>         > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>         ---
>>         This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>         software.
>>         https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From Lanfran  Tue Oct 13 19:08:58 2015
From: Lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:08:58 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration
In-Reply-To: <561D2124.5090208@acm.org>
References: <33570ff1c4fc4364a4385ec9dde535e9@toast.net>
	<561C0E92.6070501@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThkuA2=3Hk+HKqEp4tmZCKvDjAtFXV-unOFsBrA1CQ0dmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A1EEF9DA-A233-4873-9DA7-72D880D125B2@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThkHoypqpNzFzSq4h2=M48_SLYULSy=mL2a0Q5b5vThtfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<561D2124.5090208@acm.org>
Message-ID: <1444752538.561d2c9a68c0b@oldmymail.yorku.ca>

I am on board in my individual capacity as a member of the SG.

Sam

Quoting Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I have no objection as long as it is submitted jointly, with both
> names
> listed.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 13-Oct-15 07:08, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > less than 3 hours ( to be exact 2h52min) to hear any objection,
> after
> > that Ed can confirm with Phil and Steve, and submit the RR
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2015-10-13 17:36 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
> > <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     The BC is still evaluating this internally for approval. Once
> >     granted, I believe that Steve DelBianco will be listed as the
> BC
> >     requestor.
> >
> >     Ed
> >
> >     Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >     On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:53 AM, Rafik Dammak
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >>     Hi Avri,
> >>
> >>     I think Phil didn't put his name yet but he should do. he
> only
> >>     put his contact info.
> >>
> >>     Rafik
> >>
> >>     2015-10-13 4:48 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> >>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
> >>
> >>         Hi,
> >>
> >>         Confused, it looks like it is just from Rafik in terms
> of the
> >>         submission.
> >>
> >>         I thought i twas being submitted jointly.
> >>
> >>         avri
> >>
> >>         On 12-Oct-15 08:53, Edward Morris wrote:
> >>         > Hi guys,
> >>         >
> >>         >
> >>         > I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration
> Request
> >>         I've been
> >>         > working on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes
> in
> >>         grammar and
> >>         > the like but substantially this is likely to be what
> we'd
> >>         hope to
> >>         > submit. As the deadline for submission is tomorrow
> comments
> >>         / approval
> >>         > is requested.
> >>         >
> >>         > The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD
> RPM's on
> >>         legacy
> >>         > gTLD's through newel agreements. This is de facto
> >>         development of
> >>         > consensus policy through contract by staff rather than
> >>         through a
> >>         > properly constituted pop. As we've previously
> discussed on list
> >>         > this needs to be opposed if the GNSO hopes to maintain
> its
> >>         current role.
> >>         >
> >>         > We and the BC certainly do not share common positions
> on the
> >>         > substantive issue involved here; that is, the BC would
> be
> >>         very happy
> >>         > to have the new RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while
> that
> >>         > traditionally has not been our position. It's been a
> bit of a
> >>         > challenge to get language acceptable to both in this
> regard
> >>         as Phil
> >>         > head some specific instructions but hopefully we've
> done do.
> >>         >
> >>         > I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head
> >>         honcho to see
> >>         > how / if we can sign off on this. Again, the
> submission
> >>         deadline is
> >>         > tomorrow so this needs to get done pronto. It's rare
> to get
> >>         a CSG
> >>         > member to oppose ip expansion, even on a procedural
> basis,
> >>         so I hope
> >>         > we can take advantage of this opportunity.
> >>         >
> >>         > Best,
> >>         >
> >>         > Ed
> >>         >
> >>         >
> >>         > _______________________________________________
> >>         > PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>         > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>         > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >>
> >>         ---
> >>         This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
> antivirus
> >>         software.
> >>         https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>
> >>
> >>         _______________________________________________
> >>         PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> ---
> 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
>


----------------------------------------------
"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: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852



From egmorris1  Wed Oct 14 17:45:54 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:45:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reconsideration Update
Message-ID: <7d2d6d5d93a04ccca9317a1e4f46326c@toast.net>

Hi everybody,
  
  
  I wanted to let everyone know that the URS related  Reconsideration 
Request was submitted last night. It can be found here: 
  
 
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-19-icann-business-c
onstituency-ncsg-2015-10-13-en
  
 I want to thank everyone for your help and support on this, both in Buenos 
Aires with the public comments and on this Reconsideration Request itself. 
I recognise the submitted Reconsideration Request is rather long, the 
inevitable result of having Phil and I do something like this, and  is a 
result of a lot of compromise and a lot of back and forth. Amr was 
certainly correct in pointing out several of the defects of the Request: it 
would be a much different document if we had done one independently. 
Nevertheless, I do believe we are going to force the Board to respond to 
these core concerns:
  
 1. That staff usurped the GNSO policy development process n the .CAT, 
.TRAVEL and.PRO renewals,
  
 2. That the Board let them do so without even admonishing staff for using 
the new RPM's as the starting point for contractual negotiations on 
renewals of legacy gTLD's, and
  
 3. That the Board was derelict in not investigating whether the renewal 
contracts were truly the result of even handed bilateral negotiations.
  
 I should note that some of what appears to be diversions within the 
Request actually represent some positioning we had to do so that: 1. both 
groups had standing to file the Request and 2. the Request met other 
qualifications for consideration. The Board will only reconsider it's 
decision under certain specified conditions. You can't simply ask them to 
think again about what they did, despite the mechanisms name. We shouldn't 
have any problem getting this accepted.
  
 I want to thank both Phil Corwin and Steve DelBianco of the BC for their 
professionalism and fine work in this matter. There were things  in this 
Request their members were not comfortable with or happy about. We tried to 
work together to address some of those concerns but in some cases we 
weren't able to find an answer, and to their credit Phil and Steve did not 
lose sight of why we were doing this together. A RR filed by the commercial 
and noncommercial communities together is far more powerful than separate 
RR's done by each group.  When we can work with other groups without 
sacrificing our core principles and beliefs I do believe it's in our 
interest and  in the interest of our members to do so. Indeed, the industry 
press seems a bit bemused by our joint filing:
  
 
http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-le
gacy-gtld-contracts
  
 Safe travels to all heading for Dublin.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed
  

  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151014/3234275a/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Fri Oct 16 23:56:27 2015
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:56:27 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Excom & Board & Wrap Up Session
Message-ID: <89eac54ebe364ce0a75e93dd0cf1b628@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for NCSG Excom & Board & Wrap Up Session at ICANN54 Dublin.


Local Time: 07:30-09:30 IST (06:30-08:30 UTC)
Date: 22 Oct 2015
Room: Ecocem
Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/
Password: NCSG EXCOM


Dial in numbers:
Country         Toll Numbers    Freephone/
Toll Free Number


ARGENTINA                       0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA       ADELAIDE:       61-8-8121-4842  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       BRISBANE:       61-7-3102-0944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       CANBERRA:       61-2-6100-1944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       MELBOURNE:      61-3-9010-7713  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       PERTH:  61-8-9467-5223  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       SYDNEY:         61-2-8205-8129  1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA                 43-1-92-81-113  0800-005-259
BELGIUM                 32-2-400-9861   0800-3-8795
BRAZIL          55-11-3958-0779         0800-7610651
CHILE                   1230-020-2863
CHINA   CHINA A:        86-400-810-4789         10800-712-1670
CHINA   CHINA B:        86-400-810-4789         10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                        01800-9-156474
CROATIA                         080-08-06-309
CZECH REPUBLIC          420-2-25-98-56-64       800-700-177
DENMARK                 45-7014-0284    8088-8324
ESTONIA                         800-011-1093
FINLAND                 358-9-5424-7162         0-800-9-14610
FRANCE  LYON:   33-4-26-69-12-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  MARSEILLE:      33-4-86-06-00-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  PARIS:  33-1-70-70-60-72        080-511-1496
GERMANY                 49-69-2222-20362        0800-664-4247
GREECE          30-80-1-100-0687        00800-12-7312
HONG KONG               852-3001-3863   800-962-856
HUNGARY                 36-1-700-8856   06-800-12755
INDIA   BANGALORE:      91-80-61275204
INDIA   MUMBAI:         91-22-61501629
INDIA   INDIA A:                000-800-852-1268
INDIA   INDIA B:                000-800-001-6305
INDIA   INDIA C:                1800-300-00491
INDONESIA                       001-803-011-3982
IRELAND                 353-1-246-7646  1800-992-368
ISRAEL                  1-80-9216162
ITALY   MILAN:  39-02-3600-6007         800-986-383
ITALY   ROME:   39-06-8751-6018         800-986-383
ITALY   TORINO:         39-011-510-0118         800-986-383
JAPAN   OSAKA:  81-6-7878-2631  0066-33-132439
JAPAN   TOKYO:  81-3-6868-2631  0066-33-132439
LATVIA                  8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG              352-27-000-1364         8002-9246
MALAYSIA                        1-800-81-3065
MEXICO  GUADALAJARA (JAL):      52-33-3208-7310         001-866-376-9696
MEXICO  MEXICO CITY:    52-55-5062-9110         001-866-376-9696
MEXICO  MONTERREY:      52-81-2482-0610         001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS             31-20-718-8588  0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND             64-9-970-4771   0800-447-722
NORWAY          47-21-590-062   800-15157
PANAMA                  011-001-800-5072065
PERU                    0800-53713
PHILIPPINES             63-2-858-3716   1800-111-42453
POLAND                  00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                        8008-14052
ROMANIA                 40-31-630-01-79
RUSSIA                  8-10-8002-0144011
SAUDI ARABIA                    800-8-110087
SINGAPORE               65-6883-9230    800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC                 421-2-322-422-25        0800-002066
SOUTH AFRICA                    080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA             82-2-6744-1083  00798-14800-7352
SPAIN           34-91-414-25-33         800-300-053
SWEDEN          46-8-566-19-348         0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND             41-44-580-6398  0800-120-032
TAIWAN          886-2-2795-7379         00801-137-797
THAILAND                        001-800-1206-66056
TURKEY                  00-800-151-0516
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES                    8000-35702370
UNITED KINGDOM  BIRMINGHAM:     44-121-210-9025         0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  GLASGOW:        44-141-202-3225         0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LEEDS:  44-113-301-2125         0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LONDON:         44-20-7108-6370         0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  MANCHESTER:     44-161-601-1425         0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                         000-413-598-3421
USA             1-517-345-9004  866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                       0800-1-00-3702

Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.
Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151016/ff103bf1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6302 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151016/ff103bf1/attachment-0001.ics>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Oct 18 13:09:49 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:09:49 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [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: <8d24c3708d54424b8b2ef736889627c5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <8d24c3708d54424b8b2ef736889627c5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThne7goXD=vdXNytHjMq4xpnWvp47Xrer-d7_4Pv68QHAg@mail.gmail.com>

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 <charla.shambley at icann.org>
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" <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 <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
<https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-aoc-org-reviews> 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 <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/d32d1039/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Oct 18 13:38:35 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:38:35 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - Sunday,
	October 18th 2015
Message-ID: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a separate email.

This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:

1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on Wednesday, October 21st (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).

There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:

A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes)
This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received. Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
Discussion
Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)

B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
Discussion
Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:

A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
B. Human rights
C. Public Interest

Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the meeting later today.

Thanks.

Amr


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Oct 18 13:42:03 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 06:42:03 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - Sunday,
 October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5623777B.8020701@mail.utoronto.ca>

We may want to consider the unexpected opportunity to weigh in on Safe 
Harbour replacement.
SP

On 2015-10-18 6:38, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a separate email.
>
> This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
>
> 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on Wednesday, October 21st (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).
>
> There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
>
> A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes)
> This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received. Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
> Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
> Discussion
> Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
>
> B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
> In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
> Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
> Discussion
> Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
>
> 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
>
> A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
> B. Human rights
> C. Public Interest
>
> Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the meeting later today.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg





From aelsadr  Sun Oct 18 13:44:37 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:44:37 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
	Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in today?s Policy Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO Councillor from the Registrar Stakeholder Group will be visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO Council Chair position.

His statement of interest can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a separate email.
> 
> This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
> 
> 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on Wednesday, October 21st (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).
> 
> There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
> 
> A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes)
> This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received. Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
> Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
> Discussion
> Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
> 
> B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
> In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
> Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
> Discussion
> Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
> 
> 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
> 
> A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
> B. Human rights
> C. Public Interest
> 
> Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the meeting later today.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr




From stephanie.perrin  Sun Oct 18 13:51:30 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 06:51:30 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
 Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>

Should we invite Heather in order to be fair? or perhaps both to the 
party?  I realize she had a call but face to face is better.
SP


On 2015-10-18 6:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in today?s Policy Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO Councillor from the Registrar Stakeholder Group will be visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO Council Chair position.
>
> His statement of interest can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a separate email.
>>
>> This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
>>
>> 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on Wednesday, October 21st (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).
>>
>> There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
>>
>> A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes)
>> This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received. Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
>> Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
>> Discussion
>> Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
>>
>> B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
>> In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
>> Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
>> Discussion
>> Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
>>
>> 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
>>
>> A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
>> B. Human rights
>> C. Public Interest
>>
>> Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the meeting later today.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg





From rafik.dammak  Sun Oct 18 13:58:39 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:58:39 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
 Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
	<562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>

hi Stephanie,

we are getting James to be fair here, Heather had already a chance to talk
to us.

Best,

Rafik

2015-10-18 19:51 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

> Should we invite Heather in order to be fair? or perhaps both to the
> party?  I realize she had a call but face to face is better.
> SP
>
>
>
> On 2015-10-18 6:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in today?s Policy
>> Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO Councillor from the Registrar
>> Stakeholder Group will be visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO
>> Council Chair position.
>>
>> His statement of interest can be found here:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local
>>> time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a
>>> separate email.
>>>
>>> This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
>>>
>>> 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on
>>> Wednesday, October 21st (
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015
>>> ).
>>>
>>> There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
>>>
>>> A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making
>>> Working Group (15 minutes)
>>> This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to
>>> explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or
>>> appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based
>>> policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report
>>> for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO
>>> Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received.
>>> Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether
>>> or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
>>> Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
>>> Discussion
>>> Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
>>>
>>> B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services
>>> (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
>>> In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the
>>> purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on
>>> solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part
>>> of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently,
>>> the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of
>>> collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and
>>> to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD
>>> policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the
>>> Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published
>>> its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council
>>> members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the
>>> PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the
>>> Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report
>>> taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to
>>> the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see
>>> http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf).
>>> Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the
>>> charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated
>>> PDP.
>>> Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
>>> Discussion
>>> Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third
>>> (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
>>>
>>> 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
>>>
>>> A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
>>> B. Human rights
>>> C. Public Interest
>>>
>>> Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the
>>> meeting later today.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/eb48b67c/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sun Oct 18 14:02:05 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:02:05 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
 Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
	<562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK180fD_bjTGUZZREL1N77ZFTAxWtjn543XiPpNmtuKprA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rafik and all,
I agree with Stephanie about the fairness of giving both a chance of a F2F.
However, if this not possible, maybe it would be useful to have the
transcripts of the call with Heather posted here.
Best!
Mar?lia

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
wrote:

> hi Stephanie,
>
> we are getting James to be fair here, Heather had already a chance to talk
> to us.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-18 19:51 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>
>> Should we invite Heather in order to be fair? or perhaps both to the
>> party?  I realize she had a call but face to face is better.
>> SP
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015-10-18 6:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in today?s
>>> Policy Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO Councillor from the Registrar
>>> Stakeholder Group will be visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO
>>> Council Chair position.
>>>
>>> His statement of interest can be found here:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30
>>>> local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in
>>>> a separate email.
>>>>
>>>> This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on
>>>> Wednesday, October 21st (
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015
>>>> ).
>>>>
>>>> There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
>>>>
>>>> A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making
>>>> Working Group (15 minutes)
>>>> This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to
>>>> explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or
>>>> appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based
>>>> policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report
>>>> for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO
>>>> Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received.
>>>> Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether
>>>> or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
>>>> Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
>>>> Discussion
>>>> Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
>>>>
>>>> B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services
>>>> (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
>>>> In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the
>>>> purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on
>>>> solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part
>>>> of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently,
>>>> the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of
>>>> collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and
>>>> to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD
>>>> policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the
>>>> Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published
>>>> its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council
>>>> members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the
>>>> PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the
>>>> Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report
>>>> taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to
>>>> the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see
>>>> http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf).
>>>> Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the
>>>> charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated
>>>> PDP.
>>>> Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
>>>> Discussion
>>>> Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third
>>>> (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
>>>>
>>>> A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
>>>> B. Human rights
>>>> C. Public Interest
>>>>
>>>> Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the
>>>> meeting later today.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


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

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/4c96bd91/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Oct 18 14:02:33 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 07:02:33 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
 Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
	<562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56237C49.60601@mail.utoronto.ca>

Yes and I had forgotten they have the session now, so anyone wanting to 
meet her could show up or watch.  Just want to be fair.
SP


On 2015-10-18 6:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> hi Stephanie,
>
> we are getting James to be fair here, Heather had already a chance to 
> talk to us.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-18 19:51 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>
>     Should we invite Heather in order to be fair? or perhaps both to
>     the party?  I realize she had a call but face to face is better.
>     SP
>
>
>
>     On 2015-10-18 6:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>         Hi again,
>
>         Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in
>         today?s Policy Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO
>         Councillor from the Registrar Stakeholder Group will be
>         visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO Council
>         Chair position.
>
>         His statement of interest can be found here:
>         https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI
>
>         Thanks again.
>
>         Amr
>
>             On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr
>             <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
>             Hi,
>
>             The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today
>             at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote
>             participation details in a separate email.
>
>             This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
>
>             1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public
>             meeting on Wednesday, October 21st
>             (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).
>
>             There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
>
>             A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for
>             Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes)
>             This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in
>             January 2014 to explore the development of reporting and
>             metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized
>             methodologies that can better inform fact-based policy
>             development and decision making. The WG published its
>             Initial Report for public comment on 29 May 2015, and
>             submitted a Final Report to the GNSO Council on 9 October
>             that took into account the public comments received. Here
>             the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and
>             vote on whether or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
>             Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
>             Discussion
>             Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
>
>             B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory
>             Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
>             In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report
>             on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD
>             registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy
>             and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a
>             Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP).
>             Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new
>             effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining
>             and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to
>             consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation
>             for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as
>             appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group
>             convened as a result of the Board resolution published its
>             Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and
>             GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process
>             Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an
>             updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the
>             Board?s request for public comment, following which a
>             Final Issue Report taking into account public comments
>             received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on
>             7 October 2015 (see
>             http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf).
>             Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and
>             vote to approve the charter for the Working Group to be
>             formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
>             Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
>             Discussion
>             Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than
>             one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds
>             (2/3) of one House)
>
>             2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
>
>             A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
>             B. Human rights
>             C. Public Interest
>
>             Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or
>             during the meeting later today.
>
>             Thanks.
>
>             Amr
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/de967d9b/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sun Oct 18 14:06:34 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:06:34 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
 Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <56237C49.60601@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
	<562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56237C49.60601@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0dHODymgg1YOARR07O_Vd=SoSqaJ+3W5oR5ZVD=40NbQ@mail.gmail.com>

I do not mind, as long as we repost the transcripts of our call to refresh
our memories. However, it is different when you address a specific
constituency and or the whole council.
Best
M

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Yes and I had forgotten they have the session now, so anyone wanting to
> meet her could show up or watch.  Just want to be fair.
> SP
>
>
>
> On 2015-10-18 6:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> hi Stephanie,
>
> we are getting James to be fair here, Heather had already a chance to talk
> to us.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-18 19:51 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>
>> Should we invite Heather in order to be fair? or perhaps both to the
>> party?  I realize she had a call but face to face is better.
>> SP
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015-10-18 6:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in today?s
>>> Policy Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO Councillor from the Registrar
>>> Stakeholder Group will be visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO
>>> Council Chair position.
>>>
>>> His statement of interest can be found here:
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI>
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr < <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>> aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30
>>>> local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in
>>>> a separate email.
>>>>
>>>> This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on
>>>> Wednesday, October 21st (
>>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015>
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015
>>>> ).
>>>>
>>>> There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
>>>>
>>>> A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making
>>>> Working Group (15 minutes)
>>>> This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to
>>>> explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or
>>>> appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based
>>>> policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report
>>>> for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO
>>>> Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received.
>>>> Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether
>>>> or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
>>>> Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
>>>> Discussion
>>>> Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
>>>>
>>>> B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services
>>>> (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
>>>> In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the
>>>> purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on
>>>> solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part
>>>> of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently,
>>>> the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of
>>>> collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and
>>>> to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD
>>>> policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the
>>>> Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published
>>>> its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council
>>>> members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the
>>>> PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the
>>>> Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report
>>>> taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to
>>>> the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see
>>>> http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf).
>>>> Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the
>>>> charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated
>>>> PDP.
>>>> Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
>>>> Discussion
>>>> Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third
>>>> (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
>>>>
>>>> A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
>>>> B. Human rights
>>>> C. Public Interest
>>>>
>>>> Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the
>>>> meeting later today.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


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

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/95c24d23/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Sun Oct 18 14:06:58 2015
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:06:58 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
 Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK180fD_bjTGUZZREL1N77ZFTAxWtjn543XiPpNmtuKprA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
	<562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK180fD_bjTGUZZREL1N77ZFTAxWtjn543XiPpNmtuKprA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D2493B6F.12FE9%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>

Hi Marilia,

Please find the Transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414446/transcript_ncphGNSOinterview.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1443087987000&api=v2> to Heather?s call with the NCSG.

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email:  maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann

From: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> on behalf of Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com<mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, 18 October 2015 12:02
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Cc: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015

Hi Rafik and all,
I agree with Stephanie about the fairness of giving both a chance of a F2F. However, if this not possible, maybe it would be useful to have the transcripts of the call with Heather posted here.
Best!
Mar?lia

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
hi Stephanie,

we are getting James to be fair here, Heather had already a chance to talk to us.

Best,

Rafik

2015-10-18 19:51 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
Should we invite Heather in order to be fair? or perhaps both to the party?  I realize she had a call but face to face is better.
SP



On 2015-10-18 6:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
Hi again,

Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in today?s Policy Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO Councillor from the Registrar Stakeholder Group will be visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO Council Chair position.

His statement of interest can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI

Thanks again.

Amr

On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:

Hi,

The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a separate email.

This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:

1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on Wednesday, October 21st (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).

There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:

A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes)
This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received. Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
Discussion
Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)

B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
Discussion
Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:

A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
B. Human rights
C. Public Interest

Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the meeting later today.

Thanks.

Amr

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



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


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




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

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu<http://www.diplomacy.edu>
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/86f6579e/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Oct 18 14:06:58 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:06:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
	Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
	<562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <92B3717B-6F4E-425E-86B6-E609C09FDFB8@egyptig.org>

Agree with Rafik. And apart from being fair, is there anything more we need to hear from or ask Heather? I also don?t think it?d be fair to her to invite her at such a last minute notice.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> hi Stephanie,
> 
> we are getting James to be fair here, Heather had already a chance to talk to us.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-10-18 19:51 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
> Should we invite Heather in order to be fair? or perhaps both to the party?  I realize she had a call but face to face is better.
> SP
> 
> 
> 
> On 2015-10-18 6:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in today?s Policy Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO Councillor from the Registrar Stakeholder Group will be visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO Council Chair position.
> 
> His statement of interest can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a separate email.
> 
> This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
> 
> 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on Wednesday, October 21st (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).
> 
> There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
> 
> A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes)
> This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received. Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
> Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
> Discussion
> Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
> 
> B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
> In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
> Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
> Discussion
> Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
> 
> 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
> 
> A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
> B. Human rights
> C. Public Interest
> 
> Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the meeting later today.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mariliamaciel  Sun Oct 18 14:08:05 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:08:05 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
 Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <92B3717B-6F4E-425E-86B6-E609C09FDFB8@egyptig.org>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
	<562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<92B3717B-6F4E-425E-86B6-E609C09FDFB8@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3At3fNOt5=UCf64maxypF8CvoBsL2JBpXFUwcFC-_-Qg@mail.gmail.com>

Excellent Maryam! Issue solved :)
M

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Agree with Rafik. And apart from being fair, is there anything more we
> need to hear from or ask Heather? I also don?t think it?d be fair to her to
> invite her at such a last minute notice.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > hi Stephanie,
> >
> > we are getting James to be fair here, Heather had already a chance to
> talk to us.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2015-10-18 19:51 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
> > Should we invite Heather in order to be fair? or perhaps both to the
> party?  I realize she had a call but face to face is better.
> > SP
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2015-10-18 6:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in today?s
> Policy Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO Councillor from the Registrar
> Stakeholder Group will be visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO
> Council Chair position.
> >
> > His statement of interest can be found here:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local
> time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a
> separate email.
> >
> > This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
> >
> > 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on
> Wednesday, October 21st (
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015
> ).
> >
> > There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
> >
> > A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making
> Working Group (15 minutes)
> > This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to
> explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or
> appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based
> policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report
> for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO
> Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received.
> Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether
> or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
> > Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
> > Discussion
> > Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
> >
> > B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services
> (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes)
> > In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the
> purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on
> solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part
> of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently,
> the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of
> collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and
> to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD
> policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the
> Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published
> its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council
> members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the
> PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the
> Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report
> taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to
> the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see
> http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf).
> Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the
> charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated
> PDP.
> > Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
> > Discussion
> > Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third
> (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
> >
> > 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
> >
> > A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
> > B. Human rights
> > C. Public Interest
> >
> > Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the
> meeting later today.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



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

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/43dec27a/attachment.html>


From kathy  Sun Oct 18 14:25:43 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:25:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee
 Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <D2493B6F.12FE9%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<36560170-D547-418C-8687-0D44AEDCC90C@egyptig.org>
	<562379B2.9020500@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThmcQr52+Hk0uBDbVn_NUqesYmqD+tws6tFFiSP1tCiLPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK180fD_bjTGUZZREL1N77ZFTAxWtjn543XiPpNmtuKprA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D2493B6F.12FE9%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
Message-ID: <562381B7.4040902@kathykleiman.com>

This is good to have...
Tx, Kathy
:
> Hi Marilia,
>
> Please find the Transcript 
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414446/transcript_ncphGNSOinterview.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1443087987000&api=v2> to 
> Heather?s call with the NCSG.
>
> Many thanks,
> -- 
>
> Maryam Bakoshi
>
> Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
> Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>
> Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
>
> Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
>
>
> From: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org 
> <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> on behalf of Marilia Maciel 
> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
> Date: Sunday, 18 October 2015 12:02
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> Cc: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda for the NCSG Policy 
> Committee Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
>
> Hi Rafik and all,
> I agree with Stephanie about the fairness of giving both a chance of a 
> F2F. However, if this not possible, maybe it would be useful to have 
> the transcripts of the call with Heather posted here.
> Best!
> Mar?lia
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     hi Stephanie,
>
>     we are getting James to be fair here, Heather had already a chance
>     to talk to us.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Rafik
>
>     2015-10-18 19:51 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>
>         Should we invite Heather in order to be fair? or perhaps both
>         to the party?  I realize she had a call but face to face is
>         better.
>         SP
>
>
>
>         On 2015-10-18 6:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>             Hi again,
>
>             Apologies. I forgot to include an important agenda item in
>             today?s Policy Committee meeting. James Bladel, GNSO
>             Councillor from the Registrar Stakeholder Group will be
>             visiting us to discuss his candidacy for the GNSO Council
>             Chair position.
>
>             His statement of interest can be found here:
>             https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI
>
>             Thanks again.
>
>             Amr
>
>                 On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Amr Elsadr
>                 <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
>                 Hi,
>
>                 The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin
>                 today at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has
>                 sent remote participation details in a separate email.
>
>                 This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
>
>                 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public
>                 meeting on Wednesday, October 21st
>                 (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).
>
>                 There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
>
>                 A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics
>                 for Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes)
>                 This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council
>                 in January 2014 to explore the development of
>                 reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate
>                 standardized methodologies that can better inform
>                 fact-based policy development and decision making. The
>                 WG published its Initial Report for public comment on
>                 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO
>                 Council on 9 October that took into account the public
>                 comments received. Here the Council will discuss the
>                 WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether or not to
>                 adopt the Final Report as submitted.
>                 Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann)
>                 Discussion
>                 Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
>
>                 B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration
>                 Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG
>                 Charter (15 minutes)
>                 In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue
>                 Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining
>                 gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve
>                 accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part
>                 of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process
>                 (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of
>                 a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting,
>                 maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration
>                 data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data,
>                 as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual
>                 negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert
>                 Working Group convened as a result of the Board
>                 resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a
>                 group comprising Board and GNSO Council members
>                 finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the
>                 work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary
>                 Issue Report was published at the Board?s request for
>                 public comment, following which a Final Issue Report
>                 taking into account public comments received was
>                 prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7
>                 October 2015 (see
>                 http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf).
>                 Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report
>                 and vote to approve the charter for the Working Group
>                 to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
>                 Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
>                 Discussion
>                 Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more
>                 than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
>                 two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
>
>                 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
>
>                 A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry
>                 B. Human rights
>                 C. Public Interest
>
>                 Suggestions for other topics may be made here,
>                 on-list, or during the meeting later today.
>
>                 Thanks.
>
>                 Amr
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law 
> School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - 
> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/262ad89c/attachment-0001.html>


From kathy  Sun Oct 18 14:42:40 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:42:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [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: <CAH5sThne7goXD=vdXNytHjMq4xpnWvp47Xrer-d7_4Pv68QHAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d24c3708d54424b8b2ef736889627c5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThne7goXD=vdXNytHjMq4xpnWvp47Xrer-d7_4Pv68QHAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <562385B0.3020508@kathykleiman.com>

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* <charla.shambley at icann.org 
> <mailto:charla.shambley at icann.org>>
> 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 <mailto:soac-infoalert at icann.org>" 
> <soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 
> <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-aoc-org-reviews> 
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/36a90c6e/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Oct 18 15:25:03 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:25:03 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] short summary of Safe Harbor for those who are interested
Message-ID: <56238F9F.6040206@mail.utoronto.ca>

The matter of Safe Harbour has come up at this meeting.  I am a fan of 
Hawktalk, Chris Pounder's blog at http://amberhawk.typepad.com/ [full 
disclosure, Chris is a colleague whom I connect with for international 
work].  Here are two short analyses of recent ECJ decisions; the first 
is the Safe Harbor case and the second is also, I would suggest, 
extremely relevant to ICANN wrt European personal data.
cheers Stephanie



    06/10/2015


      Understanding Safe Harbor, Schrems v Facebook in less than 300
      words
      <http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2015/10/understanding-safe-harbor-schrems-v-facebook-in-less-than-300-words.html>

Safe Harbor is now defunct because the European Court of Justice (ECJ) 
found the following:

(a)    There is no general privacy law or other measures enacted in the 
USA that shows the USA offers "an adequate level of protection" for 
personal data relating to European data subjects;

(b)    Public law enforcement authorities which obtain personal data 
from organisations in Safe Harbor are not obliged to follow the Safe 
Harbor rules after disclosure;

(c)    Some USA law enforcement agencies can gain access to personal 
data in Safe Harbor without having any law that legitimises their 
access; and

(d)   The European Commission knew all the above  and knew that personal 
data were being possibly used for incompatible and disproportionate 
purposes by law enforcement agencies.

If you think of Article 8(2) of the Human Rights Convention, you will 
"get" the ECJ Judgment immediately. This Article states that

/?There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise 
of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is 
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, 
public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the 
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, 
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others?/

As Snowden leaks showed, there is no law legitimising the interference 
by the National Security Agencies, so one does not know whether any 
interference on their part is necessary.

Safe Harbor is unsafe because such agencies in the USA can access 
personal data without due process, and because the USA has no law that 
limits the use of personal data by them.

Perhaps the time has come is not for a revamped Safe Harbor (as is 
promised), but for the USA to adopt a Federal Data Protection Law.

*References*

/Schrems  v Facebook: Case C 362/14 
/http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=169195&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=81678

The above will be discussed at our all day *UPDATE* session (*Oct 19th; 
London; ?225*).  Also coming up are our *Data Protection Practitioner* 
courses leading to the BCS Qualification in *Leeds* (starting October 
13th) and *Edinburgh* (starting 2nd Nov). All details on 
www.amberhawk.com <http://www.amberhawk.com/>.

Posted at 10:23 PM in Data Protection 
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/data-protection/>, News 
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/news/>, Other Information Law 
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/other-information-law/> | 
Permalink 
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2015/10/understanding-safe-harbor-schrems-v-facebook-in-less-than-300-words.html> 
| Comments (1) 
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2015/10/understanding-safe-harbor-schrems-v-facebook-in-less-than-300-words.html#comments> 



    02/10/2015


      ECJ bombshell! No fair processing notice? No processing.
      <http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2015/10/ecj-bombshell-no-fair-processing-notice-no-processing.html>

I think the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has just issued a judgement 
which has the potential to be more important than Max Schrems v Facebook 
(due on October 6 next week).

The ECJ has just concluded that Articles 10, 11 (the fair processing 
requirements of Directive 95/45/EC) and Article 13 (includes the 
exemptions from the need to provide a fair processing notice) *must* be 
interpreted as precluding national measures which allow a public 
administrative body in a Member State to disclose personal data to 
another public administrative body for their subsequent processing, 
without the data subjects being informed of that disclosure and processing.

This judgment seems to imply that if a fair processing notice does not 
describe the purpose of the processing */and/* there is no exemption 
from the fair processing obligation then a data controller should not 
process personal data for that purpose!  Certainly, Government should 
not introduce data sharing legislation and ignore the fairness 
obligations under the Act (unless there is no applicable exemption from 
the fairness obligations).  This is the position irrespective of an 
Article 7 criterion (i.e. a Schedule 2 ground in the UK Act) for the 
processing of personal data.

The Court agreed with the Advocate General that the requirement to 
inform the data subjects about the processing of their personal data is 
important since it affects the exercise by the data subjects of their 
right of access to, and right to rectify, the personal data being 
processed (in Article 12 of Directive 95/46), and their right to object 
to the processing of those data (in Article 14 of the Directive).

According to the Court, it follows that the fair processing requirements 
of personal data as laid out  in Article 6 of Directive 95/46/EC (i.e. 
the First Principle of the UK DP Act) ?/requires a public administrative 
body to inform the data subjects of the transfer of those data to 
another public administrative body for the purpose of their processing 
by the latter in its capacity as recipient of those data/?.

The Court rejected the idea that because there was a law that allows the 
disclosure, then there was no need to provide a fair processing notice. 
  The Court stated that only reason why one cannot provide a fair 
processing notice is when there is an exemption from the obligation 
consistent with the conditions laid down in Article 13 of Directive 
95/46/EC (which permits Member States to derogate from fairness 
obligations flowing from Article 10).

That is why ?/Articles 10, 11 and 13 of Directive 95/46 must be 
interpreted as precluding national measures, such as those at issue in 
the main proceedings, which allow a public administrative body of a 
Member State to transfer personal data to another public administrative 
body and their subsequent processing/, */without the data subjects 
having been informed of that transfer or processing/*? (my emphasis).

Note that this judgment can be overturned if the Council of Minister?s 
version of Article 21 of the General Data Protection Regulation 
prevails.  This allows Member State law to introduce an exemption from 
the fair processing notice with respect to ?/important objectives of 
general public interests of the Union or of a Member State/?.  As any 
government can argue that the reason for enacting /any/ /legislation/ is 
to meet ?/important objectives of general public interests?, /then the 
Article 21 exception proposed by /any/ Member State legislation can 
neuter this new ECJ Judgment.

This is the Third ECJ judgement that the Council of Minister?s version 
of the Regulation would overturn; it is yet another indication that the 
Directive 95/46/EC might offer better protection to data subjects than 
the Regulation.

*References*

Case C-201/14 /Smaranda Bara and Others v Pre?edintele Casei Na?ionale 
de Asigur?ri de S?n?tate and Others/: 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-201/14 (Sadly the English 
version of the Advocate General?s view is not available yet; I would 
really like to see what it says).

The above will be discussed at our all day *UPDATE* session (*Oct 19th; 
London; ?225*).  Also coming up are our *Data Protection Practitioner* 
courses leading to the BCS Qualification in *Leeds* (starting October 
13th) and *Edinburgh* (starting 2nd Nov). All details on 
www.amberhawk.com <http://www.amberhawk.com/>.

My analysis of Article 21, and the other exemptions promoted in the 
Council of Minister?s version of Regulation, shows that if this text 
prevails the Regulation will weaken protection for data subjects.  See 
end of 
http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2015/08/councils-exceptions-from-the-data-protection-regulation-degrade-the-privacy-protection-below-directive-9546ec.html.

The other two ECJ Judgments that are overturned by the Member State 
version of the Regulation: 
http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2015/07/council-of-ministers-regulation-text-negates-ecj-rulings-in-lindqvist-and-ryne%C5%A1.html.

Posted at 01:13 AM in Data Protection 
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/data-protection/>, News 
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/news/> | Permalink 
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2015/10/ecj-bombshell-no-fair-processing-notice-no-processing.html> 
| Comments (0) 
<http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2015/10/ecj-bombshell-no-fair-processing-notice-no-processing.html#comments> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/99731fac/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sun Oct 18 19:34:01 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:34:01 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
Message-ID: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>

Hi,

What do people think about my submitting the following with a request
for waiver of the 10 day rule?

Whereas

On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for *Cross Community
Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountabilty);

On  ***3 August -** *the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd
Draft Proposal was initiaited;

*The *CCWG-Accountabilty*  is working in a largely collegial manner to
achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;

The *CCWG-Accountabilty* has analyzed the comments received in the
review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference
implementation taking into  the concerns expressed in those comments
into account

Resolved

The GNSO supports the process that is ongoing in the CCWG-Accountability and

The GNSO re-commits itself to participating in all discussion with an
open mind to finding the best solution for ICANN

The GNSO re-commits itself to working through the process as agreed upon
in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or
opposition to possible outcomes.


avri
 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From mshears  Sun Oct 18 19:38:55 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:38:55 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
In-Reply-To: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>
References: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5623CB1F.4020701@cdt.org>

Lets consider both texts please - Avri's and James's

On 18/10/2015 17:34, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What do people think about my submitting the following with a request
> for waiver of the 10 day rule?
>
> Whereas
>
> On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for *Cross Community
> Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountabilty);
>
> On  ***3 August -** *the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd
> Draft Proposal was initiaited;
>
> *The *CCWG-Accountabilty*  is working in a largely collegial manner to
> achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;
>
> The *CCWG-Accountabilty* has analyzed the comments received in the
> review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference
> implementation taking into  the concerns expressed in those comments
> into account
>
> Resolved
>
> The GNSO supports the process that is ongoing in the CCWG-Accountability and
>
> The GNSO re-commits itself to participating in all discussion with an
> open mind to finding the best solution for ICANN
>
> The GNSO re-commits itself to working through the process as agreed upon
> in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or
> opposition to possible outcomes.
>
>
> avri
>   
>
> ---
> 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

-- 

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




From robin  Sun Oct 18 19:39:43 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:39:43 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
In-Reply-To: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>
References: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>
Message-ID: <752B61AB-6998-4D13-BD23-7B84BF1BCDE0@ipjustice.org>

Great motion, Avri!  Thank you.

Robin


On Oct 18, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> What do people think about my submitting the following with a request
> for waiver of the 10 day rule?
> 
> Whereas
> 
> On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for *Cross Community
> Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountabilty);
> 
> On  ***3 August -** *the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd
> Draft Proposal was initiaited;
> 
> *The *CCWG-Accountabilty*  is working in a largely collegial manner to
> achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;
> 
> The *CCWG-Accountabilty* has analyzed the comments received in the
> review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference
> implementation taking into  the concerns expressed in those comments
> into account
> 
> Resolved
> 
> The GNSO supports the process that is ongoing in the CCWG-Accountability and
> 
> The GNSO re-commits itself to participating in all discussion with an
> open mind to finding the best solution for ICANN
> 
> The GNSO re-commits itself to working through the process as agreed upon
> in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or
> opposition to possible outcomes.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/92951c0b/attachment.sig>


From robin  Sun Oct 18 19:40:59 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:40:59 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
In-Reply-To: <5623CB1F.4020701@cdt.org>
References: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org> <5623CB1F.4020701@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <A00D48A3-D085-46AC-B189-0524CEE52736@ipjustice.org>

Right - let's merge the best parts of both texts.

Robin

On Oct 18, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:

> Lets consider both texts please - Avri's and James's
> 
> On 18/10/2015 17:34, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> What do people think about my submitting the following with a request
>> for waiver of the 10 day rule?
>> 
>> Whereas
>> 
>> On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for *Cross Community
>> Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountabilty);
>> 
>> On  ***3 August -** *the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd
>> Draft Proposal was initiaited;
>> 
>> *The *CCWG-Accountabilty*  is working in a largely collegial manner to
>> achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;
>> 
>> The *CCWG-Accountabilty* has analyzed the comments received in the
>> review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference
>> implementation taking into  the concerns expressed in those comments
>> into account
>> 
>> Resolved
>> 
>> The GNSO supports the process that is ongoing in the CCWG-Accountability and
>> 
>> The GNSO re-commits itself to participating in all discussion with an
>> open mind to finding the best solution for ICANN
>> 
>> The GNSO re-commits itself to working through the process as agreed upon
>> in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or
>> opposition to possible outcomes.
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>>  
>> ---
>> 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
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151018/0452a6eb/attachment.sig>


From mshears  Sun Oct 18 19:48:29 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:48:29 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
In-Reply-To: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>
References: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5623CD5D.9000801@cdt.org>

Avri great text - I support

See inline

On 18/10/2015 17:34, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What do people think about my submitting the following with a request
> for waiver of the 10 day rule?
>
> Whereas
>
> On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for *Cross Community
> Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountabilty);
>
> On  ***3 August -** *the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd
> Draft Proposal was initiaited;
>
> *The *CCWG-Accountabilty*  is working in a largely collegial manner to
> achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;
>
> The *CCWG-Accountabilty* has analyzed the comments received in the
> review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference
> implementation taking into  the concerns expressed in those comments
> into account
>
> Resolved
>
> The GNSO supports the process that is ongoing in the CCWG-Accountability and
>
> The GNSO re-commits itself to participating in all discussion with an
> open mind to finding the best solution for ICANN

add "and its community" after ICANN

> The GNSO re-commits itself to working through the process as agreed upon
> in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or
> opposition to possible outcomes.
>
>
> avri
>   
>
> ---
> 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

-- 

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




From egmorris1  Sun Oct 18 20:11:02 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:11:02 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
In-Reply-To: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>
References: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>
Message-ID: <3A3C4F16-7030-448B-9D64-F971D6C96AAA@toast.net>

Fully support Avri. Great job!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 18, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> What do people think about my submitting the following with a request
> for waiver of the 10 day rule?
> 
> Whereas
> 
> On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for *Cross Community
> Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountabilty);
> 
> On  ***3 August -** *the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd
> Draft Proposal was initiaited;
> 
> *The *CCWG-Accountabilty*  is working in a largely collegial manner to
> achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;
> 
> The *CCWG-Accountabilty* has analyzed the comments received in the
> review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference
> implementation taking into  the concerns expressed in those comments
> into account
> 
> Resolved
> 
> The GNSO supports the process that is ongoing in the CCWG-Accountability and
> 
> The GNSO re-commits itself to participating in all discussion with an
> open mind to finding the best solution for ICANN
> 
> The GNSO re-commits itself to working through the process as agreed upon
> in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or
> opposition to possible outcomes.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> ---
> 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 kathy  Mon Oct 19 01:49:54 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 23:49:54 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PSWG session Monday
Message-ID: <56242212.7030500@kathykleiman.com>

Hi All,
Is anyone planing to attend the Public Safety Working Group Public 
Session tomorrow.  It's in the Main Auditorium at 3pm.

I know everyone has something - I'm was invited to be on Women of the 
Internet Panel which runs in parallel. I know Niels' Human Rights 
meeting starts at 3:30pm.

If anyone happens to be able to drop by at the start of this PSWG 
session, could you let me how it goes and the mood of the room? I would 
like to join a few folks in following this group closely...

Best,
Kathy



From joy  Mon Oct 19 10:45:58 2015
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:45:58 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
In-Reply-To: <752B61AB-6998-4D13-BD23-7B84BF1BCDE0@ipjustice.org>
References: <5623C9F9.9080909@acm.org>
	<752B61AB-6998-4D13-BD23-7B84BF1BCDE0@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <037f01d10a42$31a98e90$94fcabb0$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>

Yes - thanks Avri!

-----Original Message-----
From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin
Gross
Sent: Monday, 19 October 2015 5:40 a.m.
To: avri at acm.org
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] possible motion - would need to request 10 day
waiver.

Great motion, Avri!  Thank you.

Robin


On Oct 18, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> What do people think about my submitting the following with a request 
> for waiver of the 10 day rule?
> 
> Whereas
> 
> On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for *Cross Community 
> Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountabilty);
> 
> On  ***3 August -** *the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd 
> Draft Proposal was initiaited;
> 
> *The *CCWG-Accountabilty*  is working in a largely collegial manner to 
> achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;
> 
> The *CCWG-Accountabilty* has analyzed the comments received in the 
> review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference 
> implementation taking into  the concerns expressed in those comments 
> into account
> 
> Resolved
> 
> The GNSO supports the process that is ongoing in the 
> CCWG-Accountability and
> 
> The GNSO re-commits itself to participating in all discussion with an 
> open mind to finding the best solution for ICANN
> 
> The GNSO re-commits itself to working through the process as agreed 
> upon in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or 
> opposition to possible outcomes.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> ---
> 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 joy  Mon Oct 19 11:13:25 2015
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 21:13:25 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - Sunday,
	October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <038301d10a46$086dd820$19498860$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>

Hi Amr - my apologies for missing this meeting. I got the timing wrong and thought it was today (NZ time)
Sorry about that
Joy

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2015 11:39 p.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015

Hi,

The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a separate email.

This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:

1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on Wednesday, October 21st (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).

There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:

A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes) This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received. Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann) Discussion Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)

B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes) In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi) Discussion Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:

A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry B. Human rights C. Public Interest

Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the meeting later today.

Thanks.

Amr





From aelsadr  Mon Oct 19 11:50:08 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:50:08 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - Sunday,
	October 18th 2015
In-Reply-To: <038301d10a46$086dd820$19498860$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
References: <CA8ED583-6FBE-43C9-B58E-60ED23C5593B@egyptig.org>
	<038301d10a46$086dd820$19498860$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz>
Message-ID: <C018FD6A-4010-4C30-8A8F-8B21A2EF8570@egyptig.org>

No worries Joy. The recording should be available soon. If you (or anyone else) have any comments on what we discussed, please send them to this list. I'll try to prep and circulate minutes some time today. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr - my apologies for missing this meeting. I got the timing wrong and thought it was today (NZ time)
> Sorry about that
> Joy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2015 11:39 p.m.
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - Sunday, October 18th 2015
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The NCSG Policy Committee will be meeting in Dublin today at 16:30 local time in Wicklow MR4. Maryam has sent remote participation details in a separate email.
> 
> This is the suggested agenda for today?s meeting:
> 
> 1. Discussion of the agenda of the GNSO Council public meeting on Wednesday, October 21st (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+October+2015).
> 
> There will be two motions on Wednesday?s agenda:
> 
> A. Adoption of Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (15 minutes) This Working Group was chartered by the GNSO Council in January 2014 to explore the development of reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 May 2015, and submitted a Final Report to the GNSO Council on 9 October that took into account the public comments received. Here the Council will discuss the WG?s recommendations, and vote on whether or not to adopt the Final Report as submitted.
> Presentation of the motion (Volker Greimann) Discussion Council Vote (threshold: simple majority)
> 
> B. Adoption of Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP WG Charter (15 minutes) In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board?s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the Final Issue Report and vote to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.
> Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi) Discussion Council Vote (threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
> 
> 2. Discussion of topics for the NCSG/ICANN Board meeting:
> 
> A. Developing countries and new gTLD and/or DNS industry B. Human rights C. Public Interest
> 
> Suggestions for other topics may be made here, on-list, or during the meeting later today.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> 



From kathy  Mon Oct 19 14:31:56 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:31:56 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] have to leave
In-Reply-To: <C018FD6A-4010-4C30-8A8F-8B21A2EF8570@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <92f994c6aa9b03209164db581411eb209995f36a@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com>

Dear All,I have been called home for a family emergency. I am at the
airport now. I wish you all the best with the week ahead - and thank
you for all you are doing!See you on Skype,Kathy?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151019/069d932a/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Oct 19 17:00:21 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:00:21 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] have to leave
In-Reply-To: <92f994c6aa9b03209164db581411eb209995f36a@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com>
References: <92f994c6aa9b03209164db581411eb209995f36a@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com>
Message-ID: <588EB516-AB81-4A8F-A381-2D97E2486E26@egyptig.org>

Best of luck to you Kathy. You will be missed.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> I have been called home for a family emergency. I am at the airport now. I wish you all the best with the week ahead - and thank you for all you are doing!
> See you on Skype,
> Kathy 
> 
> 




From robin  Mon Oct 19 17:24:43 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:24:43 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] have to leave
In-Reply-To: <588EB516-AB81-4A8F-A381-2D97E2486E26@egyptig.org>
References: <92f994c6aa9b03209164db581411eb209995f36a@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com>
	<588EB516-AB81-4A8F-A381-2D97E2486E26@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <D6F6592F-4A3B-492D-AFE1-C7A045469CBF@ipjustice.org>

Very sorry to hear this, Kathy.  Hope you and your family are all well.  Thank you for coming this week and all the work you've done here already this week.

Safe travels,
Robin


On Oct 19, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Best of luck to you Kathy. You will be missed.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> I have been called home for a family emergency. I am at the airport now. I wish you all the best with the week ahead - and thank you for all you are doing!
>> See you on Skype,
>> Kathy 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151019/efb233aa/attachment.sig>


From maria.farrell  Mon Oct 19 19:27:01 2015
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:27:01 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] have to leave
In-Reply-To: <D6F6592F-4A3B-492D-AFE1-C7A045469CBF@ipjustice.org>
References: <92f994c6aa9b03209164db581411eb209995f36a@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com>
	<588EB516-AB81-4A8F-A381-2D97E2486E26@egyptig.org>
	<D6F6592F-4A3B-492D-AFE1-C7A045469CBF@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdD5CYPkaMfDWO9b7WU4cQFrn8mx7sTCEGTQGZX7+2gy9A@mail.gmail.com>

So sorry to hear this, Kathy. I hope things are ok or will be very soon. We
miss you.

Travel safe, m

On 19 October 2015 at 15:24, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Very sorry to hear this, Kathy.  Hope you and your family are all well.
> Thank you for coming this week and all the work you've done here already
> this week.
>
> Safe travels,
> Robin
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> > Best of luck to you Kathy. You will be missed.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >> I have been called home for a family emergency. I am at the airport
> now. I wish you all the best with the week ahead - and thank you for all
> you are doing!
> >> See you on Skype,
> >> Kathy
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151019/a792c153/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Oct 20 17:19:49 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:19:49 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Letter to GNSO and ALAC Chairs from
	Cherine Chalaby
References: <009b01d10b16$e11c0130$a3540390$@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <BC727D1A-D260-49D6-86FA-05D72377FB2A@egyptig.org>

Hi folks,

This is something we will probably need to pay attention to in the near future. I certainly don?t believe the suggested schedule to review the PICS is agreeable. Looks to me like Ron is trying to push this through without much (or sufficient) discussion. I?m glad the NGPC referred this to the GNSO Council.

Thanks.

Amr

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> Subject: [council] FW: Letter to GNSO and ALAC Chairs from Cherine Chalaby
> Date: October 20, 2015 at 10:08:25 AM GMT+1
> To: <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Reply-To: <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> 
> All,
>  
> Please see attached. Sincere apologies that this was not sent previously.
>  
> I did send it on to the Council but from my second email address and that address is not subscribed to the GNSO Council list.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>] 
> Sent: 07 October 2015 20:44
> To: council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: FW: Letter to GNSO and ALAC Chairs from Cherine Chalaby
>  
> All,
>  
> Please see attached. Apologies for the short delay in transmission.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Wendy Profit [mailto:wendy.profit at icann.org <mailto:wendy.profit at icann.org>] 
> Sent: 01 October 2015 03:31
> To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>; alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Cc: cherine.chalaby at icann.org <mailto:cherine.chalaby at icann.org>
> Subject: Letter to GNSO and ALAC Chairs from Cherine Chalaby
>  
> Dear Messrs. Robinson and Greenberg,
>  
> Please find the attached letter from Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee regarding the proposal from Ron Andruff to establish a PICS review committee. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
>  
> With warm regards,
>  
> Wendy Profit
> ICANN Board Operations Specialist
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094
> Mobile: 1-310-773-6811
> Office: 1-310-578-8695
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/92204675/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: B92E9527-5AB7-4D2A-8FFA-C5F4EE505608[29].jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6525 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/92204675/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/92204675/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2015-09-30-Cherine-Chalaby-to-Jonathan-Robinson-Alan-Greenberg.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1107564 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/92204675/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/92204675/attachment-0005.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Tue Oct 20 17:36:35 2015
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:36:35 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
Message-ID: <eaf65f3b5bd84ed3b27773581816e382@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


There will be a meeting of NCSG with Registrars SG, today, 17:00 IST at Liffey H1.


Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)


Email:  maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/2769b5eb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 1743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/2769b5eb/attachment.ics>


From mariliamaciel  Tue Oct 20 17:50:18 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:50:18 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
In-Reply-To: <eaf65f3b5bd84ed3b27773581816e382@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <eaf65f3b5bd84ed3b27773581816e382@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1tx1_K-_fUBO4LKbw+7qKa9fp70U-c8F5kuzdRfyJvCw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Maryam, do we have an agenda for this one?
Thanks!
M

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> There will be a meeting of NCSG with Registrars SG, today, 17:00 IST at
> Liffey H1.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


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

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/b97e384f/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Tue Oct 20 17:52:57 2015
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:52:57 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1tx1_K-_fUBO4LKbw+7qKa9fp70U-c8F5kuzdRfyJvCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eaf65f3b5bd84ed3b27773581816e382@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CACpVkK1tx1_K-_fUBO4LKbw+7qKa9fp70U-c8F5kuzdRfyJvCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D24C13CB.13142%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>

Hi Marilia,

Yes: https://community.icann.org/x/GIFYAw

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email:  maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann

From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com<mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:50
To: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>
Cc: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG

Hello Maryam, do we have an agenda for this one?
Thanks!
M

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,

There will be a meeting of NCSG with Registrars SG, today, 17:00 IST at Liffey H1.

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

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




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

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu<http://www.diplomacy.edu>
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/993ac35e/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Oct 20 17:56:48 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:56:48 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
In-Reply-To: <D24C13CB.13142%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
References: <eaf65f3b5bd84ed3b27773581816e382@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CACpVkK1tx1_K-_fUBO4LKbw+7qKa9fp70U-c8F5kuzdRfyJvCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D24C13CB.13142%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnA64-XAux8F8if0ni7F_fvZXAW82z4DriCE384ZgN3uA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi ,

informal discussion about topics of interest like RPM review, PPSAI etc

Rafik

2015-10-20 23:52 GMT+09:00 Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>:

> Hi Marilia,
>
> Yes: https://community.icann.org/x/GIFYAw
>
> 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: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:50
> To: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
> Cc: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
>
> Hello Maryam, do we have an agenda for this one?
> Thanks!
> M
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> There will be a meeting of NCSG with Registrars SG, today, 17:00 IST at
>> Liffey H1.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/60417dea/attachment.html>


From kathy  Tue Oct 20 18:01:29 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:01:29 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnA64-XAux8F8if0ni7F_fvZXAW82z4DriCE384ZgN3uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eaf65f3b5bd84ed3b27773581816e382@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CACpVkK1tx1_K-_fUBO4LKbw+7qKa9fp70U-c8F5kuzdRfyJvCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D24C13CB.13142%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnA64-XAux8F8if0ni7F_fvZXAW82z4DriCE384ZgN3uA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56265749.4090102@kathykleiman.com>

If there is remote participation for this meeting, I will be there. If 
someone wants to Skype me in, I can be there too.
Best,
Kathy

On 10/20/2015 10:56 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> informal discussion about topics of interest like RPM review, PPSAI etc
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-20 23:52 GMT+09:00 Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org 
> <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>:
>
>     Hi Marilia,
>
>     Yes: https://community.icann.org/x/GIFYAw
>
>     Many thanks,
>     -- 
>
>     Maryam Bakoshi
>
>     Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>
>     Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>     Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>
>     Mobile: +44 7737 698036 <tel:%2B44%207737%20698036>
>
>     Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
>
>
>     From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
>     <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
>     Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:50
>     To: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
>     <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>
>     Cc: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
>     Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
>
>     Hello Maryam, do we have an agenda for this one?
>     Thanks!
>     M
>
>     On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Maryam Bakoshi
>     <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>         Dear All,
>
>         There will be a meeting of NCSG with Registrars SG, today,
>         17:00 IST at Liffey H1.
>
>         Many thanks,
>         -- 
>
>         Maryam Bakoshi
>
>         Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>
>         Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>         Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>
>         Mobile: +44 7737 698036 <tel:%2B44%207737%20698036>
>
>         Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     *Mar?lia Maciel*
>     Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV
>     Direito Rio
>     Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV
>     Law School
>     http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
>     DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>     <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>     PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>     Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>     http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/9da9a2b7/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Oct 20 18:02:20 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:02:20 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
In-Reply-To: <56265749.4090102@kathykleiman.com>
References: <eaf65f3b5bd84ed3b27773581816e382@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CACpVkK1tx1_K-_fUBO4LKbw+7qKa9fp70U-c8F5kuzdRfyJvCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D24C13CB.13142%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnA64-XAux8F8if0ni7F_fvZXAW82z4DriCE384ZgN3uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<56265749.4090102@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn9nfP_2+cEiKkW22WocE9dJnhxnVgjb3f3mD2WTBnwyA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kathy,

it is at Registrars meeting room, so I expect remote participation

Rafik

2015-10-21 0:01 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>:

> If there is remote participation for this meeting, I will be there. If
> someone wants to Skype me in, I can be there too.
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
> On 10/20/2015 10:56 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi ,
>
> informal discussion about topics of interest like RPM review, PPSAI etc
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-20 23:52 GMT+09:00 Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>:
>
>> Hi Marilia,
>>
>> Yes: https://community.icann.org/x/GIFYAw
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> --
>>
>> Maryam Bakoshi
>>
>> Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>>
>> Email:   <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
>>
>> Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
>>
>> Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
>>
>> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:50
>> To: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>> Cc: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
>>
>> Hello Maryam, do we have an agenda for this one?
>> Thanks!
>> M
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> There will be a meeting of NCSG with Registrars SG, today, 17:00 IST at
>>> Liffey H1.
>>>
>>> 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 <%2B44%207737%20698036>
>>>
>>> Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>> DiploFoundation associate -  <http://www.diplomacy.edu>www.diplomacy.edu
>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -  <http://www.politics.org.br/>
>> http://www.politics.org.br/
>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>> <http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en>http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/72b6edb2/attachment.html>


From kathy  Tue Oct 20 18:05:35 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:05:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn9nfP_2+cEiKkW22WocE9dJnhxnVgjb3f3mD2WTBnwyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eaf65f3b5bd84ed3b27773581816e382@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CACpVkK1tx1_K-_fUBO4LKbw+7qKa9fp70U-c8F5kuzdRfyJvCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D24C13CB.13142%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnA64-XAux8F8if0ni7F_fvZXAW82z4DriCE384ZgN3uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<56265749.4090102@kathykleiman.com>
	<CAH5sThn9nfP_2+cEiKkW22WocE9dJnhxnVgjb3f3mD2WTBnwyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5626583F.5040101@kathykleiman.com>

That would be great, Rafik, tx!

On 10/20/2015 11:02 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> it is at Registrars meeting room, so I expect remote participation
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-10-21 0:01 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
>
>     If there is remote participation for this meeting, I will be
>     there. If someone wants to Skype me in, I can be there too.
>     Best,
>     Kathy
>
>
>     On 10/20/2015 10:56 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>     Hi ,
>>
>>     informal discussion about topics of interest like RPM review,
>>     PPSAI etc
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     2015-10-20 23:52 GMT+09:00 Maryam Bakoshi
>>     <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>:
>>
>>         Hi Marilia,
>>
>>         Yes: https://community.icann.org/x/GIFYAw
>>
>>         Many thanks,
>>         -- 
>>
>>         Maryam Bakoshi
>>
>>         Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>>
>>         Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>>
>>         Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>>
>>         Mobile: +44 7737 698036 <tel:%2B44%207737%20698036>
>>
>>         Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
>>
>>
>>         From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
>>         Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:50
>>         To: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
>>         <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>
>>         Cc: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>         <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
>>         Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
>>
>>         Hello Maryam, do we have an agenda for this one?
>>         Thanks!
>>         M
>>
>>         On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Maryam Bakoshi
>>         <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>
>>         wrote:
>>
>>             Dear All,
>>
>>             There will be a meeting of NCSG with Registrars SG,
>>             today, 17:00 IST at Liffey H1.
>>
>>             Many thanks,
>>             -- 
>>
>>             Maryam Bakoshi
>>
>>             Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>>
>>             Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>>
>>             Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
>>             <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>>
>>             Mobile: +44 7737 698036 <tel:%2B44%207737%20698036>
>>
>>             Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
>>
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>         *Mar?lia Maciel*
>>         Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV
>>         Direito Rio
>>         Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society
>>         - FGV Law School
>>         http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>>         DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>>         <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>>         PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -
>>         http://www.politics.org.br/
>>         Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>>         http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/9b7f99ed/attachment-0001.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Tue Oct 20 18:05:40 2015
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:05:40 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG
In-Reply-To: <56265749.4090102@kathykleiman.com>
References: <eaf65f3b5bd84ed3b27773581816e382@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CACpVkK1tx1_K-_fUBO4LKbw+7qKa9fp70U-c8F5kuzdRfyJvCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D24C13CB.13142%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnA64-XAux8F8if0ni7F_fvZXAW82z4DriCE384ZgN3uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<56265749.4090102@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <D24C16A2.13158%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>

Hi Kathy,

You can try https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeyhall1, please let me know if it worked at that time.

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email:  maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann

From: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 16:01
To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG

If there is remote participation for this meeting, I will be there. If someone wants to Skype me in, I can be there too.
Best,
Kathy

On 10/20/2015 10:56 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi ,

informal discussion about topics of interest like RPM review, PPSAI etc

Rafik

2015-10-20 23:52 GMT+09:00 Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>:
Hi Marilia,

Yes: https://community.icann.org/x/GIFYAw

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email:  <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile:  +44 7737 698036<tel:%2B44%207737%20698036>
Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann

From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com<mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:50
To: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>
Cc: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG with Registrars SG

Hello Maryam, do we have an agenda for this one?
Thanks!
M

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,

There will be a meeting of NCSG with Registrars SG, today, 17:00 IST at Liffey H1.

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036<tel:%2B44%207737%20698036>
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

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




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

DiploFoundation associate - <http://www.diplomacy.edu> www.diplomacy.edu<http://www.diplomacy.edu>
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - <http://www.politics.org.br/> http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - <http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en


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





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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/dfd3aa0d/attachment.html>


From mshears  Tue Oct 20 18:33:52 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:33:52 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
Message-ID: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org>

Hi

As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the 
Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and 
would like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of 
_content regulation_ as there is much discussion of the issue at the moment.

If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I 
certainly am not knowledgeable enough).

Thanks.

Matthew

-- 

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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/c1e5f158/attachment-0001.html>


From kathy  Tue Oct 20 18:40:26 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>

+1 Matthew. I watched the Registrar/Registry agreement with the Board 
today and they read a strong statement asked ICANN to stay out of 
content. Apparently the IPC presented a letter to the Board today asking 
ICANN to get much more involved in content issues -- asking for 
"voluntary standards" but "with teeth" (this is 2nd hand as I have not 
seen the letter).  But voluntary standards with teeth mean binding 
commitments - and outside the PDPs.

I don't know if our call on content with Alan Grogan, ICANN's compliance 
officer, ever took place. But this would be a good time for us to add to 
our noncommercial voices to the call for ICANN to stay out of content -- 
and support ICANN. Because Fadi has said, and said again in today's 
session, that ICANN should stay out of it too.

If someone takes the lead, I am happy to help in the background. It 
could be a short, but very important, point.
Best,
Kathy

On 10/20/2015 11:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> Hi
>
> As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the 
> Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and 
> would like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of 
> _content regulation_ as there is much discussion of the issue at the 
> moment.
>
> If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I 
> certainly am not knowledgeable enough).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
> -- 
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/a4c11720/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Tue Oct 20 18:44:49 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:44:49 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org> <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2F3OjeXqbAx1dy-jrVVA+vMhjTyvd91V1HM2xK7BRhNQ@mail.gmail.com>

I also support Matthew's proposal. It is a very important topic with
concrete issues to discuss.
Mar?lia

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
wrote:

> +1 Matthew. I watched the Registrar/Registry agreement with the Board
> today and they read a strong statement asked ICANN to stay out of content.
> Apparently the IPC presented a letter to the Board today asking ICANN to
> get much more involved in content issues -- asking for "voluntary
> standards" but "with teeth" (this is 2nd hand as I have not seen the
> letter).  But voluntary standards with teeth mean binding commitments - and
> outside the PDPs.
>
> I don't know if our call on content with Alan Grogan, ICANN's compliance
> officer, ever took place. But this would be a good time for us to add to
> our noncommercial voices to the call for ICANN to stay out of content --
> and support ICANN. Because Fadi has said, and said again in today's
> session, that ICANN should stay out of it too.
>
> If someone takes the lead, I am happy to help in the background. It could
> be a short, but very important, point.
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
> On 10/20/2015 11:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the
> Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and would
> like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of *content
> regulation* as there is much discussion of the issue at the moment.
>
> If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I certainly
> am not knowledgeable enough).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


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

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/62ae319f/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Oct 20 18:45:37 2015
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:45:37 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <23361868-A9DF-43D4-B8E4-D566EFA159EF@ipjustice.org>

This is a solid and very strategic approach, Matt.  I support it.

Thanks,
Robin

On Oct 20, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:

> Hi
> 
> As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and would like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of content regulation as there is much discussion of the issue at the moment.
> 
> If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I certainly am not knowledgeable enough).
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Matthew
> -- 
> 
> 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. 				
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/3807882e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/3807882e/attachment.sig>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Oct 20 19:10:12 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:10:12 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org> <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <56266764.4070701@mail.utoronto.ca>

Do you have the text of that Kathy, we are meeting with them now, are 
you on line?
SP

On 2015-10-20 11:40, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> +1 Matthew. I watched the Registrar/Registry agreement with the Board 
> today and they read a strong statement asked ICANN to stay out of 
> content. Apparently the IPC presented a letter to the Board today 
> asking ICANN to get much more involved in content issues -- asking for 
> "voluntary standards" but "with teeth" (this is 2nd hand as I have not 
> seen the letter).  But voluntary standards with teeth mean binding 
> commitments - and outside the PDPs.
>
> I don't know if our call on content with Alan Grogan, ICANN's 
> compliance officer, ever took place. But this would be a good time for 
> us to add to our noncommercial voices to the call for ICANN to stay 
> out of content -- and support ICANN. Because Fadi has said, and said 
> again in today's session, that ICANN should stay out of it too.
>
> If someone takes the lead, I am happy to help in the background. It 
> could be a short, but very important, point.
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> On 10/20/2015 11:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the 
>> Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and 
>> would like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of 
>> _content regulation_ as there is much discussion of the issue at the 
>> moment.
>>
>> If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I 
>> certainly am not knowledgeable enough).
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>> -- 
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>> mshears at cdt.org
>> + 44 771 247 2987
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/5898b5a8/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Oct 20 19:13:07 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:13:07 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Registrars + Registries
In-Reply-To: <F6C052CB-08A5-4CBD-B193-6B35B3154741@blacknight.com>
References: <F6C052CB-08A5-4CBD-B193-6B35B3154741@blacknight.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmJct5+Jgo2A=6tfCQKmi9Cj7bDMLjYW9e3ocSXAzv7_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

The statement made today about content policy.

Best,

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com>
Date: Oct 20, 2015 5:08 PM
Subject: Registrars + Registries
To: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, "Rafik Dammak" <
rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc:

Here you go:

We are aware that earlier today the IPC asked the CEO and the Board to have
ICANN play a greater role in content regulation.  The IPC suggested that
ICANN leverage its contractual compliance powers to require registries and
registrars to adopt and implement so-called voluntary standards.  The
Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups strongly urge the Board to not
become involved in this debate.

Our contracts are with ICANN.  ICANN?s exercise of its contractual
compliance powers as requested by the IPC would render such standards
anything but voluntary.  A statement that there needs to be teeth behind
?voluntary standards?, particularly when made by the party involved in a
contract, means they are no longer voluntary.  Moreover, many of the terms
requested by the IPC could in some cases remove legal protections provided
to registries and registrars under relevant national safe harbor laws.
Finally, the IPC is essentially seeking rights from ICANN that they have
been unable to secure from legislatures globally.

We understand that ICANN?s Board faces pressure from specific interest
group, but urge ICANN?s Board not to put ICANN staff or the community in
the position of content arbiters.  It is outside the remit of this
organization and creates a slippery slope.

We believe that ICANN compliance should rightly be involved in working to
see that all registrars should respond to requests under RAA section 3.18.
While the IP Community may not always be satisfied with every response they
receive, the vast majority of submissions are responded to and a
significant portion of those requests are resolved to satisfaction.
Registrars who do not respond to validly formed submissions should be
pursued. While we recognize that groups such as the IPC have a right to
bring any matter they desire to the Board and staff, we would welcome a
dialog with them and would request that the Board feel free to advise them
to approach us directly, especially on matters that are outside the remit
of ICANN.



--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/06e2dc35/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Oct 20 19:14:01 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:14:01 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org>
	<5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkP47XPcN1PxKHCjmRuBHWtX1OrVWf22re5W9XfvHTFpA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kathy.

We had the discussion with Allen today at ncsg session today.
Recordings should be available soon.

Best,

Rafik
On Oct 20, 2015 4:40 PM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

> +1 Matthew. I watched the Registrar/Registry agreement with the Board
> today and they read a strong statement asked ICANN to stay out of content.
> Apparently the IPC presented a letter to the Board today asking ICANN to
> get much more involved in content issues -- asking for "voluntary
> standards" but "with teeth" (this is 2nd hand as I have not seen the
> letter).  But voluntary standards with teeth mean binding commitments - and
> outside the PDPs.
>
> I don't know if our call on content with Alan Grogan, ICANN's compliance
> officer, ever took place. But this would be a good time for us to add to
> our noncommercial voices to the call for ICANN to stay out of content --
> and support ICANN. Because Fadi has said, and said again in today's
> session, that ICANN should stay out of it too.
>
> If someone takes the lead, I am happy to help in the background. It could
> be a short, but very important, point.
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> On 10/20/2015 11:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the
> Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and would
> like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of *content
> regulation* as there is much discussion of the issue at the moment.
>
> If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I certainly
> am not knowledgeable enough).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/80179a65/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Oct 20 19:17:50 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:17:50 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <56266764.4070701@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org> <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<56266764.4070701@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm05dAfNsuGNQ7Lzy3HkGzh33K-TcqbnfZN8GqDxQz+8Q@mail.gmail.com>

Here you go:

We are aware that earlier today the IPC asked the CEO and the Board to have
ICANN play a greater role in content regulation.  The IPC suggested that
ICANN leverage its contractual compliance powers to require registries and
registrars to adopt and implement so-called voluntary standards.  The
Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups strongly urge the Board to not
become involved in this debate.

Our contracts are with ICANN.  ICANN?s exercise of its contractual
compliance powers as requested by the IPC would render such standards
anything but voluntary.  A statement that there needs to be teeth behind
?voluntary standards?, particularly when made by the party involved in a
contract, means they are no longer voluntary.  Moreover, many of the terms
requested by the IPC could in some cases remove legal protections provided
to registries and registrars under relevant national safe harbor laws.
Finally, the IPC is essentially seeking rights from ICANN that they have
been unable to secure from legislatures globally.

We understand that ICANN?s Board faces pressure from specific interest
group, but urge ICANN?s Board not to put ICANN staff or the community in
the position of content arbiters.  It is outside the remit of this
organization and creates a slippery slope.

We believe that ICANN compliance should rightly be involved in working to
see that all registrars should respond to requests under RAA section 3.18.
While the IP Community may not always be satisfied with every response they
receive, the vast majority of submissions are responded to and a
significant portion of those requests are resolved to satisfaction.
Registrars who do not respond to validly formed submissions should be
pursued. While we recognize that groups such as the IPC have a right to
bring any matter they desire to the Board and staff, we would welcome a
dialog with them and would request that the Board feel free to advise them
to approach us directly, especially on matters that are outside the remit
of ICANN.



On Oct 20, 2015 5:10 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Do you have the text of that Kathy, we are meeting with them now, are you
> on line?
> SP
>
> On 2015-10-20 11:40, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> +1 Matthew. I watched the Registrar/Registry agreement with the Board
> today and they read a strong statement asked ICANN to stay out of content.
> Apparently the IPC presented a letter to the Board today asking ICANN to
> get much more involved in content issues -- asking for "voluntary
> standards" but "with teeth" (this is 2nd hand as I have not seen the
> letter).  But voluntary standards with teeth mean binding commitments - and
> outside the PDPs.
>
> I don't know if our call on content with Alan Grogan, ICANN's compliance
> officer, ever took place. But this would be a good time for us to add to
> our noncommercial voices to the call for ICANN to stay out of content --
> and support ICANN. Because Fadi has said, and said again in today's
> session, that ICANN should stay out of it too.
>
> If someone takes the lead, I am happy to help in the background. It could
> be a short, but very important, point.
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> On 10/20/2015 11:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the
> Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and would
> like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of *content
> regulation* as there is much discussion of the issue at the moment.
>
> If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I certainly
> am not knowledgeable enough).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/653083b8/attachment-0001.html>


From wendy  Tue Oct 20 19:37:43 2015
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:37:43 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkP47XPcN1PxKHCjmRuBHWtX1OrVWf22re5W9XfvHTFpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org> <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CAH5sThkP47XPcN1PxKHCjmRuBHWtX1OrVWf22re5W9XfvHTFpA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56266DD7.20601@seltzer.com>

Thanks Matthew for starting the thread,

A suggested start at a statement:
The NCSG joins the Registries and Registrars in supporting ICANN's
consistent policy that it not be involved with content regulation, nor
to become entangled in such disputes through the back-door of contract
enforcement. ICANN's contract-enforcement obligations should be limited
to terms that "ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's
unique identifier systems."

(possibly)
We are happy to work with other parties, outside of ICANN's contractual
umbrella, on measures to improve abuse reporting and promote consistent
good practices around the termination or disabling of abusive domain
registrations.

Would anyone want to improve and/or present that?

--Wendy

On 10/20/2015 12:14 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Kathy.
> 
> We had the discussion with Allen today at ncsg session today.
> Recordings should be available soon.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> On Oct 20, 2015 4:40 PM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> 
>> +1 Matthew. I watched the Registrar/Registry agreement with the Board
>> today and they read a strong statement asked ICANN to stay out of content.
>> Apparently the IPC presented a letter to the Board today asking ICANN to
>> get much more involved in content issues -- asking for "voluntary
>> standards" but "with teeth" (this is 2nd hand as I have not seen the
>> letter).  But voluntary standards with teeth mean binding commitments - and
>> outside the PDPs.
>>
>> I don't know if our call on content with Alan Grogan, ICANN's compliance
>> officer, ever took place. But this would be a good time for us to add to
>> our noncommercial voices to the call for ICANN to stay out of content --
>> and support ICANN. Because Fadi has said, and said again in today's
>> session, that ICANN should stay out of it too.
>>
>> If someone takes the lead, I am happy to help in the background. It could
>> be a short, but very important, point.
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>>
>> On 10/20/2015 11:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the
>> Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and would
>> like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of *content
>> regulation* as there is much discussion of the issue at the moment.
>>
>> If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I certainly
>> am not knowledgeable enough).
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/



From aelsadr  Tue Oct 20 20:51:46 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:51:46 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <23361868-A9DF-43D4-B8E4-D566EFA159EF@ipjustice.org>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org>
	<23361868-A9DF-43D4-B8E4-D566EFA159EF@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <E31BC896-1B6B-416B-B9E9-B3EC6DEF0FB7@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I would also like to add my voice in support of this suggestion. Thanks for making it, Matt. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
> This is a solid and very strategic approach, Matt.  I support it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and would like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of content regulation as there is much discussion of the issue at the moment.
>> 
>> If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I certainly am not knowledgeable enough).
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Matthew
>> -- 
>> 
>> 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. 
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/39f815b9/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Wed Oct 21 01:32:55 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:32:55 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5626C117.8060908@yorku.ca>

Matthew,

I might be a bit dense here. Since the board and Fadi have said, 
repeatedly, that content regulation is outside ICANN's remit, NCSG will 
have to frame a content regulation question in a way that addresses 
something that ICANN already does that is already linked to the 
regulation of content. Unless there is a "smoking gun" of an example 
here, the question will simply be answered with "Outside our remit!". 
Next question. Am I missing something here?

Sam L.
NPOC Policy Cttee

On 2015-10-20 4:33 PM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> Hi
>
> As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask of the 
> Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can determine) and 
> would like to propose that we replace that subject with the issue of 
> _content regulation_ as there is much discussion of the issue at the 
> moment.
>
> If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I 
> certainly am not knowledgeable enough).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
> -- 
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

*--------------------------------------------*
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
----------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/a5604e2c/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Wed Oct 21 01:52:58 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:52:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm05dAfNsuGNQ7Lzy3HkGzh33K-TcqbnfZN8GqDxQz+8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org> <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<56266764.4070701@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThm05dAfNsuGNQ7Lzy3HkGzh33K-TcqbnfZN8GqDxQz+8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5626C5CA.9060909@yorku.ca>

Okay, Think I have the context now. If this:

/We understand that ICANN?s Board faces pressure from specific interest 
group, but urge ICANN?s Board not to put ICANN staff or the community in 
the position of content arbiters.  It is outside the remit of this 
organization and creates a slippery slope./

is what was meant by "... /propose that we replace that subject with the 
issue of content regulation/".

then I got it and support pressing this point one more time.

Sam L.

On 2015-10-20 5:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>
> Here you go:
>
> We are aware that earlier today the IPC asked the CEO and the Board to 
> have ICANN play a greater role in content regulation.  The IPC 
> suggested that ICANN leverage its contractual compliance powers to 
> require registries and registrars to adopt and implement so-called 
> voluntary standards.  The Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups 
> strongly urge the Board to not become involved in this debate.
>
> Our contracts are with ICANN.  ICANN?s exercise of its contractual 
> compliance powers as requested by the IPC would render such standards 
> anything but voluntary.  A statement that there needs to be teeth 
> behind ?voluntary standards?, particularly when made by the party 
> involved in a contract, means they are no longer voluntary.  Moreover, 
> many of the terms requested by the IPC could in some cases remove 
> legal protections provided to registries and registrars under relevant 
> national safe harbor laws. Finally, the IPC is essentially seeking 
> rights from ICANN that they have been unable to secure from 
> legislatures globally.
>
> We understand that ICANN?s Board faces pressure from specific interest 
> group, but urge ICANN?s Board not to put ICANN staff or the community 
> in the position of content arbiters.  It is outside the remit of this 
> organization and creates a slippery slope.
>
> We believe that ICANN compliance should rightly be involved in working 
> to see that all registrars should respond to requests under RAA 
> section 3.18. While the IP Community may not always be satisfied with 
> every response they receive, the vast majority of submissions are 
> responded to and a significant portion of those requests are resolved 
> to satisfaction. Registrars who do not respond to validly formed 
> submissions should be pursued. While we recognize that groups such as 
> the IPC have a right to bring any matter they desire to the Board and 
> staff, we would welcome a dialog with them and would request that the 
> Board feel free to advise them to approach us directly, especially on 
> matters that are outside the remit of ICANN.
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2015 5:10 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     Do you have the text of that Kathy, we are meeting with them now,
>     are you on line?
>     SP
>
>     On 2015-10-20 11:40, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>     +1 Matthew. I watched the Registrar/Registry agreement with the
>>     Board today and they read a strong statement asked ICANN to stay
>>     out of content. Apparently the IPC presented a letter to the
>>     Board today asking ICANN to get much more involved in content
>>     issues -- asking for "voluntary standards" but "with teeth" (this
>>     is 2nd hand as I have not seen the letter).  But voluntary
>>     standards with teeth mean binding commitments - and outside the PDPs.
>>
>>     I don't know if our call on content with Alan Grogan, ICANN's
>>     compliance officer, ever took place. But this would be a good
>>     time for us to add to our noncommercial voices to the call for
>>     ICANN to stay out of content -- and support ICANN. Because Fadi
>>     has said, and said again in today's session, that ICANN should
>>     stay out of it too.
>>
>>     If someone takes the lead, I am happy to help in the background.
>>     It could be a short, but very important, point.
>>     Best,
>>     Kathy
>>
>>     On 10/20/2015 11:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>>     Hi
>>>
>>>     As I don't believe we have anything to particularly say or ask
>>>     of the Board on public interest tomorrow (at least that I can
>>>     determine) and would like to propose that we replace that
>>>     subject with the issue of _content regulation_ as there is much
>>>     discussion of the issue at the moment.
>>>
>>>     If you agree, someone would have to agree to speak on this.  (I
>>>     certainly am not knowledgeable enough).
>>>
>>>     Thanks.
>>>
>>>     Matthew
>>>     -- 
>>>
>>>     Matthew Shears
>>>     Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>     Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>     mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>>     + 44 771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>  
>>>
>>>
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>>
>>>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>     software.
>>>     www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

*--------------------------------------------*
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
----------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151020/b076167d/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Wed Oct 21 08:11:55 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:11:55 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed subject change for board meeting tomorrow
In-Reply-To: <5626C5CA.9060909@yorku.ca>
References: <56265EE0.6070100@cdt.org> <5626606A.1000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<56266764.4070701@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThm05dAfNsuGNQ7Lzy3HkGzh33K-TcqbnfZN8GqDxQz+8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5626C5CA.9060909@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <20151021051155.GB25803@roller.tarvainen.info>

On Oct 20 23:52, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote:

> Okay, Think I have the context now. If this:
> 
> /We understand that ICANN?s Board faces pressure from specific interest
> group, but urge ICANN?s Board not to put ICANN staff or the community in the
> position of content arbiters.  It is outside the remit of this organization
> and creates a slippery slope./
> 
> is what was meant by "... /propose that we replace that subject with the
> issue of content regulation/".
> 
> then I got it and support pressing this point one more time.

That's how I understood it, and I also support this.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From maryam.bakoshi  Wed Oct 21 09:41:05 2015
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:41:05 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER: NCSG Excom & Board & Wrap Up Session
Message-ID: <45016e05a8594b45906aa32da0216937@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for NCSG Excom & Board & Wrap Up Session at ICANN54 Dublin.


Local Time: 07:30-09:30 IST (06:30-08:30 UTC)
Date: 22 Oct 2015
Room: Ecocem
Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/
Password: NCSG EXCOM


Dial in numbers:
Country         Toll Numbers    Freephone/
Toll Free Number


ARGENTINA                       0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA       ADELAIDE:       61-8-8121-4842  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       BRISBANE:       61-7-3102-0944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       CANBERRA:       61-2-6100-1944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       MELBOURNE:      61-3-9010-7713  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       PERTH:  61-8-9467-5223  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       SYDNEY:         61-2-8205-8129  1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA                 43-1-92-81-113  0800-005-259
BELGIUM                 32-2-400-9861   0800-3-8795
BRAZIL          55-11-3958-0779         0800-7610651
CHILE                   1230-020-2863
CHINA   CHINA A:        86-400-810-4789         10800-712-1670
CHINA   CHINA B:        86-400-810-4789         10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                        01800-9-156474
CROATIA                         080-08-06-309
CZECH REPUBLIC          420-2-25-98-56-64       800-700-177
DENMARK                 45-7014-0284    8088-8324
ESTONIA                         800-011-1093
FINLAND                 358-9-5424-7162         0-800-9-14610
FRANCE  LYON:   33-4-26-69-12-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  MARSEILLE:      33-4-86-06-00-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  PARIS:  33-1-70-70-60-72        080-511-1496
GERMANY                 49-69-2222-20362        0800-664-4247
GREECE          30-80-1-100-0687        00800-12-7312
HONG KONG               852-3001-3863   800-962-856
HUNGARY                 36-1-700-8856   06-800-12755
INDIA   BANGALORE:      91-80-61275204
INDIA   MUMBAI:         91-22-61501629
INDIA   INDIA A:                000-800-852-1268
INDIA   INDIA B:                000-800-001-6305
INDIA   INDIA C:                1800-300-00491
INDONESIA                       001-803-011-3982
IRELAND                 353-1-246-7646  1800-992-368
ISRAEL                  1-80-9216162
ITALY   MILAN:  39-02-3600-6007         800-986-383
ITALY   ROME:   39-06-8751-6018         800-986-383
ITALY   TORINO:         39-011-510-0118         800-986-383
JAPAN   OSAKA:  81-6-7878-2631  0066-33-132439
JAPAN   TOKYO:  81-3-6868-2631  0066-33-132439
LATVIA                  8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG              352-27-000-1364         8002-9246
MALAYSIA                        1-800-81-3065
MEXICO  GUADALAJARA (JAL):      52-33-3208-7310         001-866-376-9696
MEXICO  MEXICO CITY:    52-55-5062-9110         001-866-376-9696
MEXICO  MONTERREY:      52-81-2482-0610         001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS             31-20-718-8588  0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND             64-9-970-4771   0800-447-722
NORWAY          47-21-590-062   800-15157
PANAMA                  011-001-800-5072065
PERU                    0800-53713
PHILIPPINES             63-2-858-3716   1800-111-42453
POLAND                  00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                        8008-14052
ROMANIA                 40-31-630-01-79
RUSSIA                  8-10-8002-0144011
SAUDI ARABIA                    800-8-110087
SINGAPORE               65-6883-9230    800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC                 421-2-322-422-25        0800-002066
SOUTH AFRICA                    080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA             82-2-6744-1083  00798-14800-7352
SPAIN           34-91-414-25-33         800-300-053
SWEDEN          46-8-566-19-348         0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND             41-44-580-6398  0800-120-032
TAIWAN          886-2-2795-7379         00801-137-797
THAILAND                        001-800-1206-66056
TURKEY                  00-800-151-0516
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES                    8000-35702370
UNITED KINGDOM  BIRMINGHAM:     44-121-210-9025         0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  GLASGOW:        44-141-202-3225         0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LEEDS:  44-113-301-2125         0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LONDON:         44-20-7108-6370         0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  MANCHESTER:     44-161-601-1425         0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                         000-413-598-3421
USA             1-517-345-9004  866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                       0800-1-00-3702

Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.
Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/005190fd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6544 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/005190fd/attachment-0001.ics>


From aelsadr  Wed Oct 21 11:55:46 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:55:46 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council Chair
	Elections
Message-ID: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I want you all to know that I am extremely concerned with the direction we are headed in regarding today?s vote for GNSO Council Chair. I want to invite all Councillors, and anyone else here in Dublin to meet directly following our meeting with the ICANN board to discuss this.

You are free to show up, or not, but I urge (at a bare minimum) all of our councillors to take this seriously and have a discussion about this at 12:15 as soon as we walk out of our meeting with the board.

Thanks.

Amr


From mariliamaciel  Wed Oct 21 12:00:59 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:00:59 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council
 Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
References: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0vupJ02pFVkGgeQmAxbw7LL5NLErcFqxzSCiBn0Uyrfw@mail.gmail.com>

Will be there, Amr.
Thanks
Mar?lia

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I want you all to know that I am extremely concerned with the direction we
> are headed in regarding today?s vote for GNSO Council Chair. I want to
> invite all Councillors, and anyone else here in Dublin to meet directly
> following our meeting with the ICANN board to discuss this.
>
> You are free to show up, or not, but I urge (at a bare minimum) all of our
> councillors to take this seriously and have a discussion about this at
> 12:15 as soon as we walk out of our meeting with the board.
>
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/cdebede4/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Wed Oct 21 12:04:28 2015
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:04:28 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council
 Chair	Elections
In-Reply-To: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
References: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521C99B49DFE75C0E485452F7380@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Consensus, I will be there. Amr, thanks for organizing and calling us to order :-)

----------------------


________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Inviato: mercoled? 21 ottobre 2015 10.55
A: NCSG-Policy
Oggetto: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council Chair     Elections

Hi,

I want you all to know that I am extremely concerned with the direction we are headed in regarding today?s vote for GNSO Council Chair. I want to invite all Councillors, and anyone else here in Dublin to meet directly following our meeting with the ICANN board to discuss this.

You are free to show up, or not, but I urge (at a bare minimum) all of our councillors to take this seriously and have a discussion about this at 12:15 as soon as we walk out of our meeting with the board.

Thanks.

Amr
_______________________________________________
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 egmorris1  Wed Oct 21 12:07:57 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:07:57 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council
	Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
References: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <C4D55D89-6A62-4C75-B42A-A343ADB8A54A@toast.net>

Hi Amr, 

I will not be attending this meeting both because I have a conflict and because I can already anticipate what your concerns are. You have already expressed them to me and, I understand, others.

I respect each and every one of my Council colleagues and expect all of us will follow our own conscious and judgement in the vote and do what we feel is best for our members. I am concerned that overt electioneering of a more pressured kind does not respect the independence we grant our Councillors. If there was a desire to bind us on this vote there was ample time to do so and formal procedures in place to do so.

I would encourage others not to attend this meeting. The best source of information are the candidates themselves, not their supporters, and James and Heather are both readily available to meet.

Best,

Ed



Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I want you all to know that I am extremely concerned with the direction we are headed in regarding today?s vote for GNSO Council Chair. I want to invite all Councillors, and anyone else here in Dublin to meet directly following our meeting with the ICANN board to discuss this.
> 
> You are free to show up, or not, but I urge (at a bare minimum) all of our councillors to take this seriously and have a discussion about this at 12:15 as soon as we walk out of our meeting with the board.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


From Stefania.Milan  Wed Oct 21 12:14:22 2015
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:14:22 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO
	Council	Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <C4D55D89-6A62-4C75-B42A-A343ADB8A54A@toast.net>
References: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>,
	<C4D55D89-6A62-4C75-B42A-A343ADB8A54A@toast.net>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521551260F2853E94635E31F7380@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I am new to this business, and don't know what the process has been in other similar instances. Any precedents? Curiosity, I guess.
In any case, I personally see value in such meeting and I will be there, as this is how I understand voting and being voted into a position by a membership organization (although as the only candidate :-)

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Inviato: mercoled? 21 ottobre 2015 11.07
A: Amr Elsadr
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council       Chair Elections

Hi Amr,

I will not be attending this meeting both because I have a conflict and because I can already anticipate what your concerns are. You have already expressed them to me and, I understand, others.

I respect each and every one of my Council colleagues and expect all of us will follow our own conscious and judgement in the vote and do what we feel is best for our members. I am concerned that overt electioneering of a more pressured kind does not respect the independence we grant our Councillors. If there was a desire to bind us on this vote there was ample time to do so and formal procedures in place to do so.

I would encourage others not to attend this meeting. The best source of information are the candidates themselves, not their supporters, and James and Heather are both readily available to meet.

Best,

Ed



Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I want you all to know that I am extremely concerned with the direction we are headed in regarding today?s vote for GNSO Council Chair. I want to invite all Councillors, and anyone else here in Dublin to meet directly following our meeting with the ICANN board to discuss this.
>
> You are free to show up, or not, but I urge (at a bare minimum) all of our councillors to take this seriously and have a discussion about this at 12:15 as soon as we walk out of our meeting with the board.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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  Wed Oct 21 12:43:34 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:43:34 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council
	Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <C4D55D89-6A62-4C75-B42A-A343ADB8A54A@toast.net>
References: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
	<C4D55D89-6A62-4C75-B42A-A343ADB8A54A@toast.net>
Message-ID: <782F0767-46B2-4D1B-B565-6C4AF2EFD105@egyptig.org>

Hi Ed,

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr, 
> 
> I will not be attending this meeting both because I have a conflict and because I can already anticipate what your concerns are. You have already expressed them to me and, I understand, others.
> 
> I respect each and every one of my Council colleagues and expect all of us will follow our own conscious and judgement in the vote and do what we feel is best for our members. I am concerned that overt electioneering of a more pressured kind does not respect the independence we grant our Councillors. If there was a desire to bind us on this vote there was ample time to do so and formal procedures in place to do so.
> 
> I would encourage others not to attend this meeting. The best source of information are the candidates themselves, not their supporters, and James and Heather are both readily available to meet.

I?m puzzled by this, Ed. I have no objection to anyone speaking to the candidates, but why do you object to us speaking among ourselves as a group? You, yourself, have been actively speaking to some of our councillors on this topic in private, but you object to us all meeting to discuss it together? Why do you believe it is wrong to do so?

Thanks.

Amr


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Oct 21 13:38:25 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:38:25 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council
 Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521551260F2853E94635E31F7380@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
	<C4D55D89-6A62-4C75-B42A-A343ADB8A54A@toast.net>
	<DB3PR05MB521551260F2853E94635E31F7380@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <56276B21.7090805@mail.utoronto.ca>

I too will be there
SP

On 2015-10-21 5:14, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> I am new to this business, and don't know what the process has been in other similar instances. Any precedents? Curiosity, I guess.
> In any case, I personally see value in such meeting and I will be there, as this is how I understand voting and being voted into a position by a membership organization (although as the only candidate :-)
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> Inviato: mercoled? 21 ottobre 2015 11.07
> A: Amr Elsadr
> Cc: NCSG-Policy
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council       Chair Elections
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> I will not be attending this meeting both because I have a conflict and because I can already anticipate what your concerns are. You have already expressed them to me and, I understand, others.
>
> I respect each and every one of my Council colleagues and expect all of us will follow our own conscious and judgement in the vote and do what we feel is best for our members. I am concerned that overt electioneering of a more pressured kind does not respect the independence we grant our Councillors. If there was a desire to bind us on this vote there was ample time to do so and formal procedures in place to do so.
>
> I would encourage others not to attend this meeting. The best source of information are the candidates themselves, not their supporters, and James and Heather are both readily available to meet.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want you all to know that I am extremely concerned with the direction we are headed in regarding today?s vote for GNSO Council Chair. I want to invite all Councillors, and anyone else here in Dublin to meet directly following our meeting with the ICANN board to discuss this.
>>
>> You are free to show up, or not, but I urge (at a bare minimum) all of our councillors to take this seriously and have a discussion about this at 12:15 as soon as we walk out of our meeting with the board.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> 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




From egmorris1  Wed Oct 21 13:56:46 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:56:46 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council
	Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <782F0767-46B2-4D1B-B565-6C4AF2EFD105@egyptig.org>
References: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
	<C4D55D89-6A62-4C75-B42A-A343ADB8A54A@toast.net>
	<782F0767-46B2-4D1B-B565-6C4AF2EFD105@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <F64A1BE3-4D23-4F5D-8EC6-6AAEF8F39F4C@toast.net>

Hi Amr,

I believe it is inappropriate for the Chair of the Policy Committee to call for a private unrecorded meeting of Councillors, on the PC list, because of his concern about how people are going to vote in the election, given his well known support of a certain candidate.

I have no problem if you sent out individual email invites or personally asked people to come together to talk about things or to lobby for your candidate. It is not appropriate to use this list to do so given your position as PC Chair. 

Regards,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Amr, 
>> 
>> I will not be attending this meeting both because I have a conflict and because I can already anticipate what your concerns are. You have already expressed them to me and, I understand, others.
>> 
>> I respect each and every one of my Council colleagues and expect all of us will follow our own conscious and judgement in the vote and do what we feel is best for our members. I am concerned that overt electioneering of a more pressured kind does not respect the independence we grant our Councillors. If there was a desire to bind us on this vote there was ample time to do so and formal procedures in place to do so.
>> 
>> I would encourage others not to attend this meeting. The best source of information are the candidates themselves, not their supporters, and James and Heather are both readily available to meet.
> 
> I?m puzzled by this, Ed. I have no objection to anyone speaking to the candidates, but why do you object to us speaking among ourselves as a group? You, yourself, have been actively speaking to some of our councillors on this topic in private, but you object to us all meeting to discuss it together? Why do you believe it is wrong to do so?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr


From aelsadr  Wed Oct 21 14:17:24 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:17:24 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council
	Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <F64A1BE3-4D23-4F5D-8EC6-6AAEF8F39F4C@toast.net>
References: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
	<C4D55D89-6A62-4C75-B42A-A343ADB8A54A@toast.net>
	<782F0767-46B2-4D1B-B565-6C4AF2EFD105@egyptig.org>
	<F64A1BE3-4D23-4F5D-8EC6-6AAEF8F39F4C@toast.net>
Message-ID: <D2082823-059B-4FAC-93A7-060806D52FF1@egyptig.org>

Hi Ed,

Again, I?m not sure I understand. You would prefer that we don?t coordinate among ourselves as a group, but are in favour of individual one-on-one interaction?

I?m also not sure why you think the purpose is to lobby for the candidate of my preference. My concern is specifically that you have taken the time to lobby for a candidate, while we have not held a group discussion about this pointing out all the perspectives on this topic. I believe that all views should be shared, and I also believe that this is part of the duty of the PC chair. The fact that you have chosen not to participate puts us in a position where your view will not be presented by you. I will not withdraw the invitation on this basis.

Although, in my individual capacity, I am in favour of James chairing the GNSO Council, I hope you will at least acknowledge that as PC Chair, I have encouraged discussion on this list of Heather?s candidacy following her call with us, and the publication of her candidate statement. However, if you believe that I am in anyway abusing my role as PC Chair, I would encourage you to express these views, not only on this list, but perhaps on NCSG-DISCUSS?

I would like to ask you this, though. Would it make you feel better if we took minutes of our discussion? I do admit that you have a point on the meeting not being recorded, but there are other means by which we can document what folks say. I will make sure that this is done.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> 
> I believe it is inappropriate for the Chair of the Policy Committee to call for a private unrecorded meeting of Councillors, on the PC list, because of his concern about how people are going to vote in the election, given his well known support of a certain candidate.
> 
> I have no problem if you sent out individual email invites or personally asked people to come together to talk about things or to lobby for your candidate. It is not appropriate to use this list to do so given your position as PC Chair. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ed,
>> 
>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Amr, 
>>> 
>>> I will not be attending this meeting both because I have a conflict and because I can already anticipate what your concerns are. You have already expressed them to me and, I understand, others.
>>> 
>>> I respect each and every one of my Council colleagues and expect all of us will follow our own conscious and judgement in the vote and do what we feel is best for our members. I am concerned that overt electioneering of a more pressured kind does not respect the independence we grant our Councillors. If there was a desire to bind us on this vote there was ample time to do so and formal procedures in place to do so.
>>> 
>>> I would encourage others not to attend this meeting. The best source of information are the candidates themselves, not their supporters, and James and Heather are both readily available to meet.
>> 
>> I?m puzzled by this, Ed. I have no objection to anyone speaking to the candidates, but why do you object to us speaking among ourselves as a group? You, yourself, have been actively speaking to some of our councillors on this topic in private, but you object to us all meeting to discuss it together? Why do you believe it is wrong to do so?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr




From stephanie.perrin  Wed Oct 21 14:34:54 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:34:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Informal Meeting on the Topic of GNSO Council
 Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <D2082823-059B-4FAC-93A7-060806D52FF1@egyptig.org>
References: <53B9E8CE-E2CD-40D5-94C8-B51C24C8D4F8@egyptig.org>
	<C4D55D89-6A62-4C75-B42A-A343ADB8A54A@toast.net>
	<782F0767-46B2-4D1B-B565-6C4AF2EFD105@egyptig.org>
	<F64A1BE3-4D23-4F5D-8EC6-6AAEF8F39F4C@toast.net>
	<D2082823-059B-4FAC-93A7-060806D52FF1@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5627785E.1060309@mail.utoronto.ca>

This meeting has moved to the lunchroom on the ground floor, since some 
of us have to eat prior to the meeting.  Please join us.  All are welcome!
Stephanie

On 2015-10-21 7:17, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> Again, I?m not sure I understand. You would prefer that we don?t coordinate among ourselves as a group, but are in favour of individual one-on-one interaction?
>
> I?m also not sure why you think the purpose is to lobby for the candidate of my preference. My concern is specifically that you have taken the time to lobby for a candidate, while we have not held a group discussion about this pointing out all the perspectives on this topic. I believe that all views should be shared, and I also believe that this is part of the duty of the PC chair. The fact that you have chosen not to participate puts us in a position where your view will not be presented by you. I will not withdraw the invitation on this basis.
>
> Although, in my individual capacity, I am in favour of James chairing the GNSO Council, I hope you will at least acknowledge that as PC Chair, I have encouraged discussion on this list of Heather?s candidacy following her call with us, and the publication of her candidate statement. However, if you believe that I am in anyway abusing my role as PC Chair, I would encourage you to express these views, not only on this list, but perhaps on NCSG-DISCUSS?
>
> I would like to ask you this, though. Would it make you feel better if we took minutes of our discussion? I do admit that you have a point on the meeting not being recorded, but there are other means by which we can document what folks say. I will make sure that this is done.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>>
>> I believe it is inappropriate for the Chair of the Policy Committee to call for a private unrecorded meeting of Councillors, on the PC list, because of his concern about how people are going to vote in the election, given his well known support of a certain candidate.
>>
>> I have no problem if you sent out individual email invites or personally asked people to come together to talk about things or to lobby for your candidate. It is not appropriate to use this list to do so given your position as PC Chair.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ed,
>>>
>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>
>>>> I will not be attending this meeting both because I have a conflict and because I can already anticipate what your concerns are. You have already expressed them to me and, I understand, others.
>>>>
>>>> I respect each and every one of my Council colleagues and expect all of us will follow our own conscious and judgement in the vote and do what we feel is best for our members. I am concerned that overt electioneering of a more pressured kind does not respect the independence we grant our Councillors. If there was a desire to bind us on this vote there was ample time to do so and formal procedures in place to do so.
>>>>
>>>> I would encourage others not to attend this meeting. The best source of information are the candidates themselves, not their supporters, and James and Heather are both readily available to meet.
>>> I?m puzzled by this, Ed. I have no objection to anyone speaking to the candidates, but why do you object to us speaking among ourselves as a group? You, yourself, have been actively speaking to some of our councillors on this topic in private, but you object to us all meeting to discuss it together? Why do you believe it is wrong to do so?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Wed Oct 21 19:42:17 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:42:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
Message-ID: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>

Hi folks,

Following today?s failure to elect a GNSO Council Chair, I want to propose to the CSG folks that the NCPH appoint Heather as an interim VC. We need somebody to chair tomorrow?s wrap-up session. Also, if they CSG decides they would like another CSG councillor besides Heather to serve in that capacity, I don?t really mind.

We need to act on this quickly. Are there any objections to this suggestion?

Thanks.

Amr


From dave  Wed Oct 21 19:52:49 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:52:49 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>

I would just not have an NCPH VC for the next few days if the CSG aren?t interested in just temporarily re-endorsing me. The CPH will probably be sensible enough to endorse Volker, and he will do fine.
This shouldn?t be another emergency sub-election, its just chairing a meeting or two. Re-endorse existing VCs, or not. The CSG made the problem, they can live with it.

Its actually kind of a burden on staff, IMO, to bring a new person in for potentially just a week or two.

David


> On 21 Oct 2015, at 5:42 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Following today?s failure to elect a GNSO Council Chair, I want to propose to the CSG folks that the NCPH appoint Heather as an interim VC. We need somebody to chair tomorrow?s wrap-up session. Also, if they CSG decides they would like another CSG councillor besides Heather to serve in that capacity, I don?t really mind.
> 
> We need to act on this quickly. Are there any objections to this suggestion?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/695947f1/attachment.sig>


From aelsadr  Wed Oct 21 20:10:43 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:10:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>

Actually, the way I see it, we contributed significantly to creating this mess. I personally hold myself responsible.

I was part of the conversation with the CSG that led to the NCPH candidacy of Heather. I failed to properly inform them that although we endorsed her candidacy, there was no guarantee that our councillors would vote for her.

The way I see it, we agreed to her as a NCPH candidate. Why not endorse her as a temporary VC?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:52 PM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
> 
> I would just not have an NCPH VC for the next few days if the CSG aren?t interested in just temporarily re-endorsing me. The CPH will probably be sensible enough to endorse Volker, and he will do fine.
> This shouldn?t be another emergency sub-election, its just chairing a meeting or two. Re-endorse existing VCs, or not. The CSG made the problem, they can live with it.
> 
> Its actually kind of a burden on staff, IMO, to bring a new person in for potentially just a week or two.
> 
> David
> 
> 
>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 5:42 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> Following today?s failure to elect a GNSO Council Chair, I want to propose to the CSG folks that the NCPH appoint Heather as an interim VC. We need somebody to chair tomorrow?s wrap-up session. Also, if they CSG decides they would like another CSG councillor besides Heather to serve in that capacity, I don?t really mind.
>> 
>> We need to act on this quickly. Are there any objections to this suggestion?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From dave  Wed Oct 21 20:25:18 2015
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:25:18 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <98349658-53B5-4EB4-BC9C-E08F53886EB2@difference.com.au>

I just object to having essentially a separate VC election procedures simply to salve Heathers hurt feelings.

If they want her to be their *actual* vice-chair candidate, I?d be happy to endorse her, but thats not something to do in haste.

Its procedurally weird and unnecessary and adds confusion when we need clarity.

Volker can chair the meeting (as the CPH have endorsed him). He?ll be fine. No one will object. We do not need two vice-chairs just to run the wrap-up session.

David


> On 21 Oct 2015, at 6:10 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Actually, the way I see it, we contributed significantly to creating this mess. I personally hold myself responsible.
> 
> I was part of the conversation with the CSG that led to the NCPH candidacy of Heather. I failed to properly inform them that although we endorsed her candidacy, there was no guarantee that our councillors would vote for her.
> 
> The way I see it, we agreed to her as a NCPH candidate. Why not endorse her as a temporary VC?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:52 PM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
>> 
>> I would just not have an NCPH VC for the next few days if the CSG aren?t interested in just temporarily re-endorsing me. The CPH will probably be sensible enough to endorse Volker, and he will do fine.
>> This shouldn?t be another emergency sub-election, its just chairing a meeting or two. Re-endorse existing VCs, or not. The CSG made the problem, they can live with it.
>> 
>> Its actually kind of a burden on staff, IMO, to bring a new person in for potentially just a week or two.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 5:42 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi folks,
>>> 
>>> Following today?s failure to elect a GNSO Council Chair, I want to propose to the CSG folks that the NCPH appoint Heather as an interim VC. We need somebody to chair tomorrow?s wrap-up session. Also, if they CSG decides they would like another CSG councillor besides Heather to serve in that capacity, I don?t really mind.
>>> 
>>> We need to act on this quickly. Are there any objections to this suggestion?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/88d6f4a4/attachment.sig>


From egmorris1  Wed Oct 21 20:44:17 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:44:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <98349658-53B5-4EB4-BC9C-E08F53886EB2@difference.com.au>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<98349658-53B5-4EB4-BC9C-E08F53886EB2@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <950213A2-2466-40BD-B867-722799F55C11@toast.net>

I agree with David's perspective on this matter. The selection of Vice Chair should not be rushed because of the situation we find ourselves in. Volker can and will do a fine job, I'm sure.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:25 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
> I just object to having essentially a separate VC election procedures simply to salve Heathers hurt feelings.
> 
> If they want her to be their *actual* vice-chair candidate, I?d be happy to endorse her, but thats not something to do in haste.
> 
> Its procedurally weird and unnecessary and adds confusion when we need clarity.
> 
> Volker can chair the meeting (as the CPH have endorsed him). He?ll be fine. No one will object. We do not need two vice-chairs just to run the wrap-up session.
> 
> David
> 
> 
>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 6:10 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, the way I see it, we contributed significantly to creating this mess. I personally hold myself responsible.
>> 
>> I was part of the conversation with the CSG that led to the NCPH candidacy of Heather. I failed to properly inform them that although we endorsed her candidacy, there was no guarantee that our councillors would vote for her.
>> 
>> The way I see it, we agreed to her as a NCPH candidate. Why not endorse her as a temporary VC?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:52 PM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I would just not have an NCPH VC for the next few days if the CSG aren?t interested in just temporarily re-endorsing me. The CPH will probably be sensible enough to endorse Volker, and he will do fine.
>>> This shouldn?t be another emergency sub-election, its just chairing a meeting or two. Re-endorse existing VCs, or not. The CSG made the problem, they can live with it.
>>> 
>>> Its actually kind of a burden on staff, IMO, to bring a new person in for potentially just a week or two.
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 5:42 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>> 
>>>> Following today?s failure to elect a GNSO Council Chair, I want to propose to the CSG folks that the NCPH appoint Heather as an interim VC. We need somebody to chair tomorrow?s wrap-up session. Also, if they CSG decides they would like another CSG councillor besides Heather to serve in that capacity, I don?t really mind.
>>>> 
>>>> We need to act on this quickly. Are there any objections to this suggestion?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Oct 22 01:18:37 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:18:37 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <950213A2-2466-40BD-B867-722799F55C11@toast.net>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<98349658-53B5-4EB4-BC9C-E08F53886EB2@difference.com.au>
	<950213A2-2466-40BD-B867-722799F55C11@toast.net>
Message-ID: <56280F3D.4070601@mail.utoronto.ca>

1.  Amr, don't beat yourself up, we walked into a trap in my opinion.
2.  I agree with David that there is no need to rush into appointing her 
as Vice Chair.
Hurt feelings are not, quite frankly, appropriate at this level. You 
lose, no big deal.  We are all adults.
3.  Let us take our time and not be rushed into anything.  This is why I 
asked for the PC meeting ASAP.  We need to assess the situation and talk 
about strategy.
4.  I want to print Tshirts for tomorrow that say "dont blame NCSG for 
the GNSO mess.  Not us."
SP
On 2015-10-21 13:44, Edward Morris wrote:
> I agree with David's perspective on this matter. The selection of Vice Chair should not be rushed because of the situation we find ourselves in. Volker can and will do a fine job, I'm sure.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:25 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> I just object to having essentially a separate VC election procedures simply to salve Heathers hurt feelings.
>>
>> If they want her to be their *actual* vice-chair candidate, I?d be happy to endorse her, but thats not something to do in haste.
>>
>> Its procedurally weird and unnecessary and adds confusion when we need clarity.
>>
>> Volker can chair the meeting (as the CPH have endorsed him). He?ll be fine. No one will object. We do not need two vice-chairs just to run the wrap-up session.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 6:10 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, the way I see it, we contributed significantly to creating this mess. I personally hold myself responsible.
>>>
>>> I was part of the conversation with the CSG that led to the NCPH candidacy of Heather. I failed to properly inform them that although we endorsed her candidacy, there was no guarantee that our councillors would vote for her.
>>>
>>> The way I see it, we agreed to her as a NCPH candidate. Why not endorse her as a temporary VC?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:52 PM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would just not have an NCPH VC for the next few days if the CSG aren?t interested in just temporarily re-endorsing me. The CPH will probably be sensible enough to endorse Volker, and he will do fine.
>>>> This shouldn?t be another emergency sub-election, its just chairing a meeting or two. Re-endorse existing VCs, or not. The CSG made the problem, they can live with it.
>>>>
>>>> Its actually kind of a burden on staff, IMO, to bring a new person in for potentially just a week or two.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 5:42 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Following today?s failure to elect a GNSO Council Chair, I want to propose to the CSG folks that the NCPH appoint Heather as an interim VC. We need somebody to chair tomorrow?s wrap-up session. Also, if they CSG decides they would like another CSG councillor besides Heather to serve in that capacity, I don?t really mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to act on this quickly. Are there any objections to this suggestion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Thu Oct 22 01:24:30 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:24:30 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <5628109E.7040901@mail.utoronto.ca>

I agree, and the negotiations with the CPH are not worth it for the few 
days we are talking about.
SP

On 2015-10-21 12:52, David Cake wrote:
> I would just not have an NCPH VC for the next few days if the CSG aren?t interested in just temporarily re-endorsing me. The CPH will probably be sensible enough to endorse Volker, and he will do fine.
> This shouldn?t be another emergency sub-election, its just chairing a meeting or two. Re-endorse existing VCs, or not. The CSG made the problem, they can live with it.
>
> Its actually kind of a burden on staff, IMO, to bring a new person in for potentially just a week or two.
>
> David
>
>
>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 5:42 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Following today?s failure to elect a GNSO Council Chair, I want to propose to the CSG folks that the NCPH appoint Heather as an interim VC. We need somebody to chair tomorrow?s wrap-up session. Also, if they CSG decides they would like another CSG councillor besides Heather to serve in that capacity, I don?t really mind.
>>
>> We need to act on this quickly. Are there any objections to this suggestion?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151021/6fb61607/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Thu Oct 22 01:52:14 2015
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:52:14 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <48929C30-A8CD-4C11-AFC4-2E788796D47C@toast.net>




Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Actually, the way I see it, we contributed significantly to creating this mess. I personally hold myself responsible.

I should make it clear I also regret the way I handled things. The world I come from is very different than the world most of you come from and that's pretty obvious. I should have considered that.

I would respectfully suggest, though, for the next round you only agree to nominate a candidate the NCSG will likely vote for. I guess people had different perspectives about how willing they were to vote for an IPC candidate against a decent CPH candidate.  I can understand what this group was trying to do but I also understand why others may feel nomination entails some future obligation, even if it was not explicitly told to them or even if it was stressed to them that was the case. Human nature. Bad situation all around. Good luck avoiding it in the future.

Best,

Ed







> 
> I was part of the conversation with the CSG that led to the NCPH candidacy of Heather. I failed to properly inform them that although we endorsed her candidacy, there was no guarantee that our councillors would vote for her.
> 
> The way I see it, we agreed to her as a NCPH candidate. Why not endorse her as a temporary VC?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:52 PM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
>> 
>> I would just not have an NCPH VC for the next few days if the CSG aren?t interested in just temporarily re-endorsing me. The CPH will probably be sensible enough to endorse Volker, and he will do fine.
>> This shouldn?t be another emergency sub-election, its just chairing a meeting or two. Re-endorse existing VCs, or not. The CSG made the problem, they can live with it.
>> 
>> Its actually kind of a burden on staff, IMO, to bring a new person in for potentially just a week or two.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 5:42 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi folks,
>>> 
>>> Following today?s failure to elect a GNSO Council Chair, I want to propose to the CSG folks that the NCPH appoint Heather as an interim VC. We need somebody to chair tomorrow?s wrap-up session. Also, if they CSG decides they would like another CSG councillor besides Heather to serve in that capacity, I don?t really mind.
>>> 
>>> We need to act on this quickly. Are there any objections to this suggestion?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


From rafik.dammak  Thu Oct 22 11:27:27 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:27:27 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [soac-discussion] Joint Statement from Contracted
 Party House on GNSO Elections
In-Reply-To: <F6E5936B-57CD-45E7-873D-CBBA28C62A22@blacknight.com>
References: <F6E5936B-57CD-45E7-873D-CBBA28C62A22@blacknight.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkamKX_hUHAA12tf5XuiDaYhsbvLKjVhnuHMDMOsGPo-g@mail.gmail.com>

FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2015 9:00 AM
Subject: [soac-discussion] Joint Statement from Contracted Party House on
GNSO Elections
To: "soac-discussion at icann.org" <soac-discussion at icann.org>, "
gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
Cc:


Like many in the GNSO Community, the Contracted Party House is disappointed
in the unprecedented outcome of the Council election. It is particularly
unfortunate that this scenario occurred at a time when ICANN is in the
global spotlight.

Throughout the election process, the common theme has been an agreement
amongst all Councilors that either candidate would have made a competent
and effective GNSO Chair. However, the qualifications of both candidates
were ultimately disregarded.

In the interests of stability and continuity we have selected Volker
Greimann to continue to serve as the Contracted Party House Vice-Chair
during this interim period.

We ask ICANN Staff to consider repurposing Friday's scheduled Council
Development Session to instead allow for a facilitated discussion amongst
GNSO community leaders to work within the process to arrive at a mutually
satisfactory and expeditious result, that will enable the Council focus on
the important work ahead.



Regards

Michele, RrSG Chair

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/f1844eab/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 12:01:42 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:01:42 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <48929C30-A8CD-4C11-AFC4-2E788796D47C@toast.net>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<48929C30-A8CD-4C11-AFC4-2E788796D47C@toast.net>
Message-ID: <499B5F73-70F2-4DBF-BC4E-E1CAA6B9D075@egyptig.org>

OK. Thanks folks. I appreciate all the feedback. If tomorrow?s full-day induction workshop of new councillors is repurposed for discussing this issue, as suggested by the CPH (see the email fwded by Rafik), we will report back to this list what was discussed.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, the way I see it, we contributed significantly to creating this mess. I personally hold myself responsible.
> 
> I should make it clear I also regret the way I handled things. The world I come from is very different than the world most of you come from and that's pretty obvious. I should have considered that.
> 
> I would respectfully suggest, though, for the next round you only agree to nominate a candidate the NCSG will likely vote for. I guess people had different perspectives about how willing they were to vote for an IPC candidate against a decent CPH candidate.  I can understand what this group was trying to do but I also understand why others may feel nomination entails some future obligation, even if it was not explicitly told to them or even if it was stressed to them that was the case. Human nature. Bad situation all around. Good luck avoiding it in the future.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I was part of the conversation with the CSG that led to the NCPH candidacy of Heather. I failed to properly inform them that although we endorsed her candidacy, there was no guarantee that our councillors would vote for her.
>> 
>> The way I see it, we agreed to her as a NCPH candidate. Why not endorse her as a temporary VC?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:52 PM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I would just not have an NCPH VC for the next few days if the CSG aren?t interested in just temporarily re-endorsing me. The CPH will probably be sensible enough to endorse Volker, and he will do fine.
>>> This shouldn?t be another emergency sub-election, its just chairing a meeting or two. Re-endorse existing VCs, or not. The CSG made the problem, they can live with it.
>>> 
>>> Its actually kind of a burden on staff, IMO, to bring a new person in for potentially just a week or two.
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 5:42 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>> 
>>>> Following today?s failure to elect a GNSO Council Chair, I want to propose to the CSG folks that the NCPH appoint Heather as an interim VC. We need somebody to chair tomorrow?s wrap-up session. Also, if they CSG decides they would like another CSG councillor besides Heather to serve in that capacity, I don?t really mind.
>>>> 
>>>> We need to act on this quickly. Are there any objections to this suggestion?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 12:11:15 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:11:15 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [soac-discussion] Joint Statement from
	Contracted Party House on GNSO Elections
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkamKX_hUHAA12tf5XuiDaYhsbvLKjVhnuHMDMOsGPo-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F6E5936B-57CD-45E7-873D-CBBA28C62A22@blacknight.com>
	<CAH5sThkamKX_hUHAA12tf5XuiDaYhsbvLKjVhnuHMDMOsGPo-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68F46A7C-4A8A-41E8-AC4B-394FDEAFEA23@egyptig.org>

Thanks Rafik. This email was also just circulated on the council list. I have no objection to repurposing some of tomorrow?s full day council session to discuss this topic. However, I do not see any constructive purpose in endorsing the full statement (if folks are considering this), particularly ?However, the qualifications of both candidates were ultimately disregarded?.

To me, whether we agree with this, or not, is not the issue. I just don?t believe it is helpful or constructive to point this out at this time.

Thanks.

Amr

> 
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> FYI
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com>
> Date: Oct 22, 2015 9:00 AM
> Subject: [soac-discussion] Joint Statement from Contracted Party House on GNSO Elections
> To: "soac-discussion at icann.org" <soac-discussion at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> Cc: 
> 
> 
> Like many in the GNSO Community, the Contracted Party House is disappointed in the unprecedented outcome of the Council election. It is particularly unfortunate that this scenario occurred at a time when ICANN is in the global spotlight.
> 
> Throughout the election process, the common theme has been an agreement amongst all Councilors that either candidate would have made a competent and effective GNSO Chair. However, the qualifications of both candidates were ultimately disregarded.
> 
> In the interests of stability and continuity we have selected Volker Greimann to continue to serve as the Contracted Party House Vice-Chair during this interim period.
> 
> We ask ICANN Staff to consider repurposing Friday's scheduled Council Development Session to instead allow for a facilitated discussion amongst GNSO community leaders to work within the process to arrive at a mutually satisfactory and expeditious result, that will enable the Council focus on the important work ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michele, RrSG Chair
> 
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://ceo.hosting/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 14:27:42 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:27:42 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Interim Vice Chair
References: <CA+aOHUQEH91t8TDCPA_a+9td4NzW1sZtZU9HRpNwMXpwe3hcyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FDE4657F-A89A-41F5-9F27-C83D9848C595@egyptig.org>

FYI

Sent from mobile

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date: October 22, 2015 at 12:19:44 PM GMT+1
> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at gmail.com>,  Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,  Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Subject: Interim Vice Chair
> 
> Heather is willing to serve as interim vice chair. Can we do this for today? Please pass on to those I've missed.
> 
> I'm in the Council room.
> 
> Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/501d40a5/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Thu Oct 22 14:29:25 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:29:25 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>

On Oct 21 18:10, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:

> The way I see it, we agreed to [Heather] as a NCPH candidate. Why
> not endorse her as a temporary VC?

I would've found it out of place for us to proactively suggest her,
but now CSG has decided to offer her for the position and I think it'd
be better if we agreed even if in theory we could argue the position
belongs to us before they have a permanent VC nomination on offer.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From lanfran  Thu Oct 22 14:35:22 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:35:22 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <5628C9FA.9020903@yorku.ca>

I am prepared to be guided by those with a deeper institutional history 
here (history around process, not around struggles :-) )

Sam

On 2015-10-22 12:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> On Oct 21 18:10, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
>
>> The way I see it, we agreed to [Heather] as a NCPH candidate. Why
>> not endorse her as a temporary VC?
> I would've found it out of place for us to proactively suggest her,
> but now CSG has decided to offer her for the position and I think it'd
> be better if we agreed even if in theory we could argue the position
> belongs to us before they have a permanent VC nomination on offer.
>

-- 

*--------------------------------------------*
"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 aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 14:43:19 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:43:19 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Interim Vice Chair
In-Reply-To: <CA+aOHUQEH91t8TDCPA_a+9td4NzW1sZtZU9HRpNwMXpwe3hcyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aOHUQEH91t8TDCPA_a+9td4NzW1sZtZU9HRpNwMXpwe3hcyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B2E9A863-DD10-48EE-AFC8-379D232288EA@egyptig.org>

Thanks for this Greg. I hope we can have a coordinated approach to getting through this month as seamlessly as possible.

I?ve cc?ed the NCSG Policy Committee to this email. Hopefully, we can hold a discussion among ourselves quickly (today), and get back to you with a clear response.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Heather is willing to serve as interim vice chair. Can we do this for today? Please pass on to those I've missed.
> 
> I'm in the Council room.
> 
> Greg




From aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 14:44:40 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:44:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>

I would like to suggest another ad hoc meeting following the wrap up session to discuss our options, and possible way forward.

Would you all find this agreeable?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 21 18:10, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
> 
>> The way I see it, we agreed to [Heather] as a NCPH candidate. Why
>> not endorse her as a temporary VC?
> 
> I would've found it out of place for us to proactively suggest her,
> but now CSG has decided to offer her for the position and I think it'd
> be better if we agreed even if in theory we could argue the position
> belongs to us before they have a permanent VC nomination on offer.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 14:48:02 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:48:02 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:

1. NCSG
2. NCPH
3. Full Council

The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> I would like to suggest another ad hoc meeting following the wrap up session to discuss our options, and possible way forward.
> 
> Would you all find this agreeable?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>> 
>> On Oct 21 18:10, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
>> 
>>> The way I see it, we agreed to [Heather] as a NCPH candidate. Why
>>> not endorse her as a temporary VC?
>> 
>> I would've found it out of place for us to proactively suggest her,
>> but now CSG has decided to offer her for the position and I think it'd
>> be better if we agreed even if in theory we could argue the position
>> belongs to us before they have a permanent VC nomination on offer.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From stephanie.perrin  Thu Oct 22 14:52:36 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:52:36 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5628CE04.9030502@mail.utoronto.ca>

yes
SP

On 2015-10-22 7:44, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> I would like to suggest another ad hoc meeting following the wrap up session to discuss our options, and possible way forward.
>
> Would you all find this agreeable?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 21 18:10, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
>>
>>> The way I see it, we agreed to [Heather] as a NCPH candidate. Why
>>> not endorse her as a temporary VC?
>> I would've found it out of place for us to proactively suggest her,
>> but now CSG has decided to offer her for the position and I think it'd
>> be better if we agreed even if in theory we could argue the position
>> belongs to us before they have a permanent VC nomination on offer.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 lanfran  Thu Oct 22 14:53:47 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:53:47 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>

I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?

Sam

On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:
>
> 1. NCSG
> 2. NCPH
> 3. Full Council
>
> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>



From mariliamaciel  Thu Oct 22 15:02:15 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:02:15 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>

I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
M

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
>
> Sam
>
> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to
>> expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:
>>
>> 1. NCSG
>> 2. NCPH
>> 3. Full Council
>>
>> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/b4c7df0a/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 15:19:22 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:19:22 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>

I don?t know, Marilia. I was actually hoping that we can all leave the meeting together directly following the GNSO wrap up session.

Sam, are you in the room with us? I haven?t spotted you.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
> M
> 
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
> 
> Sam
> 
> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:
> 
> 1. NCSG
> 2. NCPH
> 3. Full Council
> 
> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 15:28:20 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:28:20 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Interim Vice Chair
In-Reply-To: <CA+aOHURfHMdqfAxv7G5A7=r=Qh4fA_unr4ucnAMDo9pNhpmEkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aOHUQEH91t8TDCPA_a+9td4NzW1sZtZU9HRpNwMXpwe3hcyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B2E9A863-DD10-48EE-AFC8-379D232288EA@egyptig.org>
	<CA+aOHURfHMdqfAxv7G5A7=r=Qh4fA_unr4ucnAMDo9pNhpmEkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DE3685E4-4230-4972-831B-49593A2F9D3B@egyptig.org>

Thanks Greg. That makes perfect sense to me. We will do the same. I will keep you updated regarding progress on our side as we make it.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Amr,
> 
> Thank you.  In the interests of transparency, we've now had a request within our side to meet and confer among ourselves.  The conversations so far have been parallel and serial, but we haven't had one time to discuss among ourselves and there's a feeling that is necessary.
> 
> I absolutely share your desire for a coordinated approach to get through this month.
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Thanks for this Greg. I hope we can have a coordinated approach to getting through this month as seamlessly as possible.
> 
> I?ve cc?ed the NCSG Policy Committee to this email. Hopefully, we can hold a discussion among ourselves quickly (today), and get back to you with a clear response.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Heather is willing to serve as interim vice chair. Can we do this for today? Please pass on to those I've missed.
> >
> > I'm in the Council room.
> >
> > Greg
> 
> 




From mshears  Thu Oct 22 15:29:49 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:29:49 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5628D6BD.7050901@cdt.org>

Could we decide so we know where to meet?

Matthew

On 22/10/2015 13:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> I don?t know, Marilia. I was actually hoping that we can all leave the meeting together directly following the GNSO wrap up session.
>
> Sam, are you in the room with us? I haven?t spotted you.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
>> M
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:
>>
>> 1. NCSG
>> 2. NCPH
>> 3. Full Council
>>
>> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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




From Stefania.Milan  Thu Oct 22 15:36:18 2015
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:36:18 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <5628D6BD.7050901@cdt.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>,
	<5628D6BD.7050901@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521D3DE6EFB97EDE0F69358F7270@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Consensus, thanks Amr for organizing.
I am in the room and I am ok with 2pm to accomodate Marilia's needs as well.


________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Inviato: gioved? 22 ottobre 2015 14.29
A: Amr Elsadr; Marilia Maciel
Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO

Could we decide so we know where to meet?

Matthew

On 22/10/2015 13:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> I don?t know, Marilia. I was actually hoping that we can all leave the meeting together directly following the GNSO wrap up session.
>
> Sam, are you in the room with us? I haven?t spotted you.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
>> M
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:
>>
>> 1. NCSG
>> 2. NCPH
>> 3. Full Council
>>
>> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


_______________________________________________
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  Thu Oct 22 15:42:19 2015
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:42:19 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521D3DE6EFB97EDE0F69358F7270@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>
	<5628D6BD.7050901@cdt.org>
	<DB3PR05MB521D3DE6EFB97EDE0F69358F7270@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2iu6v=9srx=KvXB1+6OOuPjqa7bOW8qBsxjpTB1Gt3AA@mail.gmail.com>

I had a previously scheduled meeting at 13:30. I will meet you as soon as
it is over. Please let me know of the location.
M
Em 22/10/2015 13:36, "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu> escreveu:

> Consensus, thanks Amr for organizing.
> I am in the room and I am ok with 2pm to accomodate Marilia's needs as
> well.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Matthew Shears <
> mshears at cdt.org>
> Inviato: gioved? 22 ottobre 2015 14.29
> A: Amr Elsadr; Marilia Maciel
> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
>
> Could we decide so we know where to meet?
>
> Matthew
>
> On 22/10/2015 13:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> > I don?t know, Marilia. I was actually hoping that we can all leave the
> meeting together directly following the GNSO wrap up session.
> >
> > Sam, are you in the room with us? I haven?t spotted you.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
> >> M
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>
> wrote:
> >> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
> >>
> >> Sam
> >>
> >> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >> Hi again,
> >>
> >> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to
> expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:
> >>
> >> 1. NCSG
> >> 2. NCPH
> >> 3. Full Council
> >>
> >> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
> >>
> >> Thanks again.
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/5a1b225f/attachment.html>


From mshears  Thu Oct 22 15:42:42 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:42:42 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521D3DE6EFB97EDE0F69358F7270@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>
	<5628D6BD.7050901@cdt.org>
	<DB3PR05MB521D3DE6EFB97EDE0F69358F7270@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5628D9C2.8050505@cdt.org>

OK see you in 15 mins.

On 22/10/2015 13:36, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> Consensus, thanks Amr for organizing.
> I am in the room and I am ok with 2pm to accomodate Marilia's needs as well.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
> Inviato: gioved? 22 ottobre 2015 14.29
> A: Amr Elsadr; Marilia Maciel
> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
>
> Could we decide so we know where to meet?
>
> Matthew
>
> On 22/10/2015 13:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> I don?t know, Marilia. I was actually hoping that we can all leave the meeting together directly following the GNSO wrap up session.
>>
>> Sam, are you in the room with us? I haven?t spotted you.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
>>> M
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:
>>>
>>> 1. NCSG
>>> 2. NCPH
>>> 3. Full Council
>>>
>>> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 

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




From ncsg  Thu Oct 22 15:43:40 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:43:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20151022124339.GA2092@roller.tarvainen.info>

Hi Amr, all,

Agreed: in this situation it is most appropriate to do things
"by the book" as it were, with open meetings &c.
(I don't plan to attend - I'm not voting anyway, I'm not
needed there.)

Tapani


On Oct 22 12:48, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:

> Hi again,
> 
> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:
> 
> 1. NCSG
> 2. NCPH
> 3. Full Council
> 
> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> > 
> > I would like to suggest another ad hoc meeting following the wrap up session to discuss our options, and possible way forward.
> > 
> > Would you all find this agreeable?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Amr
> > 
> >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Oct 21 18:10, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
> >> 
> >>> The way I see it, we agreed to [Heather] as a NCPH candidate. Why
> >>> not endorse her as a temporary VC?
> >> 
> >> I would've found it out of place for us to proactively suggest her,
> >> but now CSG has decided to offer her for the position and I think it'd
> >> be better if we agreed even if in theory we could argue the position
> >> belongs to us before they have a permanent VC nomination on offer.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Tapani Tarvainen



From mshears  Thu Oct 22 15:52:00 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:52:00 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2iu6v=9srx=KvXB1+6OOuPjqa7bOW8qBsxjpTB1Gt3AA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>
	<5628D6BD.7050901@cdt.org>
	<DB3PR05MB521D3DE6EFB97EDE0F69358F7270@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CACpVkK2iu6v=9srx=KvXB1+6OOuPjqa7bOW8qBsxjpTB1Gt3AA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABAnqJOphsUwM8qsVKEpjithRwCRLeNgqH9844DfjM8TkdAfgg@mail.gmail.com>

What room please

On Thursday, 22 October 2015, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I had a previously scheduled meeting at 13:30. I will meet you as soon as
> it is over. Please let me know of the location.
> M
> Em 22/10/2015 13:36, "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Stefania.Milan at eui.eu');>> escreveu:
>
>> Consensus, thanks Amr for organizing.
>> I am in the room and I am ok with 2pm to accomodate Marilia's needs as
>> well.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org');>> per
>> conto di Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mshears at cdt.org');>>
>> Inviato: gioved? 22 ottobre 2015 14.29
>> A: Amr Elsadr; Marilia Maciel
>> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org');>
>> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
>>
>> Could we decide so we know where to meet?
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 22/10/2015 13:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> > I don?t know, Marilia. I was actually hoping that we can all leave the
>> meeting together directly following the GNSO wrap up session.
>> >
>> > Sam, are you in the room with us? I haven?t spotted you.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Amr
>> >
>> >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mariliamaciel at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
>> >> M
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lanfran at yorku.ca');>> wrote:
>> >> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
>> >>
>> >> Sam
>> >>
>> >> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> >> Hi again,
>> >>
>> >> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right, we need to
>> expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in this order:
>> >>
>> >> 1. NCSG
>> >> 2. NCPH
>> >> 3. Full Council
>> >>
>> >> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again.
>> >>
>> >> Amr
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org');>
>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Mar?lia Maciel
>> >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito
>> Rio
>> >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
>> School
>> >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>> >>
>> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>> >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>> >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org');>
>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mshears at cdt.org');>
>> + 44 771 247 2987
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/b4730ba9/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Thu Oct 22 16:02:50 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:02:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <CABAnqJOphsUwM8qsVKEpjithRwCRLeNgqH9844DfjM8TkdAfgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>
	<5628D6BD.7050901@cdt.org>
	<DB3PR05MB521D3DE6EFB97EDE0F69358F7270@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CACpVkK2iu6v=9srx=KvXB1+6OOuPjqa7bOW8qBsxjpTB1Gt3AA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABAnqJOphsUwM8qsVKEpjithRwCRLeNgqH9844DfjM8TkdAfgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5628DE7A.4030804@yorku.ca>

On my way!

Sam

On 2015-10-22 1:52 PM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> What room please
>
> On Thursday, 22 October 2015, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com 
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I had a previously scheduled meeting at 13:30. I will meet you as
>     soon as it is over. Please let me know of the location.
>     M
>
>     Em 22/10/2015 13:36, "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu
>     <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Stefania.Milan at eui.eu');>> escreveu:
>
>         Consensus, thanks Amr for organizing.
>         I am in the room and I am ok with 2pm to accomodate Marilia's
>         needs as well.
>
>
>         ________________________________________
>         Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org');>>
>         per conto di Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mshears at cdt.org');>>
>         Inviato: gioved? 22 ottobre 2015 14.29
>         A: Amr Elsadr; Marilia Maciel
>         Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org');>
>         Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
>
>         Could we decide so we know where to meet?
>
>         Matthew
>
>         On 22/10/2015 13:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>         > I don?t know, Marilia. I was actually hoping that we can all
>         leave the meeting together directly following the GNSO wrap up
>         session.
>         >
>         > Sam, are you in the room with us? I haven?t spotted you.
>         >
>         > Thoughts?
>         >
>         > Thanks.
>         >
>         > Amr
>         >
>         >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel
>         <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mariliamaciel at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>         >>
>         >> I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
>         >> M
>         >>
>         >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco
>         <lanfran at yorku.ca
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lanfran at yorku.ca');>> wrote:
>         >> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
>         >>
>         >> Sam
>         >>
>         >> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>         >> Hi again,
>         >>
>         >> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right,
>         we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in
>         this order:
>         >>
>         >> 1. NCSG
>         >> 2. NCPH
>         >> 3. Full Council
>         >>
>         >> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
>         >>
>         >> Thanks again.
>         >>
>         >> Amr
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>         >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org');>
>         >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> --
>         >> Mar?lia Maciel
>         >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade -
>         FGV Direito Rio
>         >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology &
>         Society - FGV Law School
>         >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>         >>
>         >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>         <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>         >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -
>         http://www.politics.org.br/
>         >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>         http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>         >>
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>         >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org');>
>         >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > PC-NCSG mailing list
>         > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mshears at cdt.org');>
>         + 44 771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>
>
>
>         ---
>         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
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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

-- 

*--------------------------------------------*
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
----------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/f08819d1/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Oct 22 16:03:55 2015
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:03:55 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <CABAnqJOphsUwM8qsVKEpjithRwCRLeNgqH9844DfjM8TkdAfgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>
	<5628D6BD.7050901@cdt.org>
	<DB3PR05MB521D3DE6EFB97EDE0F69358F7270@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CACpVkK2iu6v=9srx=KvXB1+6OOuPjqa7bOW8qBsxjpTB1Gt3AA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABAnqJOphsUwM8qsVKEpjithRwCRLeNgqH9844DfjM8TkdAfgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5628DEBB.50008@mail.utoronto.ca>

we are hanging around the council room which is Wicklow hall 2 I think
seems to be empty
SP

On 2015-10-22 8:52, Matthew Shears wrote:
> What room please
>
> On Thursday, 22 October 2015, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com 
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I had a previously scheduled meeting at 13:30. I will meet you as
>     soon as it is over. Please let me know of the location.
>     M
>
>     Em 22/10/2015 13:36, "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu
>     <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Stefania.Milan at eui.eu');>> escreveu:
>
>         Consensus, thanks Amr for organizing.
>         I am in the room and I am ok with 2pm to accomodate Marilia's
>         needs as well.
>
>
>         ________________________________________
>         Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org');>>
>         per conto di Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mshears at cdt.org');>>
>         Inviato: gioved? 22 ottobre 2015 14.29
>         A: Amr Elsadr; Marilia Maciel
>         Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org');>
>         Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
>
>         Could we decide so we know where to meet?
>
>         Matthew
>
>         On 22/10/2015 13:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>         > I don?t know, Marilia. I was actually hoping that we can all
>         leave the meeting together directly following the GNSO wrap up
>         session.
>         >
>         > Sam, are you in the room with us? I haven?t spotted you.
>         >
>         > Thoughts?
>         >
>         > Thanks.
>         >
>         > Amr
>         >
>         >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel
>         <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mariliamaciel at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>         >>
>         >> I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
>         >> M
>         >>
>         >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco
>         <lanfran at yorku.ca
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lanfran at yorku.ca');>> wrote:
>         >> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
>         >>
>         >> Sam
>         >>
>         >> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>         >> Hi again,
>         >>
>         >> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right,
>         we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in
>         this order:
>         >>
>         >> 1. NCSG
>         >> 2. NCPH
>         >> 3. Full Council
>         >>
>         >> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
>         >>
>         >> Thanks again.
>         >>
>         >> Amr
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>         >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org');>
>         >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> --
>         >> Mar?lia Maciel
>         >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade -
>         FGV Direito Rio
>         >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology &
>         Society - FGV Law School
>         >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>         >>
>         >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>         <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>         >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -
>         http://www.politics.org.br/
>         >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>         http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>         >>
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>         >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org');>
>         >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > PC-NCSG mailing list
>         > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mshears at cdt.org');>
>         + 44 771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>
>
>
>         ---
>         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
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/01955211/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Thu Oct 22 16:08:40 2015
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:08:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
In-Reply-To: <CABAnqJOphsUwM8qsVKEpjithRwCRLeNgqH9844DfjM8TkdAfgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D311EE64-9959-49DC-9534-2A9996E397A7@egyptig.org>
	<06F42FBA-F8B3-4843-A0BE-5618F29FD439@difference.com.au>
	<7D99BD9B-721A-4F16-AB89-CF0502D19777@egyptig.org>
	<20151022112924.GB14096@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4A482A1B-96BA-4FBB-9F2F-3E7E9FE7288D@egyptig.org>
	<91DED915-12F6-4773-A445-1B2620260485@egyptig.org>
	<5628CE4B.7010408@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK36BKkzGqV2GknddGmjxQ8HUozisX1ZH8OKewPqFq20UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<41FFE904-158F-4B90-A8DD-E2E1D5073BAC@egyptig.org>
	<5628D6BD.7050901@cdt.org>
	<DB3PR05MB521D3DE6EFB97EDE0F69358F7270@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CACpVkK2iu6v=9srx=KvXB1+6OOuPjqa7bOW8qBsxjpTB1Gt3AA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABAnqJOphsUwM8qsVKEpjithRwCRLeNgqH9844DfjM8TkdAfgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5628DFD8.3040700@yorku.ca>

Where are you meeting?

Sam

On 2015-10-22 1:52 PM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> What room please
>
> On Thursday, 22 October 2015, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com 
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I had a previously scheduled meeting at 13:30. I will meet you as
>     soon as it is over. Please let me know of the location.
>     M
>
>     Em 22/10/2015 13:36, "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu
>     <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Stefania.Milan at eui.eu');>> escreveu:
>
>         Consensus, thanks Amr for organizing.
>         I am in the room and I am ok with 2pm to accomodate Marilia's
>         needs as well.
>
>
>         ________________________________________
>         Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org');>>
>         per conto di Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mshears at cdt.org');>>
>         Inviato: gioved? 22 ottobre 2015 14.29
>         A: Amr Elsadr; Marilia Maciel
>         Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org');>
>         Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Leaderless GNSO
>
>         Could we decide so we know where to meet?
>
>         Matthew
>
>         On 22/10/2015 13:19, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>         > I don?t know, Marilia. I was actually hoping that we can all
>         leave the meeting together directly following the GNSO wrap up
>         session.
>         >
>         > Sam, are you in the room with us? I haven?t spotted you.
>         >
>         > Thoughts?
>         >
>         > Thanks.
>         >
>         > Amr
>         >
>         >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel
>         <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mariliamaciel at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>         >>
>         >> I am free at 14:00. Will the GNSO room be occupied?
>         >> M
>         >>
>         >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Sam Lanfranco
>         <lanfran at yorku.ca
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lanfran at yorku.ca');>> wrote:
>         >> I can meet. Suggestions for When (Clock time) and Where?
>         >>
>         >> Sam
>         >>
>         >> On 2015-10-22 12:48 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>         >> Hi again,
>         >>
>         >> I want us to meet because I believe that to do this right,
>         we need to expeditiously coordinate this at three levels in
>         this order:
>         >>
>         >> 1. NCSG
>         >> 2. NCPH
>         >> 3. Full Council
>         >>
>         >> The sooner we can get this done, the better IMO.
>         >>
>         >> Thanks again.
>         >>
>         >> Amr
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>         >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org');>
>         >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> --
>         >> Mar?lia Maciel
>         >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade -
>         FGV Direito Rio
>         >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology &
>         Society - FGV Law School
>         >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>         >>
>         >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>         <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>         >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -
>         http://www.politics.org.br/
>         >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>         http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>         >>
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>         >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org');>
>         >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > PC-NCSG mailing list
>         > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mshears at cdt.org');>
>         + 44 771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>
>
>
>         ---
>         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
>         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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

-- 

*--------------------------------------------*
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
----------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/b47d7b6e/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 16:52:26 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:52:26 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Interim Vice Chair
References: <CA+aOHUSOMkAVbU+5Ptt0y4C1_JjCYv7-zB8TJ9TO8LXs_3-CVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A42E09A6-2041-419F-9360-8FD8F2D3E41F@egyptig.org>



Sent from mobile

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date: October 22, 2015 at 2:50:59 PM GMT+1
> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Cc: Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at gmail.com>,  Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,  Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>,  NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: Interim Vice Chair
> 
> Amr,
> 
> In a sign that our two stakeholder groups are more similar than some might think, we appear to be at that midstream point in discussions where all options are back on the table.  I hope that we can get back to you as soon as possible.
> 
> Greg
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> Thanks Greg. That makes perfect sense to me. We will do the same. I will keep you updated regarding progress on our side as we make it.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Amr,
>> >
>> > Thank you.  In the interests of transparency, we've now had a request within our side to meet and confer among ourselves.  The conversations so far have been parallel and serial, but we haven't had one time to discuss among ourselves and there's a feeling that is necessary.
>> >
>> > I absolutely share your desire for a coordinated approach to get through this month.
>> >
>> > Greg
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> > Thanks for this Greg. I hope we can have a coordinated approach to getting through this month as seamlessly as possible.
>> >
>> > I?ve cc?ed the NCSG Policy Committee to this email. Hopefully, we can hold a discussion among ourselves quickly (today), and get back to you with a clear response.
>> >
>> > Thanks again.
>> >
>> > Amr
>> >
>> > > On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Heather is willing to serve as interim vice chair. Can we do this for today? Please pass on to those I've missed.
>> > >
>> > > I'm in the Council room.
>> > >
>> > > Greg
>> >
>> >
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/d07db7d2/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Oct 22 17:13:49 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:13:49 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: CPH Candidate - Second Attempt
References: <D24EABEB.97D36%jbladel@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <BBA1BD0E-6BF6-40E1-8946-BCFBFB1375E8@egyptig.org>

FYI

Sent from mobile

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Date: October 22, 2015 at 3:06:32 PM GMT+1
> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Subject: CPH Candidate - Second Attempt
> 
> Hi Amr.  I can confirm that, barring any unforeseen developments, I will be the CPH candidate for GNSO Chair in the next election.
> 
> Thanks?
> 
> J.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151022/22f5fe3d/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Oct 23 02:48:23 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:48:23 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Follow-up on Council Chair Elections
Message-ID: <BDF213AB-74D5-4DA5-A190-2AC9B31B5AD7@egyptig.org>

Hi,

A few of the PC members met today following the the GNSO wrap-up session to generally discuss a strategy for our SG on the council chair elections, but more specifically on a course of action regarding nomination of an interim council VC from the NCPH.

Those present were:

Amr Elsadr
Stefania Milan
Matthew Shears
Sam Lanfranco
David Cake
Stephanie Perrin

I will try to summarise what we discussed this afternoon, but would appreciate others pointing out anything I may have missed.

As you?ve seen on this list, I have been trying to coordinate a possible way forward with Greg Shatan from the IPC and James Bladel from the RrSG. I did inform them that any correspondence or informal discussion between us would need to be relayed to the full NCSG PC. I would prefer to avoid any miscommunication similar to what we have experienced over this past week, and they have indicated their agreement.

Here are the discussion points from today:

1. Greg indicated to me this morning that the CSG would like the NCPH to appoint an interim VC until a council chair is successfully elected, however, he did indicate that David Cake would not be an acceptable candidate for the job. He did not explain why, and I did not press him for an explanation. He later sent an email (which I have circulated on this list), which suggested that the CSG are now open to any considerations. He also explicitly informed me that the CSG intent regarding an interim VC was that there is no expected obligation on their side that an interim VC would be a candidate in any upcoming chair election (for example, in the event that Heather would be the interim VC).

2. James Bladel (during the wrap-up session) indicated to me that a repeat of the failure to elect a council chair in one month is a realistic possibility. He also expressed concern that this may impact the council?s ability to conduct its business in the short term, especially should motions be submitted as council agenda items over the next few months.

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.

4. The NCSG needs to be fully aware of any scenarios and implications of decisions that we make regarding agreeing to a council chair candidate from the NCPH, and any communication between the NCSG and other SGs of the GNSO.

5. The NCSG will formally communicate any positions we have to other groups within the GNSO. This has been made clear to the IPC and the RrSG, however, there is no confirmation that this has been communicated to the full CSG or the RySG. This will need to be done tomorrow during the full-day GNSO session starting at 09:30.

6. Last night during the NCPH reception, Rafik and I met with Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz. I expressed to them my regret of the miscommunication that has led to us down this path, and conveyed my personal apologies for the role that I played in not communicating the NCSG?s full position of no guarantees to supporting Heather Forrest during the council chair election. The CSG were understandably under the impression that we would support her, as we agreed to her candidacy, and we had not effectively communicated to them that this did not represent a commitment on our part to vote for her during the elections.

7. We need to encourage our CSG counterparts to use the NCPH leadership email list to coordinate our communication. I will ask Glen to add some missing members of the NCSG PC to that list, namely, the constituency representatives to the PC as well as Stefania, who has recently been elected to the council.

END OF NOTES.

As has been our tradition, I hope that the NCSG will not decide to direct our councillors voting for the GNSO council chair elections. I will personally not support a decision to direct our councillors votes under any circumstances. However, a consensus of the NCSG PC is required to confirm a VC (interim or permanent) from the NCPH.

Following the meeting of the PC members, James Bladel informed me that the CPH will continue to support his candidacy for council chair. This has not been formally announced, but once/if it is, we will need to decide whether or not we will consider supporting a NCPH candidate to run against him.

Finally, I will send a recording of yesterday?s informal meeting to this list in a separate email. This meeting took place prior to the council public meeting.

If anyone has any comments, questions or concerns, please speak up.

Thanks.

Amr





From aelsadr  Fri Oct 23 02:49:51 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:49:51 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Informal Meeting of NCSG PC Members Regarding the Council
	Chair Elections - October 21st 2015
References: <7458282A-5CB1-4859-B39C-D49EB0BCEDF4@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <89E657BB-6393-41EA-B1E6-F658FF18B859@egyptig.org>

For your consideration and records.

Thanks.

Amr

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Subject: Council Chair Elections
> Date: October 22, 2015 at 11:53:07 PM GMT+1
> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Council Chair Elections.m4a
Type: audio/x-m4a
Size: 11118268 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151023/f2f47b84/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from mobile



From aelsadr  Fri Oct 23 02:55:10 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:55:10 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Interim Vice Chair and a Way Forward
In-Reply-To: <54BFD4AD-D83F-403D-8B12-BF63A1909C81@egyptig.org>
References: <CA+aOHUS9NJbA-tU36rUVbFju4Rddi-JA66_SuifbZtMStLyZYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54BFD4AD-D83F-403D-8B12-BF63A1909C81@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <8025AA9A-95FA-428B-B1CD-DAB3B1C19C7A@egyptig.org>

Apologies. Forgot to actually add the NCSG PC to the list of recipients.

Amr

> On Oct 23, 2015, at 12:54 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The NCSG Policy Committee (added to the cc list in this reply) also held a meeting today following the GNSO Wrap-Up Session, and we have made some internal progress on this. We look forward to discussing it with you all tomorrow as well.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> We have spoken among the CSG constituencies.  We believe we have a suggestion that will follow the "business as usual" mantra at the Council table today and pave a way forward for our House.
>> 
>> We think that we should take advantage of Friday and sit down and talk.  It shouldn't take too long.  I hope we can find a time in and around the Council Induction agenda to sit and talk.
>> 
>> I am currently scheduled to join the meeting at 10:45, but I am available at any time (on reasonable notice, since my hotel is a good 15 minutes away).  BC and ISP leaders should be there or "on call" (Wolf-Ulrich).
>> 
>> I look forward to talking with you and putting this phase behind us.
>> 
>> Greg
> 




From wjdrake  Fri Oct 23 10:24:17 2015
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:24:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Follow-up on Council Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <BDF213AB-74D5-4DA5-A190-2AC9B31B5AD7@egyptig.org>
References: <BDF213AB-74D5-4DA5-A190-2AC9B31B5AD7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <C9159754-A9E9-4D85-AD2E-2F20746CA070@gmail.com>

+1 to this approach from the peanut gallery

Bill

> On Oct 23, 2015, at 12:48 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151023/dde7d9a4/attachment.html>


From mshears  Fri Oct 23 11:17:30 2015
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 09:17:30 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Follow-up on Council Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <BDF213AB-74D5-4DA5-A190-2AC9B31B5AD7@egyptig.org>
References: <BDF213AB-74D5-4DA5-A190-2AC9B31B5AD7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5629ED1A.3070509@cdt.org>

Amr

Thank for this - fully support.  One note inline.

See you all next time round.

Matthew

On 23/10/2015 00:48, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few of the PC members met today following the the GNSO wrap-up session to generally discuss a strategy for our SG on the council chair elections, but more specifically on a course of action regarding nomination of an interim council VC from the NCPH.
>
> Those present were:
>
> Amr Elsadr
> Stefania Milan
> Matthew Shears
> Sam Lanfranco
> David Cake
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> I will try to summarise what we discussed this afternoon, but would appreciate others pointing out anything I may have missed.
>
> As you?ve seen on this list, I have been trying to coordinate a possible way forward with Greg Shatan from the IPC and James Bladel from the RrSG. I did inform them that any correspondence or informal discussion between us would need to be relayed to the full NCSG PC. I would prefer to avoid any miscommunication similar to what we have experienced over this past week, and they have indicated their agreement.
>
> Here are the discussion points from today:
>
> 1. Greg indicated to me this morning that the CSG would like the NCPH to appoint an interim VC until a council chair is successfully elected, however, he did indicate that David Cake would not be an acceptable candidate for the job. He did not explain why, and I did not press him for an explanation. He later sent an email (which I have circulated on this list), which suggested that the CSG are now open to any considerations. He also explicitly informed me that the CSG intent regarding an interim VC was that there is no expected obligation on their side that an interim VC would be a candidate in any upcoming chair election (for example, in the event that Heather would be the interim VC).
>
> 2. James Bladel (during the wrap-up session) indicated to me that a repeat of the failure to elect a council chair in one month is a realistic possibility. He also expressed concern that this may impact the council?s ability to conduct its business in the short term, especially should motions be submitted as council agenda items over the next few months.
>
> 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.
I would just like to emphasize that the continuation of the VCs is, most 
importantly, the right decision from a governance perspective - the 
continuity and stability of the GNSO and its ability to act is 
paramount.  Any other option would be to add further uncertainties.
>
> 4. The NCSG needs to be fully aware of any scenarios and implications of decisions that we make regarding agreeing to a council chair candidate from the NCPH, and any communication between the NCSG and other SGs of the GNSO.
>
> 5. The NCSG will formally communicate any positions we have to other groups within the GNSO. This has been made clear to the IPC and the RrSG, however, there is no confirmation that this has been communicated to the full CSG or the RySG. This will need to be done tomorrow during the full-day GNSO session starting at 09:30.
>
> 6. Last night during the NCPH reception, Rafik and I met with Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz. I expressed to them my regret of the miscommunication that has led to us down this path, and conveyed my personal apologies for the role that I played in not communicating the NCSG?s full position of no guarantees to supporting Heather Forrest during the council chair election. The CSG were understandably under the impression that we would support her, as we agreed to her candidacy, and we had not effectively communicated to them that this did not represent a commitment on our part to vote for her during the elections.
>
> 7. We need to encourage our CSG counterparts to use the NCPH leadership email list to coordinate our communication. I will ask Glen to add some missing members of the NCSG PC to that list, namely, the constituency representatives to the PC as well as Stefania, who has recently been elected to the council.
>
> END OF NOTES.
>
> As has been our tradition, I hope that the NCSG will not decide to direct our councillors voting for the GNSO council chair elections. I will personally not support a decision to direct our councillors votes under any circumstances. However, a consensus of the NCSG PC is required to confirm a VC (interim or permanent) from the NCPH.
>
> Following the meeting of the PC members, James Bladel informed me that the CPH will continue to support his candidacy for council chair. This has not been formally announced, but once/if it is, we will need to decide whether or not we will consider supporting a NCPH candidate to run against him.
>
> Finally, I will send a recording of yesterday?s informal meeting to this list in a separate email. This meeting took place prior to the council public meeting.
>
> If anyone has any comments, questions or concerns, please speak up.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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




From aelsadr  Fri Oct 23 13:25:37 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:25:37 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Follow-up on Council Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <5629ED1A.3070509@cdt.org>
References: <BDF213AB-74D5-4DA5-A190-2AC9B31B5AD7@egyptig.org>
	<5629ED1A.3070509@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5E61ECC1-91B8-46D0-872F-186B9C7E9B87@egyptig.org>

Yes. Thanks Matt. And thank you to everyone who made it to yesterday?s meeting on such short notice.

Amr

> On Oct 23, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Amr
> 
> Thank for this - fully support.  One note inline.
> 
> See you all next time round.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 23/10/2015 00:48, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> A few of the PC members met today following the the GNSO wrap-up session to generally discuss a strategy for our SG on the council chair elections, but more specifically on a course of action regarding nomination of an interim council VC from the NCPH.
>> 
>> Those present were:
>> 
>> Amr Elsadr
>> Stefania Milan
>> Matthew Shears
>> Sam Lanfranco
>> David Cake
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> 
>> I will try to summarise what we discussed this afternoon, but would appreciate others pointing out anything I may have missed.
>> 
>> As you?ve seen on this list, I have been trying to coordinate a possible way forward with Greg Shatan from the IPC and James Bladel from the RrSG. I did inform them that any correspondence or informal discussion between us would need to be relayed to the full NCSG PC. I would prefer to avoid any miscommunication similar to what we have experienced over this past week, and they have indicated their agreement.
>> 
>> Here are the discussion points from today:
>> 
>> 1. Greg indicated to me this morning that the CSG would like the NCPH to appoint an interim VC until a council chair is successfully elected, however, he did indicate that David Cake would not be an acceptable candidate for the job. He did not explain why, and I did not press him for an explanation. He later sent an email (which I have circulated on this list), which suggested that the CSG are now open to any considerations. He also explicitly informed me that the CSG intent regarding an interim VC was that there is no expected obligation on their side that an interim VC would be a candidate in any upcoming chair election (for example, in the event that Heather would be the interim VC).
>> 
>> 2. James Bladel (during the wrap-up session) indicated to me that a repeat of the failure to elect a council chair in one month is a realistic possibility. He also expressed concern that this may impact the council?s ability to conduct its business in the short term, especially should motions be submitted as council agenda items over the next few months.
>> 
>> 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.
> I would just like to emphasize that the continuation of the VCs is, most importantly, the right decision from a governance perspective - the continuity and stability of the GNSO and its ability to act is paramount.  Any other option would be to add further uncertainties.
>> 
>> 4. The NCSG needs to be fully aware of any scenarios and implications of decisions that we make regarding agreeing to a council chair candidate from the NCPH, and any communication between the NCSG and other SGs of the GNSO.
>> 
>> 5. The NCSG will formally communicate any positions we have to other groups within the GNSO. This has been made clear to the IPC and the RrSG, however, there is no confirmation that this has been communicated to the full CSG or the RySG. This will need to be done tomorrow during the full-day GNSO session starting at 09:30.
>> 
>> 6. Last night during the NCPH reception, Rafik and I met with Greg Shatan and Steve Metalitz. I expressed to them my regret of the miscommunication that has led to us down this path, and conveyed my personal apologies for the role that I played in not communicating the NCSG?s full position of no guarantees to supporting Heather Forrest during the council chair election. The CSG were understandably under the impression that we would support her, as we agreed to her candidacy, and we had not effectively communicated to them that this did not represent a commitment on our part to vote for her during the elections.
>> 
>> 7. We need to encourage our CSG counterparts to use the NCPH leadership email list to coordinate our communication. I will ask Glen to add some missing members of the NCSG PC to that list, namely, the constituency representatives to the PC as well as Stefania, who has recently been elected to the council.
>> 
>> END OF NOTES.
>> 
>> As has been our tradition, I hope that the NCSG will not decide to direct our councillors voting for the GNSO council chair elections. I will personally not support a decision to direct our councillors votes under any circumstances. However, a consensus of the NCSG PC is required to confirm a VC (interim or permanent) from the NCPH.
>> 
>> Following the meeting of the PC members, James Bladel informed me that the CPH will continue to support his candidacy for council chair. This has not been formally announced, but once/if it is, we will need to decide whether or not we will consider supporting a NCPH candidate to run against him.
>> 
>> Finally, I will send a recording of yesterday?s informal meeting to this list in a separate email. This meeting took place prior to the council public meeting.
>> 
>> If anyone has any comments, questions or concerns, please speak up.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From rafik.dammak  Mon Oct 26 10:03:46 2015
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:03:46 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Upcoming Reviews
In-Reply-To: <3a246b9034c44aa9a83295e4e5006f41@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <3a246b9034c44aa9a83295e4e5006f41@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=1kW+1jefuSywyt8zsDgsch6nHZYF6t5sp2mK2xAO6TA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

you will find below the timeline for the different AoC reviews. we have to
find good candidates for the CCT. other RTs will start quite late starting
from next year.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
Date: 2015-10-22 8:42 GMT+09:00
Subject: Upcoming Reviews
To: "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>


Hello Rafik,

To follow up on our brief chat, here is the link
<https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-aoc-org-reviews> to
the session on Reviews and the presentation slides are available here
<https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-aoc-org-reviews/presentation-aoc-org-reviews-21oct15-en.pdf>.
You will find slide 6 particularly useful in providing you with a snapshot
of upcoming reviews.  The call for volunteers to take part in the CCT
Review is available here
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-10-01-en>.  I hope that you
find this information useful.



Best wishes,

Larisa



[image: cid:image001.png at 01D10C0B.06D8CC60]



*Larisa B. Gurnick*

Director, Strategic Initiatives

Mobile: 1 310 383-8995

Skype: larisa.gurnick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151026/7afc2f72/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 57922 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151026/7afc2f72/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AoC and Organizational Reviews (FINAL).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1458084 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151026/7afc2f72/attachment-0001.pdf>


From aelsadr  Mon Oct 26 11:48:48 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:48:48 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Leadership Mailing List
Message-ID: <5BC5B4F1-0C08-4A86-B9FB-15619C457C33@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I just wanted to let folks here know that I?ve been coordinating with Greg Shatan of the IPC and Glen de Saint G?ry from the GNSO Secretariat to revive the NCPH leadership?s mailing list to facilitate coordination between the groups of the NCPH. This list has not been used for a long time, but hopefully will assist in house-wide communication more effectively in the future.

I?ve submitted the names of all the NCSG PC members to be included on this list, and would appreciate it if the Chairs of the NCSG/NCUC/NPOC submit the names of the three groups? executive leadership to also be included.

I expect that many folks who had been previously subscribed to the list, but are not currently on leadership teams will be unsubscribed. One person who comes to mind is Mikey O?Connor, who actually came up with the idea of this list to begin with. About time we put it to some good use.

Thanks.

Amr


From avri  Mon Oct 26 19:07:57 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:07:57 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
Message-ID: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>

hi,

Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
alternate as I have resigned from the group.
Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
is willing.

I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
enough.

cheers

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




From Stefania.Milan  Mon Oct 26 19:10:16 2015
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:10:16 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
In-Reply-To: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
References: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
Message-ID: <140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>

hi Avri, everyone
i have a v bad conscience re SCI so i feel i cannot bail out :)
st.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 27, 2015, at 01:08, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
> alternate as I have resigned from the group.
> Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
> is willing.
>
> I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
> wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
> enough.
>
> cheers
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> 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

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  Mon Oct 26 20:57:24 2015
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:57:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
In-Reply-To: <140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>
References: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
	<140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>
Message-ID: <562E7794.20902@kathykleiman.com>

Tx to Avri for all her work.
Thanks to Stefania for wanting to be our new primary in SCI. Continuity 
of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation is a 
valuable and important thing.

Best,
Kathy

On 10/26/2015 1:10 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> hi Avri, everyone
> i have a v bad conscience re SCI so i feel i cannot bail out :)
> st.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 01:08, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
>> alternate as I have resigned from the group.
>> Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
>> is willing.
>>
>> I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
>> wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
>> enough.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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
> 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




From aelsadr  Tue Oct 27 13:42:56 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:42:56 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
In-Reply-To: <562E7794.20902@kathykleiman.com>
References: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
	<140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>
	<562E7794.20902@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <40A070EA-C696-4872-9189-9428FF3BDFB0@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Indeed. Avri?s done great work on the SCI over the years, so thanks for that. Also grateful to Stefania for her willingness to step up from NCSG?s alternate representative to primary. If there are no objections, we can communicate this to the SCI leadership team and support staff. Please share your thoughts on this over the next few days.

Every SG/C has a two person team on the SCI; a primary representative and an alternate. We will need to appoint someone to this team to replace Avri, and we also need to confirm Stefania as the new primary.

By the way?, the SCI is not hard work at all, will hardly consume more than an hour or two a month, in addition to possibly two teleconference meetings/month. It?s a good way to learn more about the GNSO operating procedures and working group guidelines, which is what it reviews, usually on request by the council.

David Cake and I are members of the SCI representing the NCUC, and Rudi Vansnick is the primary representative of NPOC as well as SCI vice chair. NPOC also need to appoint an alternate member to the committee.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> Tx to Avri for all her work.
> Thanks to Stefania for wanting to be our new primary in SCI. Continuity of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation is a valuable and important thing.
> 
> Best,
> Kathy
> 
> On 10/26/2015 1:10 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>> hi Avri, everyone
>> i have a v bad conscience re SCI so i feel i cannot bail out :)
>> st.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 01:08, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> hi,
>>> 
>>> Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
>>> alternate as I have resigned from the group.
>>> Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
>>> is willing.
>>> 
>>> I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
>>> wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
>>> enough.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 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
>> 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




From ncsg  Wed Oct 28 14:44:52 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:44:52 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
In-Reply-To: <40A070EA-C696-4872-9189-9428FF3BDFB0@egyptig.org>
References: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
	<140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>
	<562E7794.20902@kathykleiman.com>
	<40A070EA-C696-4872-9189-9428FF3BDFB0@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20151028124452.GL27937@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Thanks to Avri and Stefania from me, too.

But, if nobody else wants it, I guess I could take
the alternate on myself. I'd want to keep up to date
on what's going on in SCI anyway, and with Stefania
doing all the work it shouldn't be too strenuous for me. :-)

That is assuming there's no rule against Chair doing it
or any other reason why it wouldn't be a good idea.

Anyway, it's not like I need more work, so if someone
else is willing to do it, I'll happily stand aside.

Tapani

On Oct 27 13:42, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Indeed. Avri?s done great work on the SCI over the years, so thanks for that. Also grateful to Stefania for her willingness to step up from NCSG?s alternate representative to primary. If there are no objections, we can communicate this to the SCI leadership team and support staff. Please share your thoughts on this over the next few days.
> 
> Every SG/C has a two person team on the SCI; a primary representative and an alternate. We will need to appoint someone to this team to replace Avri, and we also need to confirm Stefania as the new primary.
> 
> By the way?, the SCI is not hard work at all, will hardly consume more than an hour or two a month, in addition to possibly two teleconference meetings/month. It?s a good way to learn more about the GNSO operating procedures and working group guidelines, which is what it reviews, usually on request by the council.
> 
> David Cake and I are members of the SCI representing the NCUC, and Rudi Vansnick is the primary representative of NPOC as well as SCI vice chair. NPOC also need to appoint an alternate member to the committee.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Oct 26, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> > 
> > Tx to Avri for all her work.
> > Thanks to Stefania for wanting to be our new primary in SCI. Continuity of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation is a valuable and important thing.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Kathy
> > 
> > On 10/26/2015 1:10 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> >> hi Avri, everyone
> >> i have a v bad conscience re SCI so i feel i cannot bail out :)
> >> st.
> >> 
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> 
> >>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 01:08, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> hi,
> >>> 
> >>> Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
> >>> alternate as I have resigned from the group.
> >>> Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
> >>> is willing.
> >>> 
> >>> I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
> >>> wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
> >>> enough.
> >>> 
> >>> cheers
> >>> 
> >>> avri



From aelsadr  Wed Oct 28 19:29:37 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:29:37 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
In-Reply-To: <20151028124452.GL27937@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
	<140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>
	<562E7794.20902@kathykleiman.com>
	<40A070EA-C696-4872-9189-9428FF3BDFB0@egyptig.org>
	<20151028124452.GL27937@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <01AA79E9-EEDF-45F8-9141-705B487F0EDC@egyptig.org>

Hi Tapani,

I think you joining the SCI is a great idea. Thanks for volunteering. I'm certainly not aware of any rule that prevents you from doing this. 

I would advise that we give it a day to hear whether there are any objections, or other folks willing to step forward. I also don't know if you want to circulate a call for a volunteer on NCSG-DISCUSS, or not. 

In any case, I suspect you'd make a fine and constructive contributor to the mission of the committee. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Oct 28, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Thanks to Avri and Stefania from me, too.
> 
> But, if nobody else wants it, I guess I could take
> the alternate on myself. I'd want to keep up to date
> on what's going on in SCI anyway, and with Stefania
> doing all the work it shouldn't be too strenuous for me. :-)
> 
> That is assuming there's no rule against Chair doing it
> or any other reason why it wouldn't be a good idea.
> 
> Anyway, it's not like I need more work, so if someone
> else is willing to do it, I'll happily stand aside.
> 
> Tapani
> 
>> On Oct 27 13:42, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Indeed. Avri?s done great work on the SCI over the years, so thanks for that. Also grateful to Stefania for her willingness to step up from NCSG?s alternate representative to primary. If there are no objections, we can communicate this to the SCI leadership team and support staff. Please share your thoughts on this over the next few days.
>> 
>> Every SG/C has a two person team on the SCI; a primary representative and an alternate. We will need to appoint someone to this team to replace Avri, and we also need to confirm Stefania as the new primary.
>> 
>> By the way?, the SCI is not hard work at all, will hardly consume more than an hour or two a month, in addition to possibly two teleconference meetings/month. It?s a good way to learn more about the GNSO operating procedures and working group guidelines, which is what it reviews, usually on request by the council.
>> 
>> David Cake and I are members of the SCI representing the NCUC, and Rudi Vansnick is the primary representative of NPOC as well as SCI vice chair. NPOC also need to appoint an alternate member to the committee.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Oct 26, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tx to Avri for all her work.
>>> Thanks to Stefania for wanting to be our new primary in SCI. Continuity of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation is a valuable and important thing.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Kathy
>>> 
>>>> On 10/26/2015 1:10 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>>>> hi Avri, everyone
>>>> i have a v bad conscience re SCI so i feel i cannot bail out :)
>>>> st.
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 01:08, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
>>>>> alternate as I have resigned from the group.
>>>>> Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
>>>>> is willing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
>>>>> wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
>>>>> enough.
>>>>> 
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From avri  Wed Oct 28 21:05:46 2015
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:05:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
In-Reply-To: <20151028124452.GL27937@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
	<140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>
	<562E7794.20902@kathykleiman.com>
	<40A070EA-C696-4872-9189-9428FF3BDFB0@egyptig.org>
	<20151028124452.GL27937@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <56311C8A.5010907@acm.org>

Hi,

I think you and Stefania would make a great team on SCI.

avri


On 28-Oct-15 08:44, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Thanks to Avri and Stefania from me, too.
>
> But, if nobody else wants it, I guess I could take
> the alternate on myself. I'd want to keep up to date
> on what's going on in SCI anyway, and with Stefania
> doing all the work it shouldn't be too strenuous for me. :-)
>
> That is assuming there's no rule against Chair doing it
> or any other reason why it wouldn't be a good idea.
>
> Anyway, it's not like I need more work, so if someone
> else is willing to do it, I'll happily stand aside.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Oct 27 13:42, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Indeed. Avri?s done great work on the SCI over the years, so thanks for that. Also grateful to Stefania for her willingness to step up from NCSG?s alternate representative to primary. If there are no objections, we can communicate this to the SCI leadership team and support staff. Please share your thoughts on this over the next few days.
>>
>> Every SG/C has a two person team on the SCI; a primary representative and an alternate. We will need to appoint someone to this team to replace Avri, and we also need to confirm Stefania as the new primary.
>>
>> By the way?, the SCI is not hard work at all, will hardly consume more than an hour or two a month, in addition to possibly two teleconference meetings/month. It?s a good way to learn more about the GNSO operating procedures and working group guidelines, which is what it reviews, usually on request by the council.
>>
>> David Cake and I are members of the SCI representing the NCUC, and Rudi Vansnick is the primary representative of NPOC as well as SCI vice chair. NPOC also need to appoint an alternate member to the committee.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tx to Avri for all her work.
>>> Thanks to Stefania for wanting to be our new primary in SCI. Continuity of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation is a valuable and important thing.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Kathy
>>>
>>> On 10/26/2015 1:10 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>>>> hi Avri, everyone
>>>> i have a v bad conscience re SCI so i feel i cannot bail out :)
>>>> st.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 01:08, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
>>>>> alternate as I have resigned from the group.
>>>>> Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
>>>>> is willing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
>>>>> wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
>>>>> enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ncsg  Thu Oct 29 15:03:53 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:03:53 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
In-Reply-To: <01AA79E9-EEDF-45F8-9141-705B487F0EDC@egyptig.org>
References: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
	<140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>
	<562E7794.20902@kathykleiman.com>
	<40A070EA-C696-4872-9189-9428FF3BDFB0@egyptig.org>
	<20151028124452.GL27937@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<01AA79E9-EEDF-45F8-9141-705B487F0EDC@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20151029130353.GG8174@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Hi Amr,

On general principles I'd always like to call for volunteers
from the largest pool possible, and I don't think an extra
day or two would matter here.

Would you like to call for volunteers on ncsg-discuss
or should I do it?

We should also call for volunteers to the Competition, Consumer Trust
and Consumer Choice Review Team, and that's actually more urgent,
as the deadline is tomorrow.

Tapani

On Oct 28 19:29, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:

> Hi Tapani,
> 
> I think you joining the SCI is a great idea. Thanks for volunteering. I'm certainly not aware of any rule that prevents you from doing this. 
> 
> I would advise that we give it a day to hear whether there are any objections, or other folks willing to step forward. I also don't know if you want to circulate a call for a volunteer on NCSG-DISCUSS, or not. 
> 
> In any case, I suspect you'd make a fine and constructive contributor to the mission of the committee. 
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> Amr
> 
> Sent from mobile
> 
> > On Oct 28, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks to Avri and Stefania from me, too.
> > 
> > But, if nobody else wants it, I guess I could take
> > the alternate on myself. I'd want to keep up to date
> > on what's going on in SCI anyway, and with Stefania
> > doing all the work it shouldn't be too strenuous for me. :-)
> > 
> > That is assuming there's no rule against Chair doing it
> > or any other reason why it wouldn't be a good idea.
> > 
> > Anyway, it's not like I need more work, so if someone
> > else is willing to do it, I'll happily stand aside.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> >> On Oct 27 13:42, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> Indeed. Avri?s done great work on the SCI over the years, so thanks for that. Also grateful to Stefania for her willingness to step up from NCSG?s alternate representative to primary. If there are no objections, we can communicate this to the SCI leadership team and support staff. Please share your thoughts on this over the next few days.
> >> 
> >> Every SG/C has a two person team on the SCI; a primary representative and an alternate. We will need to appoint someone to this team to replace Avri, and we also need to confirm Stefania as the new primary.
> >> 
> >> By the way?, the SCI is not hard work at all, will hardly consume more than an hour or two a month, in addition to possibly two teleconference meetings/month. It?s a good way to learn more about the GNSO operating procedures and working group guidelines, which is what it reviews, usually on request by the council.
> >> 
> >> David Cake and I are members of the SCI representing the NCUC, and Rudi Vansnick is the primary representative of NPOC as well as SCI vice chair. NPOC also need to appoint an alternate member to the committee.
> >> 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >> Amr
> >> 
> >>> On Oct 26, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Tx to Avri for all her work.
> >>> Thanks to Stefania for wanting to be our new primary in SCI. Continuity of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation is a valuable and important thing.
> >>> 
> >>> Best,
> >>> Kathy
> >>> 
> >>>> On 10/26/2015 1:10 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> >>>> hi Avri, everyone
> >>>> i have a v bad conscience re SCI so i feel i cannot bail out :)
> >>>> st.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 01:08, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> hi,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
> >>>>> alternate as I have resigned from the group.
> >>>>> Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
> >>>>> is willing.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
> >>>>> wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
> >>>>> enough.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> avri



From aelsadr  Fri Oct 30 13:47:21 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:47:21 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
In-Reply-To: <20151029130353.GG8174@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
	<140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>
	<562E7794.20902@kathykleiman.com>
	<40A070EA-C696-4872-9189-9428FF3BDFB0@egyptig.org>
	<20151028124452.GL27937@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<01AA79E9-EEDF-45F8-9141-705B487F0EDC@egyptig.org>
	<20151029130353.GG8174@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <FCBE1E56-BCDE-409D-9034-6ECC200223DD@egyptig.org>

Hi Tapani and all,

Apologies for not responding sooner. Had some trouble getting online yesterday.

Thanks for moving forward with this. Looks like we have 3 volunteers so far. I don?t want the process for selection to be too burdensome on those who have shown interest. However, I do suggest that some steps be taken to assist the PC in making this appointment. Perhaps something to this effect:

1. Announce a deadline for volunteering + submission of a statement of intent (November 5th?)
2. Submit a statement of intent including:
	a. A commitment to actively participate on behalf of NCSG on the SCI
	b. Reason(s) why the applicant is interested
	c. Demonstration of why the applicant is a desirable candidate for selection

This doesn?t need to be long, but let me explain why I believe we should do this. Participation in the SCI has proven to be quite challenging. Often, active participation is limited to the groups of the NCPH. It hasn?t been easy to get Contracted Parties to contribute to SCI discussions, even when the time comes for a consensus call (Note that the SCI only makes recommendations when FULL consensus of the committee is achieved). Seems to me that we need to ensure active NCSG participation/representation on the SCI. Avri?s done an admirable job so far, and we should select a replacement who is able and willing to do the same.

Thought?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 29, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> 
> On general principles I'd always like to call for volunteers
> from the largest pool possible, and I don't think an extra
> day or two would matter here.
> 
> Would you like to call for volunteers on ncsg-discuss
> or should I do it?
> 
> We should also call for volunteers to the Competition, Consumer Trust
> and Consumer Choice Review Team, and that's actually more urgent,
> as the deadline is tomorrow.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Oct 28 19:29, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
> 
>> Hi Tapani,
>> 
>> I think you joining the SCI is a great idea. Thanks for volunteering. I'm certainly not aware of any rule that prevents you from doing this. 
>> 
>> I would advise that we give it a day to hear whether there are any objections, or other folks willing to step forward. I also don't know if you want to circulate a call for a volunteer on NCSG-DISCUSS, or not. 
>> 
>> In any case, I suspect you'd make a fine and constructive contributor to the mission of the committee. 
>> 
>> Thanks. 
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> Sent from mobile
>> 
>>> On Oct 28, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks to Avri and Stefania from me, too.
>>> 
>>> But, if nobody else wants it, I guess I could take
>>> the alternate on myself. I'd want to keep up to date
>>> on what's going on in SCI anyway, and with Stefania
>>> doing all the work it shouldn't be too strenuous for me. :-)
>>> 
>>> That is assuming there's no rule against Chair doing it
>>> or any other reason why it wouldn't be a good idea.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, it's not like I need more work, so if someone
>>> else is willing to do it, I'll happily stand aside.
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 27 13:42, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed. Avri?s done great work on the SCI over the years, so thanks for that. Also grateful to Stefania for her willingness to step up from NCSG?s alternate representative to primary. If there are no objections, we can communicate this to the SCI leadership team and support staff. Please share your thoughts on this over the next few days.
>>>> 
>>>> Every SG/C has a two person team on the SCI; a primary representative and an alternate. We will need to appoint someone to this team to replace Avri, and we also need to confirm Stefania as the new primary.
>>>> 
>>>> By the way?, the SCI is not hard work at all, will hardly consume more than an hour or two a month, in addition to possibly two teleconference meetings/month. It?s a good way to learn more about the GNSO operating procedures and working group guidelines, which is what it reviews, usually on request by the council.
>>>> 
>>>> David Cake and I are members of the SCI representing the NCUC, and Rudi Vansnick is the primary representative of NPOC as well as SCI vice chair. NPOC also need to appoint an alternate member to the committee.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 26, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tx to Avri for all her work.
>>>>> Thanks to Stefania for wanting to be our new primary in SCI. Continuity of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation is a valuable and important thing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10/26/2015 1:10 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>>>>>> hi Avri, everyone
>>>>>> i have a v bad conscience re SCI so i feel i cannot bail out :)
>>>>>> st.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 01:08, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
>>>>>>> alternate as I have resigned from the group.
>>>>>>> Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
>>>>>>> is willing.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
>>>>>>> wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> avri
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Fri Oct 30 14:10:15 2015
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:10:15 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] 2015 GNSO Council Chair Elections
Message-ID: <41D522D4-A5D2-4E29-8415-3A95B2C9F039@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Our NCSG representatives to the GNSO Council will need to participate in a new round of chair elections very soon. This is the schedule for the next round(s):

5 November - Deadline for nominations ('Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair?)
12 November - Deadline for candidate statements: 
19 November Council meeting (possibly extend meeting by 1 hour?) - Interview with candidates 
20 November - Ballots send out by GNSO Secretariat  ? deadline for votes Monday 23 November
24 November - Results announced by GNSO Secretariat 

If second round is needed, 
24 November, second round ballots are sent out (deadline for votes Thursday 26 November)
27 November, results of second round announced by GNSO Secretariat

We?ve hopefully got the NCPH Leadership list set and ready to hold discussions on this topic. We should use that list more often, when coordinating with the CSG constituencies.

Anyway?, so far, the only ?unconfirmed? updates to this topic that I have heard are that:

1. James Bladel will continue to run as the CPH candidate
2. Heather Forrest is willing to serve as a Council Vice-Chair for the next year

I say that these are ?unconfirmed?, because these were communicated to me, and possibly others, privately (not on a publicly archived list), but no official nominations have been submitted yet.

I will try to get a more formal discussion that we are all a part of going.

Thanks.

Amr


From ncsg  Fri Oct 30 15:16:38 2015
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:16:38 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New SCI representative & alternate from NCSG
In-Reply-To: <FCBE1E56-BCDE-409D-9034-6ECC200223DD@egyptig.org>
References: <562E5DED.9020701@acm.org>
	<140BEF61-1706-4C25-8547-2766FCF63C8D@EUI.eu>
	<562E7794.20902@kathykleiman.com>
	<40A070EA-C696-4872-9189-9428FF3BDFB0@egyptig.org>
	<20151028124452.GL27937@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<01AA79E9-EEDF-45F8-9141-705B487F0EDC@egyptig.org>
	<20151029130353.GG8174@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<FCBE1E56-BCDE-409D-9034-6ECC200223DD@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20151030131638.GK18620@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Hi Amr,

That sounds like a very good approach to me.

When thinking of dates, it might be useful to check
when SCI's next meeting will be, and try to time this
so that we'll have new people in place in good time.

Tapani

On Oct 30 13:47, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:

> Hi Tapani and all,
> 
> Apologies for not responding sooner. Had some trouble getting online yesterday.
> 
> Thanks for moving forward with this. Looks like we have 3 volunteers so far. I don?t want the process for selection to be too burdensome on those who have shown interest. However, I do suggest that some steps be taken to assist the PC in making this appointment. Perhaps something to this effect:
> 
> 1. Announce a deadline for volunteering + submission of a statement of intent (November 5th?)
> 2. Submit a statement of intent including:
> 	a. A commitment to actively participate on behalf of NCSG on the SCI
> 	b. Reason(s) why the applicant is interested
> 	c. Demonstration of why the applicant is a desirable candidate for selection
> 
> This doesn?t need to be long, but let me explain why I believe we should do this. Participation in the SCI has proven to be quite challenging. Often, active participation is limited to the groups of the NCPH. It hasn?t been easy to get Contracted Parties to contribute to SCI discussions, even when the time comes for a consensus call (Note that the SCI only makes recommendations when FULL consensus of the committee is achieved). Seems to me that we need to ensure active NCSG participation/representation on the SCI. Avri?s done an admirable job so far, and we should select a replacement who is able and willing to do the same.
> 
> Thought?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Amr,
> > 
> > On general principles I'd always like to call for volunteers
> > from the largest pool possible, and I don't think an extra
> > day or two would matter here.
> > 
> > Would you like to call for volunteers on ncsg-discuss
> > or should I do it?
> > 
> > We should also call for volunteers to the Competition, Consumer Trust
> > and Consumer Choice Review Team, and that's actually more urgent,
> > as the deadline is tomorrow.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Oct 28 19:29, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Tapani,
> >> 
> >> I think you joining the SCI is a great idea. Thanks for volunteering. I'm certainly not aware of any rule that prevents you from doing this. 
> >> 
> >> I would advise that we give it a day to hear whether there are any objections, or other folks willing to step forward. I also don't know if you want to circulate a call for a volunteer on NCSG-DISCUSS, or not. 
> >> 
> >> In any case, I suspect you'd make a fine and constructive contributor to the mission of the committee. 
> >> 
> >> Thanks. 
> >> 
> >> Amr
> >> 
> >> Sent from mobile
> >> 
> >>> On Oct 28, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks to Avri and Stefania from me, too.
> >>> 
> >>> But, if nobody else wants it, I guess I could take
> >>> the alternate on myself. I'd want to keep up to date
> >>> on what's going on in SCI anyway, and with Stefania
> >>> doing all the work it shouldn't be too strenuous for me. :-)
> >>> 
> >>> That is assuming there's no rule against Chair doing it
> >>> or any other reason why it wouldn't be a good idea.
> >>> 
> >>> Anyway, it's not like I need more work, so if someone
> >>> else is willing to do it, I'll happily stand aside.
> >>> 
> >>> Tapani
> >>> 
> >>>> On Oct 27 13:42, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Indeed. Avri?s done great work on the SCI over the years, so thanks for that. Also grateful to Stefania for her willingness to step up from NCSG?s alternate representative to primary. If there are no objections, we can communicate this to the SCI leadership team and support staff. Please share your thoughts on this over the next few days.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Every SG/C has a two person team on the SCI; a primary representative and an alternate. We will need to appoint someone to this team to replace Avri, and we also need to confirm Stefania as the new primary.
> >>>> 
> >>>> By the way?, the SCI is not hard work at all, will hardly consume more than an hour or two a month, in addition to possibly two teleconference meetings/month. It?s a good way to learn more about the GNSO operating procedures and working group guidelines, which is what it reviews, usually on request by the council.
> >>>> 
> >>>> David Cake and I are members of the SCI representing the NCUC, and Rudi Vansnick is the primary representative of NPOC as well as SCI vice chair. NPOC also need to appoint an alternate member to the committee.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Amr
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Oct 26, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Tx to Avri for all her work.
> >>>>> Thanks to Stefania for wanting to be our new primary in SCI. Continuity of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation is a valuable and important thing.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Kathy
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> On 10/26/2015 1:10 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> >>>>>> hi Avri, everyone
> >>>>>> i have a v bad conscience re SCI so i feel i cannot bail out :)
> >>>>>> st.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 01:08, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> hi,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Just wanted to remind you that you need to appoint a new primary and
> >>>>>>> alternate as I have resigned from the group.
> >>>>>>> Stefania was my alternate so you may want to appoint her primary, if she
> >>>>>>> is willing.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I am willing to be a reference for whomever you appoint, but no longer
> >>>>>>> wish to serve on the SCI.  I have done it since it started and that is
> >>>>>>> enough.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> cheers
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> avri