From egmorris1  Fri Apr  8 03:03:25 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:03:25 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: Re: FY17 Proposed Budget & Ops Plan - GNSO Public
	Comment Submission
Message-ID: <cbb3bfa4e9a6472992c9f23886e2e52e@toast.net>

 
  Hi everybody,
  
 On Council I've been doing work analysing the ICANN budget. It's not easy 
- despite the pretence of transparency the budget actually is very opaque. 
The needs to change by next year when the community asserts oversight and 
rejection powers over the budget.
  
 At my request, Council staff  inquired as to whether we could get some 
answers from Finance to questions I've had on the budget. We received the 
response I'm transmitting below. The Finance staff want the questions in 
written form.
  
 As such, if anyone has any questions on the FY 17 Budget and OP ( 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy17-05ma
r16-en.pdf) they would like me to include with those being otherwise 
transmitted by the GNSO Council please let me know. I'd be happy to include 
any and all questions in our package. We'll likely be sending them off to 
Finance at the end of the weekend.
  
 I should note that public comments are due on the budget no later than the 
end of this month. Many priorities of the NCSG are impacted by the budget. 
If we are going to submit something during the public comment period I'd 
suggest we organise a response sooner rather than later. This is pretty 
complex itself and lends itself to a team, rather than individual, 
approach.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Ed
  
  
 ----

We have received requests from other community groups to answer clarifying 
questions on the structure and content of the published documents. As a 
result, we have implemented the following process to address these 
requests.  

Based on input received from the community that more detailed information 
on the published documents may be required before formal comments can be 
submitted, ICANN has established the following process:  

Clarifying questions (i.e. help the reader understand what has been 
published) regarding the structure and / or content of the published 
documents should be submitted to controller at icann.org. ICANN staff will 
review all questions and provide a written response within five business 
days. Please note, ICANN staff will assess if the questions can be 
addressed immediately or should be submitted as a public comment.  

Given the new process that has been established, is it possible for the 
GNSO to submit clarifying questions to controller at icann.org so they all can 
be answered in writing?  

Please note, these questions as well as the responses will be made public 
so that all community members can benefit from the additional information.  
 

   

Regards,  

Taryn  

   

Taryn Presley  

Sr. Manager, Financial Planning and Analysis 

  
  
    


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160407/40effbd6/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Thu Apr 14 07:10:52 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:10:52 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan
Message-ID: <3cc28ea7681141b9bd76b4ec7db3d469@toast.net>

NCSG PC colleagues,
  
  
 In anticipation of the NCSG call later today, I am forwarding the 
following which posted to the Council list a few hours ago. It and that 
which is attached is a proposed GNSO Council comment on ICANN's FY17 budget 
and operating plan which will discussed at tonight's Council meeting.
  
 I will note that public comments are due by 30 April. If we are going to 
submit an NCSG comment we should probably begin organising ourselves during 
our call today.
  
 Kind Regards,
  
 Ed
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:19 PM
To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan   
  My Fellow Councillors,
 
You will recall at our ICANN55 Council meeting, a small team (James, 
Carlos, Keith, myself) volunteered to formulate draft comments relating to 
ICANN's proposed Draft FY17 operating plan and budget.  Attached you will 
find a starter draft of comments for the Council to consider.  Track 
changes are enabled should any member of the Council wish to suggest edits. 
Please feel to do so and then send them back over the list. This small team 
with assistance from staff will maintain a master copy to ready for 
submission.
 
The Public Comments are due by 30 April 2016, and thus we have just over 
two weeks to make edits and then determine if the Council wishes to submit 
them.  This topic is currently on the GNSO Council agenda for tomorrow.  
The small team also recognizes that likely all SGs & Cs will be submitting 
their own comments.  In that regard and because we are managers of the 
policy process, this draft of comments attempted to only focus at a higher 
level of how the proposed budget impacts the GNSO and its policy 
development activities.
 
This process for submitting comments mimics what occurred last year for the 
FY16 draft budget.  Once that draft was completed over the Council list, 
the comments were submitted without objection.  As we will likely discuss 
tomorrow and based on this current experience, the Council should consider 
formalizing this process especially in the light of a future empowered 
community.
  
 In addition to thanking James, Carlos and Keith with whom it has been a 
pleasure to work with, special thanks go out from all of us  to Berry and 
Marika for their exceptional input and dedicated effort on this comment. We 
are extraordinarily lucky to have such fine staff assigned to help us on 
Council.
 
We looks forward to everyone's input.
  
 Kind Regards,
  
 Ed Morris


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160414/0bd524d8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Budget Comment.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 228726 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160414/0bd524d8/attachment-0001.obj>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Apr 14 14:25:43 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 07:25:43 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to
 Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
In-Reply-To: <570599EC.3050100@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <570599EC.3050100@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <570F7E37.1090509@mail.utoronto.ca>


as per discussion this morning.
Stephanie
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah 
re: ICANN Harassment Policy
Date: 	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:21:16 -0400
From: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
To: 	Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford at web.com>, 
council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Sure, Happy to do that Jenn.
Stephanie
On 2016-04-06 17:05, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
>
> Stephanie,
>
> In order to keep track of the current input from councilors, would you 
> be willing to redline the document with your suggested changes to 
> below and resend to the group?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jennifer
>
> *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:32 PM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
> *Subject:* Fwd: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram 
> Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
> and one more time....
> SP
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
> 	
>
> Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: 
> ICANN Harassment Policy
>
> *Date: *
>
> 	
>
> Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:28:01 -0400
>
> *From: *
>
> 	
>
> Stephanie Perrin 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>
> *To: *
>
> 	
>
> Jennifer Gore Standiford 
> <mailto:JStandiford at web.com><JStandiford at web.com>, James M. Bladel 
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz> 
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> 
> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org> 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> I am sorry to be late with my feedback.  This is a great effort so 
> far, but I must say I find it a wee bit over the top.  Let me explain why:
>
>   * The list of offensive (inappropriate of unwanted) conduct is
>     exhaustive but not necessarily helpful.  "at a minimum" needs to
>     go, as Phil has pointed out.  The problem in harassment policies
>     in my view arises in the matter of how to determine "offensive"
>     now "inappropriate", particularly across cultures.  It would be
>     more helpful to expand on this, explaining the cross-cultural
>     nature of ICANN and give guidance on how to conduct oneself
>     /tentatively/.....eg. if you are Dutch and in the habit of
>     greeting people with three kisses, ask first.  I don't think we
>     want to shut down normal gestures of familiarity and affection,
>     but maybe we do....it is worth a discussion.  The other part that
>     needs to go unless you want us all to be tied into legal quandries
>     is this: "or any other category protected by any applicable
>     governing law". What are the laws of Finland on public deportment,
>     discrimination, etc. ?  Where do we go next, how do I check the
>     laws there?  I don't find this helpful. If you are going to
>     include language like this, we will have to have the already
>     burdened Constituency Travel send out advisories:  eg.  When in
>     Turkey, do not make jokes about Ataturk as it is forbidden by
>     law,  etc. etc.
>   * There needs to be a section discussing the rights of the accused,
>     and their rights to confidentiality.  It is my view that we need a
>     privacy policy more than a harassment policy, because I feel that
>     inappropriate conduct is in fact already covered by our acceptable
>     conduct policy, but here we are anyway. The accused has a right to
>     have investigations conducted properly, and in confidence in my
>     view, so how that is going to take place, who does them, when the
>     accuser is permitted to go public,etc. needs quite a bit of work.
>
>   * "By participating in an ICANN conference, you agree to prohibit
>     harassment....."
>
> I actually think we should not demand that anyone who agrees to 
> participate in an ICANN conference should have to agree to take on the 
> role of enforcer of a harassment policy. Further on this:
>
> ??"You shall report any actions that you believe may violate our 
> policy no matter how slight the actions might seem".
>
> This is not necessary.  Anyone who experiences harassment ought to be 
> capable of determining themselves whether there was abuse, let us not 
> invite people to interfere with other people's jokes unless those 
> jokes are offending them, the listener.  In other words, I take no 
> offence at Michele N calling me a crazy tree-hugger, and I really 
> don't want to be dragged into Chris Lahatte's office to discuss it 
> just because someone overheard it and felt I ought to be offended.  
> Now if they are offended, (eg. they are a tree-hugger and are offended 
> at the suggestion that I ought to be considered in that group) they 
> can make their own complaint and leave me out of it.  In a policy such 
> as this, one has to be quite careful about how wide one opens the door.
>
> However, thanks to all who worked on this, it is very difficult to 
> craft a good harassment policy and enforcement mechanism, and my hat 
> is off to you on efforts so far. I would also like to apologize to 
> anyone whom I have either touched or kissed hello over the three years 
> I have been attending ICANN.  I meant no harm, I spent too much time 
> in Montreal (where we kiss everybody only twice) and I will strive to 
> be more guarded in future.
>
> I spent a year working in our central agency in the Canadian 
> Government, working on the ethics code and a limited time also on 
> evaluating workplace wellness (including harassment) policies and 
> implementation in the departments.  I like the Canadian approach, and 
> offer you the link here: 
> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp. In 
> particular, the tools that help evaluate whether an act constitutes 
> harassment I think are useful: 
> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp. 
> They put an emphasis on the activity needing to be repeated, or one 
> action to be extreme...this may be more applicable in a workplace 
> environment but I think the tests are nevertheless relevant.
>
> Cheers Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2016-04-06 15:00, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
>
>     James and Colleagues,
>
>     Thanks to Donna and Phil for their constructive feedback. With
>     that, please review and provide any additional feedback based on
>      the revised draft ???ICANN Conference Harassment ??? Key Points
>     for Consideration???.
>
>     The attached addresses the following feedback received thus far,
>      in particular:
>
>     Are Dr Crocker and the other Board members covered under the ICANN
>     staff policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered under a
>     community ICANN attendee policy?
>
>     Included the following sentence: ???The term ???ICANN Conference
>     Attendees??? includes event registered and non-registered
>     participants, sponsors, contractors, consultants, staff and board
>     members.???
>
>     This very extensive list of potential offenses being non-exclusive
>     (indicated by the words ???At a minimum??? that start the document)
>
>     Removed term ??? At a minimum???
>
>     The use of the modifier ???Offensive??? at the start of sections
>     1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises the
>     question ???offensive to whom???? In this regard, I think there
>     must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the behavior
>     subject to sanction, and that any policy should recognize that the
>     cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees may lead to
>     situations where remarks that are not intended to offend may
>     nonetheless do so.
>
>     Replaced the word ??? offensive??? with ???unwanted??? or
>     ???inappropriate???
>
>     A need to strictly define, and limit, the ???prompt, appropriate
>     remedial action??? that ICANN staff may take if they determine
>     that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN staff are
>     the appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, and
>     whether the investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should
>     be separate).
>
>     Change verbiage to state ???ICANN staff is required to??????
>     instead of ???may???
>
>     Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who
>     believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it, or
>     must report it.
>
>     Change the verbiage to sake of consistency. Opted for
>     ???should/shall??? vs. ???required/will???
>
>     The outstanding questions that James has outline should remain
>     included in the GNSO letter to ensure each item is addressed.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Jennifer
>
>     *From:*James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:57 PM
>     *To:* Jennifer Gore Standiford; Austin, Donna; Phil Corwin; GNSO
>     Council List
>     *Subject:* Re: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>     ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Thanks Jennifer, Phil and Donna for weighing in.
>
>     Perhaps the concern is that we???ve called this document a
>     ???draft??? but it too closely resembles a finished policy.  I
>     believe (and I think Jennifer???s note confirms) that this was
>     intended to start a dialogue in whatever subsequent group
>     addresses this work, and a mechanism for relaying GNSO ideas,
>     questions and concerns in to that effort.
>
>     I appreciate the discussion, and hope that we can all get to a
>     place where we???re either comfortable with the draft, or we amend
>     it, or substitute it with something else.
>
>     Thanks???
>
>     *From: *Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford at web.com
>     <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:46
>     *To: *"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, Phil Corwin
>     <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>, James Bladel
>     <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council
>     List <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>     *Subject: *RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>     ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Hi Phil and Colleagues,
>
>     Just a friendly reminder the attached document that was put forth
>     in the GNSO Letter to Akram was referred to as a draft. James also
>     included several questions that remain unanswered that will need
>     to be address in addition to the points that you and Donna have
>     raised.  As for Donna???s specific question, I would anticipate
>     that ICANN Conference Participants would be a defined term that
>     would include all ICANN staff and board members.
>
>     Jennifer
>
>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>     <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Austin, Donna
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:36 PM
>     *To:* Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
>     *Subject:* [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram
>     Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Hi Phil
>
>     It???s a good point and also raises another one for me. Are Dr
>     Crocker and the other Board members covered under the ICANN staff
>     policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered under a
>     community ICANN attendee policy?
>
>     Donna
>
>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Corwin
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 April 2016 9:33 AM
>     *To:* James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>; GNSO Council List
>     <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>     *Subject:* [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram
>     Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Thinking about this a bit more ??? how would this incident be
>     treated under any proposed Harassment Policy?
>
>     http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risky-caitlyn-jenner-joke
>
>     Some found it offensive, and an apology was issued by Chairman
>     Crocker. Is that sufficient or would reporting and investigation
>     be required?
>
>     *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
>     *Virtualaw LLC*
>
>     *1155 F Street, NW*
>
>     *Suite 1050*
>
>     *Washington, DC 20004*
>
>     *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
>     *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
>     *202-255-6172/Cell*
>
>     **
>
>     *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>     */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
>     *From:*Phil Corwin
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 12:07 PM
>     *To:* 'James M. Bladel'; GNSO Council List
>     *Subject:* RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>     ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Colleagues:
>
>     I support in principle sending a letter to Akram on this subject
>     and establishing clearer, enforceable policies regarding sexual
>     and other forms of harassment that may take place at ICANN meetings.
>
>     However, while I am strongly opposed to any form of such
>     harassment, I have some concerns about the proposed draft
>     Harassment Policy, relating to:
>
>     ??This very extensive list of potential offenses being
>     non-exclusive (indicated by the words ???At a minimum??? that
>     start the document)
>
>     ??The use of the modifier ???Offensive??? at the start of sections
>     1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises the
>     question ???offensive to whom???? In this regard, I think there
>     must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the behavior
>     subject to sanction, and that any policy should recognize that the
>     cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees may lead to
>     situations where remarks that are not intended to offend may
>     nonetheless do so.
>
>     ??A need to strictly define, and limit, the ???prompt, appropriate
>     remedial action??? that ICANN staff may take if they determine
>     that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN staff are
>     the appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, and
>     whether the investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should
>     be separate).
>
>     ??Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who
>     believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it, or
>     must report it.
>
>     I look forward to engaging in a discussion of these matters on our
>     call of April 14^th .
>
>     Best regards, Philip
>
>     *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
>     *Virtualaw LLC*
>
>     *1155 F Street, NW*
>
>     *Suite 1050*
>
>     *Washington, DC 20004*
>
>     *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
>     *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
>     *202-255-6172/Cell*
>
>     **
>
>     *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>     */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel
>     *Sent:* Monday, April 04, 2016 7:46 PM
>     *To:* GNSO Council List
>     *Subject:* [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah
>     re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Council Colleagues ???
>
>     Attached and copied below, please find a draft letter from the
>     Council to Akram Atallah, in response to his recent blog post
>     (???Conduct at ICANN Meetings???
>     https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings).
>
>     In this note, I set out to make some high-level points that
>     support further work in this area, without weighing in on any
>     specific indecent.  Also, the letter references a statement from
>     the NCUC ExCom (???Statement from NCUC Executive Committee???
>     http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)
>     and the ICANN Harassment Policy drafted by our volunteers
>     (attached), and urges any future effort to consider these materials.
>
>     If possible, please review these documents prior to our next call
>     on 14 APR.  We can collect edits and then decide if/how we want to
>     proceed.
>
>     Thank you,
>
>     J.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Akram Atallah
>
>     COO and interim CEO, ICANN
>
>     Dear Akram ???
>
>     On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank your for
>     your recent blog post (???Conduct at ICANN Meetings???).  Members
>     of the Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and
>     Constituencies, share the goal of ensuring that all members of the
>     community can participate in and contribute to ICANN, in an
>     environment where harassment and discrimination are not tolerated.
>
>     Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are
>     encouraged by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage
>     the community on this subject.
>
>     In support of this, volunteers on the Council have prepared a
>     draft (???ICANN Conference Harassment Policy???, attached).
>     Several questions remain open, however, including:
>
>     ?Whether this Policy would enhance, or be distinct from, the
>     existing Expected Standards of Behavior policy
>
>     ?Whether complaints would be reported to ICANN Staff, or the
>     Office of the Ombudsman, or some other entity or group
>
>     ?How the policy will be enforced, and
>
>     ?Other topics and questions that will arise from this work.
>
>     We expect that members of the GNSO community will be engaged in
>     this effort, and note that some have already undertaken work in
>     their own groups (???Statement from NUCU Executive Committee???).
>     We urge this group to consider these materials in any community
>     undertaking to develop new policy addressing this issue.
>
>     Thank you
>
>     Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
>     James Bladel, GNSO Chair
>
>     Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
>     https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings
>
>     http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     No virus found in this message.
>     Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&s=Wc6g-4Lo0XrpvCus6DBuVDgfsaHZUFkJkS6hjLLPAak&e=>
>     Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date:
>     04/02/16
>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160414/e119d19a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN CONFERENCE HARASSMENT POLICY v2.0[1].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18395 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160414/e119d19a/attachment-0001.docx>


From kathy  Thu Apr 14 15:07:23 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:07:23 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to
 Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
In-Reply-To: <570F7E37.1090509@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <570599EC.3050100@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<570F7E37.1090509@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <570F87FB.4010306@kathykleiman.com>

This policy will be difficult to reconcile in countries that bar some of 
the behavior expressly supported in the policy. And ICANN holds meetings 
in such countries.
Kathy

On 4/14/2016 7:25 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> as per discussion this morning.
> Stephanie
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram 
> Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
> Date: 	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:21:16 -0400
> From: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> To: 	Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford at web.com>, 
> council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> Sure, Happy to do that Jenn.
> Stephanie
> On 2016-04-06 17:05, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
>>
>> Stephanie,
>>
>> In order to keep track of the current input from councilors, would 
>> you be willing to redline the document with your suggested changes to 
>> below and resend to the group?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>> *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:32 PM
>> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
>> *Subject:* Fwd: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to 
>> Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>>
>> and one more time....
>> SP
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>
>> *Subject: *
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: 
>> ICANN Harassment Policy
>>
>> *Date: *
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:28:01 -0400
>>
>> *From: *
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin 
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>
>> *To: *
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Jennifer Gore Standiford 
>> <mailto:JStandiford at web.com><JStandiford at web.com>, James M. Bladel 
>> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz> 
>> <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> 
>> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org> 
>> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am sorry to be late with my feedback.  This is a great effort so 
>> far, but I must say I find it a wee bit over the top.  Let me explain 
>> why:
>>
>>   * The list of offensive (inappropriate of unwanted) conduct is
>>     exhaustive but not necessarily helpful.  "at a minimum" needs to
>>     go, as Phil has pointed out.  The problem in harassment policies
>>     in my view arises in the matter of how to determine "offensive"
>>     now "inappropriate", particularly across cultures.  It would be
>>     more helpful to expand on this, explaining the cross-cultural
>>     nature of ICANN and give guidance on how to conduct oneself
>>     /tentatively/.....eg. if you are Dutch and in the habit of
>>     greeting people with three kisses, ask first.  I don't think we
>>     want to shut down normal gestures of familiarity and affection,
>>     but maybe we do....it is worth a discussion.  The other part that
>>     needs to go unless you want us all to be tied into legal
>>     quandries is this: "or any other category protected by any
>>     applicable governing law". What are the laws of Finland on public
>>     deportment, discrimination, etc. ?  Where do we go next, how do I
>>     check the laws there?  I don't find this helpful. If you are
>>     going to include language like this, we will have to have the
>>     already burdened Constituency Travel send out advisories: eg. 
>>     When in Turkey, do not make jokes about Ataturk as it is
>>     forbidden by law,  etc. etc.
>>   * There needs to be a section discussing the rights of the accused,
>>     and their rights to confidentiality.  It is my view that we need
>>     a privacy policy more than a harassment policy, because I feel
>>     that inappropriate conduct is in fact already covered by our
>>     acceptable conduct policy, but here we are anyway.  The accused
>>     has a right to have investigations conducted properly, and in
>>     confidence in my view, so how that is going to take place, who
>>     does them, when the accuser is permitted to go public,etc. needs
>>     quite a bit of work.
>>
>>   * "By participating in an ICANN conference, you agree to prohibit
>>     harassment....."
>>
>> I actually think we should not demand that anyone who agrees to 
>> participate in an ICANN conference should have to agree to take on 
>> the role of enforcer of a harassment policy. Further on this:
>>
>> ??"You shall report any actions that you believe may violate our 
>> policy no matter how slight the actions might seem".
>>
>> This is not necessary.  Anyone who experiences harassment ought to be 
>> capable of determining themselves whether there was abuse, let us not 
>> invite people to interfere with other people's jokes unless those 
>> jokes are offending them, the listener.  In other words, I take no 
>> offence at Michele N calling me a crazy tree-hugger, and I really 
>> don't want to be dragged into Chris Lahatte's office to discuss it 
>> just because someone overheard it and felt I ought to be offended. 
>> Now if they are offended, (eg. they are a tree-hugger and are 
>> offended at the suggestion that I ought to be considered in that 
>> group) they can make their own complaint and leave me out of it.  In 
>> a policy such as this, one has to be quite careful about how wide one 
>> opens the door.
>>
>> However, thanks to all who worked on this, it is very difficult to 
>> craft a good harassment policy and enforcement mechanism, and my hat 
>> is off to you on efforts so far. I would also like to apologize to 
>> anyone whom I have either touched or kissed hello over the three 
>> years I have been attending ICANN.  I meant no harm, I spent too much 
>> time in Montreal (where we kiss everybody only twice) and I will 
>> strive to be more guarded in future.
>>
>> I spent a year working in our central agency in the Canadian 
>> Government, working on the ethics code and a limited time also on 
>> evaluating workplace wellness (including harassment) policies and 
>> implementation in the departments.  I like the Canadian approach, and 
>> offer you the link here: 
>> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp. In 
>> particular, the tools that help evaluate whether an act constitutes 
>> harassment I think are useful: 
>> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp. 
>> They put an emphasis on the activity needing to be repeated, or one 
>> action to be extreme...this may be more applicable in a workplace 
>> environment but I think the tests are nevertheless relevant.
>>
>> Cheers Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2016-04-06 15:00, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
>>
>>     James and Colleagues,
>>
>>     Thanks to Donna and Phil for their constructive feedback. With
>>     that, please review and provide any additional feedback based on
>>      the revised draft ???ICANN Conference Harassment ??? Key Points
>>     for Consideration???.
>>
>>     The attached addresses the following feedback received thus far,
>>      in particular:
>>
>>     Are Dr Crocker and the other Board members covered under the
>>     ICANN staff policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered
>>     under a community ICANN attendee policy?
>>
>>     Included the following sentence: ???The term ???ICANN
>>     Conference Attendees??? includes event registered and
>>     non-registered participants, sponsors, contractors, consultants,
>>     staff and board members.???
>>
>>     This very extensive list of potential offenses being
>>     non-exclusive (indicated by the words ???At a minimum??? that
>>     start the document)
>>
>>     Removed term ??? At a minimum???
>>
>>     The use of the modifier ???Offensive??? at the start of sections
>>     1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises the
>>     question ???offensive to whom???? In this regard, I think there
>>     must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the
>>     behavior subject to sanction, and that any policy should
>>     recognize that the cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees
>>     may lead to situations where remarks that are not intended to
>>     offend may nonetheless do so.
>>
>>     Replaced the word ??? offensive??? with ???unwanted??? or
>>     ???inappropriate???
>>
>>     A need to strictly define, and limit, the ???prompt, appropriate
>>     remedial action??? that ICANN staff may take if they determine
>>     that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN staff are
>>     the appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, and
>>     whether the investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should
>>     be separate).
>>
>>     Change verbiage to state ???ICANN staff is required to??????
>>     instead of ???may???
>>
>>     Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who
>>     believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it,
>>     or must report it.
>>
>>     Change the verbiage to sake of consistency. Opted for
>>     ???should/shall??? vs. ???required/will???
>>
>>     The outstanding questions that James has outline should remain
>>     included in the GNSO letter to ensure each item is addressed.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Jennifer
>>
>>     *From:*James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:57 PM
>>     *To:* Jennifer Gore Standiford; Austin, Donna; Phil Corwin; GNSO
>>     Council List
>>     *Subject:* Re: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>>     ICANN Harassment Policy
>>
>>     Thanks Jennifer, Phil and Donna for weighing in.
>>
>>     Perhaps the concern is that we???ve called this document a
>>     ???draft??? but it too closely resembles a finished policy.  I
>>     believe (and I think Jennifer???s note confirms) that this was
>>     intended to start a dialogue in whatever subsequent group
>>     addresses this work, and a mechanism for relaying GNSO ideas,
>>     questions and concerns in to that effort.
>>
>>     I appreciate the discussion, and hope that we can all get to a
>>     place where we???re either comfortable with the draft, or we
>>     amend it, or substitute it with something else.
>>
>>     Thanks???
>>
>>     *From: *Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford at web.com
>>     <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>>
>>     *Date: *Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:46
>>     *To: *"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, Phil Corwin
>>     <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>, James Bladel
>>     <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council
>>     List <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>     *Subject: *RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>>     ICANN Harassment Policy
>>
>>     Hi Phil and Colleagues,
>>
>>     Just a friendly reminder the attached document that was put forth
>>     in the GNSO Letter to Akram was referred to as a draft. James
>>     also included several questions that remain unanswered that will
>>     need to be address in addition to the points that you and Donna
>>     have raised.  As for Donna???s specific question, I would
>>     anticipate that ICANN Conference Participants would be a defined
>>     term that would include all ICANN staff and board members.
>>
>>     Jennifer
>>
>>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>     <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
>>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Austin, Donna
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:36 PM
>>     *To:* Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
>>     *Subject:* [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram
>>     Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>>
>>     Hi Phil
>>
>>     It???s a good point and also raises another one for me. Are Dr
>>     Crocker and the other Board members covered under the ICANN staff
>>     policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered under a
>>     community ICANN attendee policy?
>>
>>     Donna
>>
>>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Corwin
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 April 2016 9:33 AM
>>     *To:* James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>; GNSO Council List
>>     <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>     *Subject:* [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram
>>     Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>>
>>     Thinking about this a bit more ??? how would this incident be
>>     treated under any proposed Harassment Policy?
>>
>>     http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risky-caitlyn-jenner-joke
>>
>>     Some found it offensive, and an apology was issued by Chairman
>>     Crocker. Is that sufficient or would reporting and investigation
>>     be required?
>>
>>     *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>>
>>     *Virtualaw LLC*
>>
>>     *1155 F Street, NW*
>>
>>     *Suite 1050*
>>
>>     *Washington, DC 20004*
>>
>>     *202-559-8597/Direct*
>>
>>     *202-559-8750/Fax*
>>
>>     *202-255-6172/Cell*
>>
>>     **
>>
>>     *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>>
>>     */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>>
>>     *From:*Phil Corwin
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 12:07 PM
>>     *To:* 'James M. Bladel'; GNSO Council List
>>     *Subject:* RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>>     ICANN Harassment Policy
>>
>>     Colleagues:
>>
>>     I support in principle sending a letter to Akram on this subject
>>     and establishing clearer, enforceable policies regarding sexual
>>     and other forms of harassment that may take place at ICANN meetings.
>>
>>     However, while I am strongly opposed to any form of such
>>     harassment, I have some concerns about the proposed draft
>>     Harassment Policy, relating to:
>>
>>     ??This very extensive list of potential offenses being
>>     non-exclusive (indicated by the words ???At a minimum??? that
>>     start the document)
>>
>>     ??The use of the modifier ???Offensive??? at the start of
>>     sections 1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises
>>     the question ???offensive to whom???? In this regard, I think
>>     there must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the
>>     behavior subject to sanction, and that any policy should
>>     recognize that the cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees
>>     may lead to situations where remarks that are not intended to
>>     offend may nonetheless do so.
>>
>>     ??A need to strictly define, and limit, the ???prompt,
>>     appropriate remedial action??? that ICANN staff may take if they
>>     determine that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN
>>     staff are the appropriate parties to undertake such
>>     investigations, and whether the investigatory and
>>     judgmental/sanctioning roles should be separate).
>>
>>     ??Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who
>>     believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it,
>>     or must report it.
>>
>>     I look forward to engaging in a discussion of these matters on
>>     our call of April 14^th .
>>
>>     Best regards, Philip
>>
>>     *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>>
>>     *Virtualaw LLC*
>>
>>     *1155 F Street, NW*
>>
>>     *Suite 1050*
>>
>>     *Washington, DC 20004*
>>
>>     *202-559-8597/Direct*
>>
>>     *202-559-8750/Fax*
>>
>>     *202-255-6172/Cell*
>>
>>     **
>>
>>     *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>>
>>     */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>>
>>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel
>>     *Sent:* Monday, April 04, 2016 7:46 PM
>>     *To:* GNSO Council List
>>     *Subject:* [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah
>>     re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>>
>>     Council Colleagues ???
>>
>>     Attached and copied below, please find a draft letter from the
>>     Council to Akram Atallah, in response to his recent blog post
>>     (???Conduct at ICANN Meetings???
>>     https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings).
>>
>>     In this note, I set out to make some high-level points that
>>     support further work in this area, without weighing in on any
>>     specific indecent.  Also, the letter references a statement from
>>     the NCUC ExCom (???Statement from NCUC Executive Committee???
>>     http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)
>>     and the ICANN Harassment Policy drafted by our volunteers
>>     (attached), and urges any future effort to consider these materials.
>>
>>     If possible, please review these documents prior to our next call
>>     on 14 APR.  We can collect edits and then decide if/how we want
>>     to proceed.
>>
>>     Thank you,
>>
>>     J.
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Akram Atallah
>>
>>     COO and interim CEO, ICANN
>>
>>     Dear Akram ???
>>
>>     On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank your for
>>     your recent blog post (???Conduct at ICANN Meetings???). Members
>>     of the Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and
>>     Constituencies, share the goal of ensuring that all members of
>>     the community can participate in and contribute to ICANN, in an
>>     environment where harassment and discrimination are not tolerated.
>>
>>     Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are
>>     encouraged by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage
>>     the community on this subject.
>>
>>     In support of this, volunteers on the Council have prepared a
>>     draft (???ICANN Conference Harassment Policy???, attached).
>>     Several questions remain open, however, including:
>>
>>     ?Whether this Policy would enhance, or be distinct from, the
>>     existing Expected Standards of Behavior policy
>>
>>     ?Whether complaints would be reported to ICANN Staff, or the
>>     Office of the Ombudsman, or some other entity or group
>>
>>     ?How the policy will be enforced, and
>>
>>     ?Other topics and questions that will arise from this work.
>>
>>     We expect that members of the GNSO community will be engaged in
>>     this effort, and note that some have already undertaken work in
>>     their own groups (???Statement from NUCU Executive
>>     Committee???).  We urge this group to consider these materials in
>>     any community undertaking to develop new policy addressing this
>>     issue.
>>
>>     Thank you
>>
>>     Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
>>
>>     James Bladel, GNSO Chair
>>
>>     Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
>>
>>     https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings
>>
>>     http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     No virus found in this message.
>>     Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&s=Wc6g-4Lo0XrpvCus6DBuVDgfsaHZUFkJkS6hjLLPAak&e=>
>>     Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date:
>>     04/02/16
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160414/65682570/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Thu Apr 14 15:53:46 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:53:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to
	Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
In-Reply-To: <570F87FB.4010306@kathykleiman.com>
References: <570599EC.3050100@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<570F7E37.1090509@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<570F87FB.4010306@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <8e43184a707249a69818750def84aa0c@toast.net>

 Hi Kathy,
  
 This policy will be difficult to reconcile in countries that bar some of 
the behavior expressly supported in the policy. And ICANN holds meetings in 
such countries.
  
 That is certainly true.
  
 I noticed this rather interesting news item earlier this week:
  
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3534495/US-woman-jailed-insulting-Un
ited-Arab-Emirates.html
  
 Might I suggest the problem is not the proposed policy but rather the 
locations ICANN choses to hold meetings at. 
  
 From the linked story:
  
  "Unlike in many Western countries, defamation is treated in the UAE as a 
criminal rather than a civil matter. 
 Insulting the UAE's leaders, or the country itself, can carry a prison 
sentence and steep fines."

ICANN is scheduled to meet in the UAE in June 2017.
  
 It appears that  in the UAE our commitment to free speech, as well, will 
be difficult to reconcile with the laws of certain countries. Yet, 
countries have adapted in the past. In Beijing we were actually provided 
with uncensored internet. You might have noticed the large number of 
Chinese students in the lobby availing themselves of this rare 
opportunity.
  
 ICANN has apparently adopted a de facto policy against holding meetings in 
cities where the zika virus is active. This disenfranchises at the moment 
most of South and Central America. Might I suggest a policy of not holding 
meetings in countries where women or our LGBT brothers and sisters are 
treated as less than equal would not be out of order? If the Board choses 
to meet in such places the host government should be required to make the 
same type of concessions in these areas as the Chinese government did in 
2013. If they don't, well, ICANN can hold a meeting but they can't force 
anyone to attend.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed

  
  
  
   


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160414/7a94b548/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Apr 14 17:14:56 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:14:56 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC using Trello
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0hhAECqGvEKe0wq1eh3qQ9w5gf0GB21XCNSxkxfzy59Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

Today Rafik and Maryam kindly gave a tour to Matt and I showing us how they
have been using Trello <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trello> to organise
NCSG work, particularly when it comes to public comments. We believe this
could be an important tool to keep the PC running smoothly by providing us
an efficient way to share and keep track of tasks.

We know many of us already have Trello accounts, but could you please check
if you do and, if not, could you create an account in the next days?
Interaction over Trello is encouraged to all NCSG members, but we would
like to make it more effectively used, focusing on its adoption by members
of the policy committee, as a start, if all agree.

Maryam will follow-up with the members of the PC and help us so we make
sure we are ready to use it smoothy by the end of the present month.

Does it sound ok to everyone?

All the best
Mar?lia



-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160414/35c1f4d2/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Apr 14 17:16:20 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:16:20 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC using Trello
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0hhAECqGvEKe0wq1eh3qQ9w5gf0GB21XCNSxkxfzy59Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK0hhAECqGvEKe0wq1eh3qQ9w5gf0GB21XCNSxkxfzy59Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK21QH-FMFC7cTyGmNxPOBh9f_GmZXRhwTYSpijzK+PGdg@mail.gmail.com>

For easy reference, the link to the NCSG policy tracker is here:
https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Today Rafik and Maryam kindly gave a tour to Matt and I showing us how
> they have been using Trello <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trello> to
> organise NCSG work, particularly when it comes to public comments. We
> believe this could be an important tool to keep the PC running smoothly by
> providing us an efficient way to share and keep track of tasks.
>
> We know many of us already have Trello accounts, but could you please
> check if you do and, if not, could you create an account in the next days?
> Interaction over Trello is encouraged to all NCSG members, but we would
> like to make it more effectively used, focusing on its adoption by members
> of the policy committee, as a start, if all agree.
>
> Maryam will follow-up with the members of the PC and help us so we make
> sure we are ready to use it smoothy by the end of the present month.
>
> Does it sound ok to everyone?
>
> All the best
> Mar?lia
>
>
>
> --
> *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/
>
>
>


-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160414/a69bb769/attachment-0001.html>


From kathy  Thu Apr 14 18:00:57 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:00:57 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC using Trello
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0hhAECqGvEKe0wq1eh3qQ9w5gf0GB21XCNSxkxfzy59Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK0hhAECqGvEKe0wq1eh3qQ9w5gf0GB21XCNSxkxfzy59Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <570FB0A9.6070403@kathykleiman.com>

This sounds like a great idea, Marilia!
Kathy

On 4/14/2016 10:14 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Today Rafik and Maryam kindly gave a tour to Matt and I showing us how 
> they have been using Trello <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trello> to 
> organise NCSG work, particularly when it comes to public comments. We 
> believe this could be an important tool to keep the PC running 
> smoothly by providing us an efficient way to share and keep track of 
> tasks.
>
> We know many of us already have Trello accounts, but could you please 
> check if you do and, if not, could you create an account in the next 
> days? Interaction over Trello is encouraged to all NCSG members, but 
> we would like to make it more effectively used, focusing on its 
> adoption by members of the policy committee, as a start, if all agree.
>
> Maryam will follow-up with the members of the PC and help us so we 
> make sure we are ready to use it smoothy by the end of the present month.
>
> Does it sound ok to everyone?
>
> All the best
> Mar?lia
>
>
>
> -- 
> *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/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160414/270267f3/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Apr 14 21:51:03 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:51:03 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC using Trello
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0hhAECqGvEKe0wq1eh3qQ9w5gf0GB21XCNSxkxfzy59Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK0hhAECqGvEKe0wq1eh3qQ9w5gf0GB21XCNSxkxfzy59Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <570FE697.3070804@mail.utoronto.ca>

Great, thanks for doing this.  I do not have a clue about Trello but 
will sign up, brace yourself for dumb questions.
cheers Steph

On 2016-04-14 10:14, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Today Rafik and Maryam kindly gave a tour to Matt and I showing us how 
> they have been using Trello <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trello> to 
> organise NCSG work, particularly when it comes to public comments. We 
> believe this could be an important tool to keep the PC running 
> smoothly by providing us an efficient way to share and keep track of 
> tasks.
>
> We know many of us already have Trello accounts, but could you please 
> check if you do and, if not, could you create an account in the next 
> days? Interaction over Trello is encouraged to all NCSG members, but 
> we would like to make it more effectively used, focusing on its 
> adoption by members of the policy committee, as a start, if all agree.
>
> Maryam will follow-up with the members of the PC and help us so we 
> make sure we are ready to use it smoothy by the end of the present month.
>
> Does it sound ok to everyone?
>
> All the best
> Mar?lia
>
>
>
> -- 
> *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/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160414/6268bd24/attachment.html>


From kathy  Fri Apr 15 14:23:16 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:23:16 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review
Message-ID: <5710CF24.5000902@kathykleiman.com>

Hi All,
I'm spending a lot of time in the depths of data protection law (a 
tremendous attempt by the RDS WG to collect new and updated data 
protection laws and court decisions before starting our main evaluation 
work). And RPM WG (which is now a 3 or 4 or 5 way race for chair, 
including me!, so stay tuned...)

/But I was wondering: Any thoughts from your community on the GNSO 
Review?  Did it go well or not?//
/
Tx to all working on this!

Best,
Kathy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160415/c7d96a28/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Apr 15 15:55:50 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:55:50 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] Remote Mentoring: Internet Draft Review Teams
In-Reply-To: <270091403.682501.1460669938416.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <270091403.682501.1460669938416.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5710E4D6.9010708@acm.org>


an interesting experiment.


avri

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[95attendees] Remote Mentoring: Internet Draft Review Teams
Date: 	Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:38:58 +0000 (UTC)
From: 	nalini.elkins at insidethestack.com
Reply-To: 	nalini.elkins at insidethestack.com
To: 	95 Attendees <95attendees at ietf.org>



All,

The IETF Mentoring Team is starting a new initiative to form teams to
review Internet Drafts together.  You may sign up at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Z8KD8GB

The purpose of Internet Draft review teams is to provide a way for
people to get started posting to the email list for an IETF Working
Group or reading Internet Drafts together. Sometimes people (especially
when new) are not comfortable with the process of posting to the Working
Group email list or want to check with others about their understanding
of an Internet Draft before asking a question or posting a suggestion.

So, you may fill out this form if you want to be a member of such a
team.  Once we get 4 or 5 members who wish to participate in such a
team, we will email everyone to form the group and start working
together.  You may meet once or many times.  It is up to you.  Your
first task will be to select together the Internet Draft that you want
to review.  We also ask the language that you prefer to speak so that we
can put you into groups based on language preference.

You may also request a remote mentor to help you with selection of the
draft or in your discussions.  The result of your discussions should be
comments to the email list of the Working Group.

Again, sign ups are at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Z8KD8GB

Please let me know any comments & please forward this to any people you
think may be interested.

Thanks,

Nalini Elkins

IETF Mentoring Team

Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
(831) 659-8360







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
95attendees mailing list
95attendees at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/95attendees




From mariliamaciel  Sun Apr 17 05:39:02 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:39:02 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions -
	22/03
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to ICANN?s
geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>

The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, and
consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment period *until
22/03 11:59 UTC*.

You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en

All the best wishes,
Mar?lia

-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160416/19abdb08/attachment.html>


From avri  Sun Apr 17 06:35:34 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:35:34 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] personal stmt on CCWG^2
Message-ID: <57130486.6060209@apc.org>

Hi,

For anyone interested, my personal statement on the CCWG framework.

https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16/msg00015.html

Only got it done an hour before the deadline so had no time to offer it
to this group for consideration.

avri


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




From mariliamaciel  Sun Apr 17 06:55:31 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 00:55:31 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3BqW9XtgGhkV_K5iP9Ut22RkMN=U8rM3RivxPy4cuTmA@mail.gmail.com>

Of course, I meant 22/04 :-)
Thanks
M

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to ICANN?s
> geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>
>
> The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, and
> consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment period *until
> 22/03 11:59 UTC*.
>
> You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en
>
> All the best wishes,
> Mar?lia
>
> --
> *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/
>
>
>


-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160417/22a3caf4/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Sun Apr 17 10:41:13 2016
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 09:41:13 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8F8B66F8-FCC9-4A61-8DE2-DEBFB1E1D814@gmail.com>

Hi from the peanut gallery

> On Apr 17, 2016, at 04:39, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone, 
> 
> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to ICANN?s geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing? <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>
> 

Nicely written, great to have new folks taking the lead.  I do wonder though if the argument wouldn?t be more compelling if we were to propose some clear guiding principles for or concrete examples of how it could be done better.  Conversely, on the negative side I?d think if are going to accuse colleagues of ?empire thinking? we?d want to be clearer on how they?ve succumbed to this, rather than getting into the lack of privileges for one million native Polish speakers living in the UK, etc.

Cheers

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160417/4013dd92/attachment.html>


From mshears  Sun Apr 17 19:26:39 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 17:26:39 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
 - 22/03
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5713B93F.8040903@cdt.org>

Hi

In terms of procedure are we commenting in the google doc?

Matthew

On 4/17/2016 3:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to 
> ICANN?s geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>
>
> The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, 
> and consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment 
> period _until 22/03 11:59 UTC_.
>
> You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en
>
> All the best wishes,
> Mar?lia
>
>
> -- 
> *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/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160417/8480c133/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sun Apr 17 21:35:18 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:35:18 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <5713B93F.8040903@cdt.org>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5713B93F.8040903@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2zu3d8UJPFdkozEz-SkeXQS4=61H32hGzwcCXHUZEnkg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Matt, that's a good question. I tend to think that although we can
exchange our views here, if we can translate our thoughts into concrete
comments and suggestions in the google doc (tracking changes), that would
be the easiest way to go.
Mar?lia



On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi
>
> In terms of procedure are we commenting in the google doc?
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 4/17/2016 3:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to ICANN?s
> geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation:
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, and
> consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment period *until
> 22/03 11:59 UTC*.
>
> You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en
>
> All the best wishes,
> Mar?lia
>
> --
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -  <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> http://www.politics.org.br/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>
>


-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160417/aa08f983/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Apr 18 22:09:51 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:09:51 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] further to the discussion last week re the harassment
	policy
Message-ID: <571530FF.9020607@mail.utoronto.ca>

Colleagues
As discussed last week, I prepared comments on the harassment policy.  I 
shared them with the councillors via Skype, and sent them to the GNSO 
last night as we had a deadline of today which we received on the 15th 
from James Bladel.  I attach them here. Ed has commented (see below) but 
other than that, I have not received any further comments.  I know we 
are all very busy, but I do think it is worth thinking about this letter 
before it goes, lest we are not comfortable with what Akram produces 
later.  Jenn has proposed an extension of another day, so it is now or 
never....
Kind regards
Stephanie Perrin


James, all,
I am in receipt of Stephanie's comments on the proposed harassment 
letter. I encourage the Council to consider many of  these suggested 
changes to be the equivalent of hostile amendments to the work produced 
by our small Council working group and to reject most of them,  both on 
procedural and substantive grounds, The document produced by the small 
Council working group led by Jennifer is far superior to one 
incorporating changes proposed at the last minute by Stephanie and 
should be used as our references note going forward.
PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS
A note about how we have worked on this matter as a Council. At the 
Marrakech meeting I raised the issue of sexual harassment. A small 
working group was formed consisting of four Councillors from the NCSG - 
myself, Stefania, Marilia, David - and one Councillor from the 
Registrars in Jennifer. All Councillors were invited to join this group. 
Mary Wong kickstarted the group into action with an e-mail of March 
25th. Jennifer immediately took the lead and on March 28th produced the 
prototype of the document now before us. I immediately suggested a few 
minor changes to the document, which were accepted. There were 17 email 
exchanges amongst the members of the small working group and staff prior 
to release of the final document to the general Councll list.
Once on the Council  list suggestions and comments  made on a timely 
basis by Donna and Phil, were acknowledged by Jennifer, and incorporated 
into the document. Stephanie responded on April 6th with some general 
comments that I believe could are best summarised by this part of her post:
/"It is my view that we need a privacy policy more than a harassment 
policy because I feel that inappropriate conduct is already in fact 
covered by by our acceptable conduct policy"/
This represents a completely different view than that adopted by the 
small working group. I personally reject both the premise and the 
conclusion. Harassment is a specific type of conduct that has 
connotations beyond the term "inappropriate". It is not adequately 
covered by current policy. I should note that although 
Stephanie's  comments have been on list for twelve days, no one other 
Councillor has posted agreement with Stephanie's view that ICANN should 
deal with the situation at hand through it's acceptable conduct policy.
As Stephanie's suggestions were a bit different in format than the 
other comments and not as easy to adapt to the document at hand on 
April  6th Jennifer asked Stephanie to produce a red line version of her 
comments. On April 7th Stephanie agreed. This project had a completion 
deadline of April 14th. No other Councillor objected to the small group 
proposal on list between the 7th and 14th. Then on our monthly call 
  Stephanie verbally objected to our draft, the time frame was 
  extended and we waited through the weekend for her input. Finally, 
eleven days after she agreed to produce a red line document, four days 
after the initial project deadline, Stephanie has responded. Thank you 
for your input, Stephanie.
If this material had been produced in a timely manner it could have 
stimulated discussion on the list, it could have stimulated discussion 
on our call. Instead, I view this as no more than a  way of almost 
  hijacking the process, I'm sure without any malicious intent - 
Stephanie has impeccable integrity,  at the very end so in the end  the 
positions she espouses are adopted out of necessity rather than as a 
result of considered debate. I'm somewhat resentful that I now have to 
spend a few hours of my Monday responding to wholesale suggestions of 
change that were promised weeks earlier. If the Council is to allow this 
type of behaviour  then why would any of us join small working groups? 
Why not just wait until the end, past the deadline, of all projects and 
then object to things when you have the most leverage? I don't 
believe this is an optimal way to conduct our business, whatever the reason.
I also take exception to Stephanies claim that "I attach a markup 
version of both documents.  I have circulated them to the NCSG". As far 
and I can tell, that simply is not true. I have not seen these 
documents prior to this post to the Council list. I've checked both the 
NCSG discussion list and the archives of the NCSG policy committee list 
and no such "circulation" seems to have occurred. Those are our only two 
official mailing lists in the NCSG. I also note that the majority of 
NCSG Councillors were on the small team that Jennifer so aptly led. The 
NCSG had ample opportunity as a group to object to the proposed 
reference note in a timely manner and chose not to do so.
SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEMS
1. Stephanie has created at the outset a list of questions. Some of 
these have suggested outcomes that we did consider early in the small 
group and rejected, others would have been appropriate to consider at 
that time. Stephanie chose not to join this group and to challenge our 
decisions only at this late date.
-

 1. While events at ICANN55 focused on the need for a Conference
    Harassment Policy, would it not be prudent to create a Harassment
    Policy that covers all of ICANN?s activities?

?
No.
Let's be clear: ICANN already has a variety of harassment policies. 
There is a harassment policy, required by California law, that covers 
employees. There is the Expected Standards of Behaviour which may or may 
not cover some forms of harassment. That policy was found to be flawed 
in the most recent highly publicised situation. I should note that both 
parties in that matter support the development of a conference sexual 
harassment policy.
ICANN is an outlier in not having a conference harassment policy. The 
International Association of Conference Centres recommends as standard 
industry practice that a "conference specific, clearly defined policy 
against harassment  be posted at prominent entry points". I see no 
reason for ICANN to reject standard industry practice in this regard.
Meetings introduce the concept of "clear and present danger" into the 
equation. The standards for behaviour of those in close physical 
proximity to one another may necessarily need to be  bit more stringent 
than that of a more general policy.
Harassment itself is also different than general conduct standards 
in that for harassment to occur it must be directed towards a specific 
individual. There is also a mens rea component of harassment not present 
in most of the items contained in the Expected Standards.
ICANN is best served by a conference specific harassment policy with 
clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
That said, I certainly would have no objection if a phrase akin to "we 
hope that the development of  a conference harassment policy is only the 
first step towards developing a wider policy against harassment in all 
of ICANN's activities and affairs" were added to the letter if that 
would meet with Stephanie's approval.
2.    If not, how does one deal with harassment that continues after an 
event, or starts online or through conference calls, meetings, etc. 
outside the actual face to face conferences?
Through normal processes. This is not an either / or situation. Some, 
including myself, believe that the lack of a conference specific policy 
is a hole in an otherwise satisfactory policy requiring civil behaviour. 
I should also note that ICANN is not a state. There are also 
opportunities to deal with these matters through normal channels. 
However, given that ICANN does hold meetings in countries where 
harassment may be permitted legally, a specific conference harassment 
policy does provide some de facto  assurance of some protection within 
the meeting site. It is a challenge. See, for 
example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3534495/US-woman-jailed-insulting-United-Arab-Emirates.html 
as to what we are facing going forward.
3. What is the purpose of a harassment policy, and how does it intersect 
with the existing standards of behavior policy?  
(https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann-standards_of_behavior-jul14.pdf
The purpose of a conference harassment policy is to create policy which 
produces an environment in which all attendees are comfortable in and is 
one which attendees are free from harassment of any kind. It does so by 
delineating specific conduct that is prohibited and by establishing 
clear reporting obligations and requirements. This is far greater than 
the current ESB requirement that everyone act civilly towards one another.
I would also opine that the current policy does not work when applied to 
this type of incident   and the lack of a conference policy of a 
specific nature exposes ICANN legally.
4./How does one differentiate between inappropriate remarks or actions, 
and harassing, demeaning, and abusive behavior?  Many harassment 
policies scope the offensive activity or actions in terms of repeated 
behavior that forms a pattern, or if only a single event, an event that 
is of very significant proportions (eg physical contact).  A policy must 
be clear enough that when Implementation guidance and training is 
provided, our global multicultural audience will be able to understand 
clearly when conduct and speech are unwelcome or inappropriate, and when 
they are very offensive to normal sensibilities and constitute 
harassment. Defining normal will be challenging./
These question largely go to implementation and are beyond the scope of 
our current, initial, policy reference point.
Regarding Stephanies criticisms of specific points contained in the 
"ICANN Conference Harassment Policy - Key Points" distributed by James 
on 15 April at 22:55 UTC:
1. I support the text as written without any changes, although certainly 
believe it could be approved. Please remember this is a mere reference 
point.
2. As harassment by definition is directed at an individual I reject 
Stephanies concerns for the section beginning "inappropriate communication".
3. As Stephanie rightly notes ICANN as a private corporation has no 
control over whether an accused party seeks legal redress for any 
perceived harm. The prohibition against retaliation is a necessary 
clause that encourages victims to come forward but as with all policies 
written by a private corporation the effect of said policy is limited to 
the corporations remit. That is true of this entire document. I woulds 
not want to limit the language as operation of law already constrains 
it's reach and I would prefer that the anti-retaliatory language be as 
broad as legally possible. The current language meets that goal. I 
should note the same concerns have been expressed concerning 
whistleblower policies and have been  found to be lacking.
4. I reject Stephanie's assertion that you need to "train a couple of 
thousand conference attendees to recognise and prohibit this type of 
conduct". That is FUD. This policy empowers those who witness such 
behaviour to report it given that often the power relationship involved 
makes it impossible for the victim to report it. I note this is mere 
reporting; no judgement as to validity of the complaint is being made.
Although I would prefer to keep the language as is, I would have no 
objection to changing "should immediately" to "are encouraged to 
immediately" if that would address some of Stephanie's concerns.
5. I not only reject Stephanie's assumption that the Ombudsman is or 
should be the first line for reporting, our small group, at my request, 
deleted this concept from our proposal. First, the Ombudsman in not 
empowered by the ICANN Bylasws to conduct investigations into relations 
between parties that have no direct contractual relationship with ICANN. 
That he did in the most recent publicised incident is being considered 
for litigation (against ICANN) by one of the parties involved and has 
prompted me to write a letter to Steve Crocker asking for an explanation 
/ justification (response yet to be received). There are people within 
ICANN corporate in the human relations department who have expertise in 
this area and who I believe are far better qualified to handle these 
types of complaints than the Ombudsman. That said, I would prefer for 
ICANN corporate, not us,  to establish the reporting structure in line 
with other responsibilities and expertise of their employees.
6. The line "ICANN will protect the confidentiality of individual(s) 
reporting suspected violations of the incident(s) to the extent 
permissible and with due regard for procedural fairness" is good 
language and should be retained. Stephanie's proposed substitution is 
too limiting ('investigations and interviews conducted under this 
policy"), too defined ("confidential") and would expose ICANN to greater 
legal liability should a party be dissatisfied. The text in the proposed 
document is read as a "best effort" clause and would not expose ICANN 
legally except in the case of gross negligence.
7. I agree with the clause requiring staff members who become aware of 
"any form of harassment or potential incidents": to report them to the 
front line employee given responsibility for these matters. This is not 
just good policy in terms of stopping harassment, this is good policy in 
terms of limiting ICANN's exposure to lawsuits resulting from such 
incidents.
I do not believe putting links to nonspecific government harassment 
policies has any value whatsoever. ICANN is not a government, it is a 
private corporation. We are not trying to create, in this action, a 
comprehensive harassment policy, but rather a conference harassment 
policy. Links to specific conference harassment policies, of course, 
would be most welcome if anyone wants to spend the time to find and link 
to them.
As stated, I would prefer to keep the letter and reference document as 
written. I respectfully disagree with Stephanie on many of her comments 
and by timing her response so late there really isn't time to engage in 
a full conversation as would be desirable.
However, if it is deemed permissible for Stephanie's last minute changes 
to the proposed document to be accepted over my objection then I 
respectfully request the following additional changes be made:
- Addition of an opening clause
?This policy aims to strengthen and safeguard the ICANN working 
environment so that it is a welcoming and enabling diverse environment 
for stakeholders from all backgrounds.
- Change the word 'colour' to 'ethnicity'
- Exclude the word 'disability', as that term is now considered to be 
somewhat derogatory'; handicap should suffice
- change 'sex' in all instances to 'gender'; 'sex' has connotations that 
does not fully describe the wide array of possible sexual identification 
categories that 'gender' does;
-, include 'stalking' as a prohibited offense
Again, my preference would be to go with the document as is. I will 
remind everyone that this is merely a reference note to provide an 
example of what a policy might look like. There will be ample 
opportunity for the community to weigh in on the actual proposed policy 
at a later date.
I note also that Phil has made some additional recommendations today to 
  strengthen the proposal. My principle objection is timing (although in 
a different procedural environment I would consider them friendly 
amendments)  - I am generally in agreement , at least in part, with all 
but one of his proposed changes. I will note that Phil's earlier 
recommendations have been incorporated into the document. His current 
proposals and my responses:
/1. What procedural due process protections will be established for 
parties to the dispute, and what standard of proof shall be required for 
an adverse finding/.
I agree that this would be a useful addition to the accompanying letter 
as a bullet point.
/2. I believe we need a standard that requires some intent on the part 
of the alleged harasser to demean, denigrate, harass, etc./
Harassment by legal definition has a mens rea component. I would not 
object to making this clear in the policy document but do not believe it 
is necessary.
/3. policy needs to be further developed to make clear that conduct of a 
criminal nature (assault, indecent exposure, rape) is outside the scope 
of any harassment policy and is to be reported by ICANN to the proper 
authorities./
We need to be careful here. It may not be clear whether an activity is 
or is not illegal. I would not want to create any legal obligation for 
ICANN to report any alleged crime. I'd suggest that rather than put this 
in out policy proposal we add another bullet point to the letter akin to:
- We believe procedures need to be developed so that those matters that 
are  violations of law are reported immediately by ICANN or the 
complaining party to the proper authorities.
I think we need to note this but I would be hesitant in a rushed manner 
to come up with exact wording within the proposed "key points". I'm fine 
with a bullet point in the letter.
/- ?You should report any actions that you believe may violate this 
policy no matter how slight the actions might seem? I would suggest 
deleting everything after the word ?policy?, leaving more discretion to 
a target or witness to decide when to invoke whatever procedures may be 
created to deal with harassment./
I agree.

/-Finally, I would suggest that the term ?ICANN Conference? needs to be 
clearly defined to make clear its breadth. That is, does it only cover 
incidents that occur  at the official meeting site or are other 
locations and activities covered; such as meeting sponsor social events, 
official meeting hotels, etc.?/
Good point. I would limit the policy to the meeting itself, I don't 
believe ICANN should limit the free expression rights of sponsoring 
organisation, but am open to other ideas.

**
*WAY FORWARD*
The GNSO is late in making this submission. We do need to act now.
My preference would to have had this conversation during the past few 
weeks these documents have been posted and open for participation.
I have no objection to changes in the documents to which there is no on 
list opposition. I have, however, objected to several of the changes 
proposed for substantive policy reasons. These documents have been 
available and open for comment for about two weeks. The deadline for 
this project was supposed to be last Thursday. Unless more widespread 
opposition is voiced, I would suggest the document as presented in James 
weekend e-mail be considered approved and sent. That said, I have no 
objection to requested changes by Stephanie and Phil that have not met 
with any opposition by EOB today to be incorporated in the final 
document. Where challenged, however, I believe we should stick with the 
original language in the absence of more widespread opposition.
I want to thank all my my colleagues for their work on this and, in 
particular, Jennifer, whose leadership and hard work have made this 
happen. I have very much enjoyed working with her.
Respectfully,
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
*Sent*: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:10 AM
*To*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council List" 
<council at gnso.icann.org>
*Subject*: Re: [council] Letter regarding Harassment / Conduct at ICANN 
Meetings
Thanks for circulating this James.  I agree with Phil's recent comments, 
but I attach a markup version of both documents. I have circulated them 
to the NCSG, but I think it is fair to say there are divergent views on 
this topic, so these are my own personal comments.  As I have expressed, 
I think we are rushing into a complex area here and I do hope that once 
Akram comes up with a draft, there will be ample opportunity to discuss 
and refine the document.
Kind regards
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-04-15 16:18, James M. Bladel wrote:
> Council Colleagues -
> As discussed during yesterday?s call, we intend to send a high-level 
> letter to ICANN (Akram) on behalf of the GNSO Council, thanking him 
> for his blog post and drawing his attention to statement from the NCUC 
> and the draft policy created by Jennifer and others.  (On this latter 
> point, I?ve edited the Key Points document to reflect the most recent 
> comments on the thread).
> If you have any comments or edits to the letter or ?Key Points? 
> document, please post these to the list by EOD Monday, 18 APR.  Edits 
> could include changes/additions to the language, as well as inclusion 
> of other materials or links to statements from other groups.
> The target is to post this letter by Tuesday, 19 APR.
> Thanks?
> J.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160418/689fd9f4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN Conference Harassment - Key Points for Consideration-5SPcomments.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 33418 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160418/689fd9f4/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Council note to Akram on development of anti harassment policy - 6 April[3]-1sp.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 140828 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160418/689fd9f4/attachment-0003.docx>


From t.tropina  Mon Apr 18 22:39:37 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 21:39:37 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] further to the discussion last week re the harassment
 policy
In-Reply-To: <571530FF.9020607@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <571530FF.9020607@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <571537F9.2020109@mpicc.de>

Hi Steph, Ed and all.
My short comment after reading the document:
1) I certainly do not agree with the broad and subjective definition of
harassment, especially with regards to inappropriate remarks, jokes,
etc. The more you go into details with this description, the more
subjective it all gets. Why not following the IETF example, there is a
kind of simple definition. I also don't like "or any other category
protected by any applicable governing law" clause, if someone is
protected by "applicable law" my question is which law and why ICANN
shall define this. ICANN is not a public/private court after all.
2) I firmly disagree with anyone "shall report" clause. If one doesn't
so what? Do you have any remedies? This is the first question. The
second is - don't you think this is to far-reaching and certainly way to
subjective? If I am from a very conservative culture, say, and I see to
people voluntary flirting - shall I report if I find something
"inappropriate"?
I am not a GNSO Councillor, only a NCSG PC member, but I will certainly
raise my concerns loud and clear when this document will go further as
it is now. I find it too vague and too far-reaching.
Why not follow the way of IETF policy and draft something like this? A
nice, simple document?
PS. All in all, I actually support Stephanie's comments. I also think
that if there is a tough deadline for submitting this and the document
still looks that vague - then the deadline needs to be extended to allow
more time to re-draft. Sorry again, since I am not in GNSO - treat this
just as an opinion.
Best regards
Tanya

On 18/04/16 21:09, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Colleagues
> As discussed last week, I prepared comments on the harassment policy. 
> I shared them with the councillors via Skype, and sent them to the
> GNSO last night as we had a deadline of today which we received on the
> 15th from James Bladel.  I attach them here.  Ed has commented (see
> below) but other than that, I have not received any further comments. 
> I know we are all very busy, but I do think it is worth thinking about
> this letter before it goes, lest we are not comfortable with what
> Akram produces later.  Jenn has proposed an extension of another day,
> so it is now or never....
> Kind regards
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>  
> James, all,
>  
> I am in receipt of Stephanie's comments on the proposed harassment
> letter. I encourage the Council to consider many of  these suggested
> changes to be the equivalent of hostile amendments to the work
> produced by our small Council working group and to reject most of
> them,  both on procedural and substantive grounds, The document
> produced by the small Council working group led by Jennifer is far
> superior to one incorporating changes proposed at the last minute by
> Stephanie and should be used as our references note going forward. 
>  
>  
> PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS
>  
>  
> A note about how we have worked on this matter as a Council. At the
> Marrakech meeting I raised the issue of sexual harassment. A small
> working group was formed consisting of four Councillors from the NCSG
> - myself, Stefania, Marilia, David - and one Councillor from the
> Registrars in Jennifer. All Councillors were invited to join this
> group. Mary Wong kickstarted the group into action with an e-mail of
> March 25th. Jennifer immediately took the lead and on March
> 28th produced the prototype of the document now before us. I
> immediately suggested a few minor changes to the document, which were
> accepted. There were 17 email exchanges amongst the members of the
> small working group and staff prior to release of the final document
> to the general Councll list. 
>  
> Once on the Council  list suggestions and comments  made on a timely
> basis by Donna and Phil, were acknowledged by Jennifer, and
> incorporated into the document. Stephanie responded on April 6th with
> some general comments that I believe could are best summarised by this
> part of her post:
>  
> /"It is my view that we need a privacy policy more than a harassment
> policy because I feel that inappropriate conduct is already in fact
> covered by by our acceptable conduct policy"/
>  
> This represents a completely different view than that adopted by the
> small working group. I personally reject both the premise and the
> conclusion. Harassment is a specific type of conduct that has
> connotations beyond the term "inappropriate". It is not adequately
> covered by current policy. I should note that although
> Stephanie's  comments have been on list for twelve days, no one other
> Councillor has posted agreement with Stephanie's view that ICANN
> should deal with the situation at hand through it's acceptable conduct
> policy.
>  
> As Stephanie's suggestions were a bit different in format than the
> other comments and not as easy to adapt to the document at hand on
> April  6th Jennifer asked Stephanie to produce a red line version of
> her comments. On April 7th Stephanie agreed. This project had a
> completion deadline of April 14th. No other Councillor objected to the
> small group proposal on list between the 7th and 14th. Then on our
> monthly call  Stephanie verbally objected to our draft, the time frame
> was  extended and we waited through the weekend for her input.
> Finally, eleven days after she agreed to produce a red line document,
> four days after the initial project deadline,
> Stephanie has responded. Thank you for your input, Stephanie.
>  
> If this material had been produced in a timely manner it could have
> stimulated discussion on the list, it could have stimulated discussion
> on our call. Instead, I view this as no more than a  way of almost
>  hijacking the process, I'm sure without any malicious intent -
> Stephanie has impeccable integrity,  at the very end so in the end
>  the positions she espouses are adopted out of necessity rather than
> as a result of considered debate. I'm somewhat resentful that I now
> have to spend a few hours of my Monday responding to wholesale
> suggestions of change that were promised weeks earlier. If the Council
> is to allow this type of behaviour  then why would any of us join
> small working groups? Why not just wait until the end, past the
> deadline, of all projects and then object to things when you have the
> most leverage? I don't believe this is an optimal way to conduct our
> business, whatever the reason.
>  
> I also take exception to Stephanies claim that "I attach a markup
> version of both documents.  I have circulated them to the NCSG". As
> far and I can tell, that simply is not true. I have not seen these
> documents prior to this post to the Council list. I've checked both
> the NCSG discussion list and the archives of the NCSG policy committee
> list and no such "circulation" seems to have occurred. Those are our
> only two official mailing lists in the NCSG. I also note that the
> majority of NCSG Councillors were on the small team that Jennifer so
> aptly led. The NCSG had ample opportunity as a group to object to the
> proposed reference note in a timely manner and chose not to do so.
>  
>  
> SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEMS
>  
> 1. Stephanie has created at the outset a list of questions. Some of
> these have suggested outcomes that we did consider early in the small
> group and rejected, others would have been appropriate to consider at
> that time. Stephanie chose not to join this group and to challenge our
> decisions only at this late date.
>  
> -
>
>  1. While events at ICANN55 focused on the need for a Conference
>     Harassment Policy, would it not be prudent to create a Harassment
>     Policy that covers all of ICANN?s activities?
>
> ?
> No.
>  
> Let's be clear: ICANN already has a variety of harassment policies.
> There is a harassment policy, required by California law, that covers
> employees. There is the Expected Standards of Behaviour which may or
> may not cover some forms of harassment. That policy was found to be
> flawed in the most recent highly publicised situation. I should note
> that both parties in that matter support the development of a
> conference sexual harassment policy.
>  
> ICANN is an outlier in not having a conference harassment policy. The
> International Association of Conference Centres recommends as standard
> industry practice that a "conference specific, clearly defined policy
> against harassment  be posted at prominent entry points". I see no
> reason for ICANN to reject standard industry practice in this regard.
>  
> Meetings introduce the concept of "clear and present danger" into the
> equation. The standards for behaviour of those in close physical
> proximity to one another may necessarily need to be  bit more
> stringent than that of a more general policy.
>  
> Harassment itself is also different than general conduct standards
> in that for harassment to occur it must be directed towards a specific
> individual. There is also a mens rea component of harassment not
> present in most of the items contained in the Expected Standards.
>  
> ICANN is best served by a conference specific harassment policy with
> clearly defined roles and responsibilities. 
>  
> That said, I certainly would have no objection if a phrase akin to "we
> hope that the development of  a conference harassment policy is only
> the first step towards developing a wider policy against harassment in
> all of ICANN's activities and affairs" were added to the letter if
> that would meet with Stephanie's approval.
>  
>  
> 2.    If not, how does one deal with harassment that continues after
> an event, or starts online or through conference calls, meetings, etc.
> outside the actual face to face conferences?
>  
>  
>  
> Through normal processes. This is not an either / or situation. Some,
> including myself, believe that the lack of a conference specific
> policy is a hole in an otherwise satisfactory policy requiring civil
> behaviour. I should also note that ICANN is not a state. There are
> also opportunities to deal with these matters through normal channels.
> However, given that ICANN does hold meetings in countries where
> harassment may be permitted legally, a specific conference harassment
> policy does provide some de facto  assurance of some protection within
> the meeting site. It is a challenge. See, for
> example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3534495/US-woman-jailed-insulting-United-Arab-Emirates.html
> as to what we are facing going forward.
>  
>  
> 3. What is the purpose of a harassment policy, and how does it
> intersect with the existing standards of behavior policy? 
> (https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann-standards_of_behavior-jul14.pdf
>  
> The purpose of a conference harassment policy is to create policy
> which produces an environment in which all attendees are comfortable
> in and is one which attendees are free from harassment of any kind. It
> does so by delineating specific conduct that is prohibited and by
> establishing clear reporting obligations and requirements. This is far
> greater than the current ESB requirement that everyone act civilly
> towards one another.
>  
> I would also opine that the current policy does not work when applied
> to this type of incident   and the lack of a conference policy of a
> specific nature exposes ICANN legally.
>  
>  
> 4./How does one differentiate between inappropriate remarks or
> actions, and harassing, demeaning, and abusive behavior?  Many
> harassment policies scope the offensive activity or actions in terms
> of repeated behavior that forms a pattern, or if only a single event,
> an event that is of very significant proportions (eg physical
> contact).  A policy must be clear enough that when Implementation
> guidance and training is provided, our global multicultural audience
> will be able to understand clearly when conduct and speech are
> unwelcome or inappropriate, and when they are very offensive to normal
> sensibilities and constitute harassment.  Defining normal will be
> challenging./
>  
>  
> These question largely go to implementation and are beyond the scope
> of our current, initial, policy reference point.
>  
>  
> Regarding Stephanies criticisms of specific points contained in the
> "ICANN Conference Harassment Policy - Key Points" distributed by James
> on 15 April at 22:55 UTC:
>  
> 1. I support the text as written without any changes, although
> certainly believe it could be approved. Please remember this is a mere
> reference point.
>  
> 2. As harassment by definition is directed at an individual I reject
> Stephanies concerns for the section beginning "inappropriate
> communication".
>  
> 3. As Stephanie rightly notes ICANN as a private corporation has no
> control over whether an accused party seeks legal redress for any
> perceived harm. The prohibition against retaliation is a necessary
> clause that encourages victims to come forward but as with all
> policies written by a private corporation the effect of said policy is
> limited to the corporations remit. That is true of this entire
> document. I woulds not want to limit the language as operation of law
> already constrains it's reach and I would prefer that the
> anti-retaliatory language be as broad as legally possible. The current
> language meets that goal. I should note the same concerns have been
> expressed concerning whistleblower policies and have been  found to be
> lacking.
>  
> 4. I reject Stephanie's assertion that you need to "train a couple of
> thousand conference attendees to recognise and prohibit this type of
> conduct". That is FUD. This policy empowers those who witness such
> behaviour to report it given that often the power relationship
> involved makes it impossible for the victim to report it. I note this
> is mere reporting; no judgement as to validity of the complaint is
> being made.
>  
> Although I would prefer to keep the language as is, I would have no
> objection to changing "should immediately" to "are encouraged to
> immediately" if that would address some of Stephanie's concerns.
>  
> 5. I not only reject Stephanie's assumption that the Ombudsman is or
> should be the first line for reporting, our small group, at my
> request, deleted this concept from our proposal. First, the Ombudsman
> in not empowered by the ICANN Bylasws to conduct investigations into
> relations between parties that have no direct contractual relationship
> with ICANN. That he did in the most recent publicised incident is
> being considered for litigation (against ICANN) by one of the parties
> involved and has prompted me to write a letter to Steve Crocker asking
> for an explanation / justification (response yet to be received).
> There are people within ICANN corporate in the human relations
> department who have expertise in this area and who I believe are far
> better qualified to handle these types of complaints than the
> Ombudsman. That said, I would prefer for ICANN corporate, not us,  to
> establish the reporting structure in line with other responsibilities
> and expertise of their employees. 
>  
> 6. The line "ICANN will protect the confidentiality of individual(s)
> reporting suspected violations of the incident(s) to the extent
> permissible and with due regard for procedural fairness" is good
> language and should be retained. Stephanie's proposed substitution is
> too limiting ('investigations and interviews conducted under this
> policy"), too defined ("confidential") and would expose ICANN to
> greater legal liability should a party be dissatisfied. The text in
> the proposed document is read as a "best effort" clause and would not
> expose ICANN legally except in the case of gross negligence. 
>  
> 7. I agree with the clause requiring staff members who become aware of
> "any form of harassment or potential incidents": to report them to the
> front line employee given responsibility for these matters. This is
> not just good policy in terms of stopping harassment, this is good
> policy in terms of limiting ICANN's exposure to lawsuits resulting
> from such incidents.
>  
> I do not believe putting links to nonspecific government harassment
> policies has any value whatsoever. ICANN is not a government, it is a
> private corporation. We are not trying to create, in this action, a
> comprehensive harassment policy, but rather a conference harassment
> policy. Links to specific conference harassment policies, of course,
> would be most welcome if anyone wants to spend the time to find and
> link to them. 
>  
> As stated, I would prefer to keep the letter and reference document as
> written. I respectfully disagree with Stephanie on many of her
> comments and by timing her response so late there really isn't time to
> engage in a full conversation as would be desirable. 
>  
> However, if it is deemed permissible for Stephanie's last minute
> changes to the proposed document to be accepted over my objection then
> I respectfully request the following additional changes be made:
>  
> - Addition of an opening clause
>  
> ?This policy aims to strengthen and safeguard the ICANN working
> environment so that it is a welcoming and enabling diverse environment
> for stakeholders from all backgrounds.
>  
> - Change the word 'colour' to 'ethnicity'
>  
> - Exclude the word 'disability', as that term is now considered to be
> somewhat derogatory'; handicap should suffice
>  
> - change 'sex' in all instances to 'gender'; 'sex' has connotations
> that does not fully describe the wide array of possible sexual
> identification categories that 'gender' does;
>  
> -, include 'stalking' as a prohibited offense
>  
>  
> Again, my preference would be to go with the document as is. I will
> remind everyone that this is merely a reference note to provide an
> example of what a policy might look like. There will be ample
> opportunity for the community to weigh in on the actual proposed
> policy at a later date.
>  
> I note also that Phil has made some additional recommendations today
> to  strengthen the proposal. My principle objection is timing
> (although in a different procedural environment I would consider them
> friendly amendments)  - I am generally in agreement , at least in
> part, with all but one of his proposed changes. I will note that
> Phil's earlier recommendations have been incorporated into the
> document. His current proposals and my responses:
>  
> /1. What procedural due process protections will be established for
> parties to the dispute, and what standard of proof shall be required
> for an adverse finding/.
>  
> I agree that this would be a useful addition to the accompanying
> letter as a bullet point.
>  
> /2. I believe we need a standard that requires some intent on the part
> of the alleged harasser to demean, denigrate, harass, etc./
>  
> Harassment by legal definition has a mens rea component. I would not
> object to making this clear in the policy document but do not believe
> it is necessary.
>  
> /3. policy needs to be further developed to make clear that conduct of
> a criminal nature (assault, indecent exposure, rape) is outside the
> scope of any harassment policy and is to be reported by ICANN to the
> proper authorities./
>  
> We need to be careful here. It may not be clear whether an activity is
> or is not illegal. I would not want to create any legal obligation for
> ICANN to report any alleged crime. I'd suggest that rather than put
> this in out policy proposal we add another bullet point to the letter
> akin to:
>  
> - We believe procedures need to be developed so that those matters
> that are  violations of law are reported immediately by ICANN or the
> complaining party to the proper authorities.
>  
> I think we need to note this but I would be hesitant in a rushed
> manner to come up with exact wording within the proposed "key points".
> I'm fine with a bullet point in the letter.
>  
> /- ?You should report any actions that you believe may violate this
> policy no matter how slight the actions might seem? I would suggest
> deleting everything after the word ?policy?, leaving more discretion
> to a target or witness to decide when to invoke whatever procedures
> may be created to deal with harassment./
>  
> I agree.
>  
>
> /-Finally, I would suggest that the term ?ICANN Conference? needs to
> be clearly defined to make clear its breadth. That is, does it only
> cover incidents that occur  at the official meeting site or are other
> locations and activities covered; such as meeting sponsor social
> events, official meeting hotels, etc.?/
>  
> Good point. I would limit the policy to the meeting itself, I don't
> believe ICANN should limit the free expression rights of sponsoring
> organisation, but am open to other ideas.
>
> *  *
> *WAY FORWARD*
>  
>  
> The GNSO is late in making this submission. We do need to act now.
>  
> My preference would to have had this conversation during the past few
> weeks these documents have been posted and open for participation. 
>  
> I have no objection to changes in the documents to which there is no
> on list opposition. I have, however, objected to several of the
> changes proposed for substantive policy reasons. These documents have
> been available and open for comment for about two weeks. The deadline
> for this project was supposed to be last Thursday. Unless more
> widespread opposition is voiced, I would suggest the document as
> presented in James weekend e-mail be considered approved and sent.
> That said, I have no objection to requested changes by Stephanie and
> Phil that have not met with any opposition by EOB today to be
> incorporated in the final document. Where challenged, however, I
> believe we should stick with the original language in the absence of
> more widespread opposition.
>  
> I want to thank all my my colleagues for their work on this and, in
> particular, Jennifer, whose leadership and hard work have made this
> happen. I have very much enjoyed working with her.
>  
> Respectfully,
>  
> Ed 
>  
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Sent*: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:10 AM
> *To*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council List"
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [council] Letter regarding Harassment / Conduct at
> ICANN Meetings
>  
> Thanks for circulating this James.  I agree with Phil's recent
> comments, but I attach a markup version of both documents.  I have
> circulated them to the NCSG, but I think it is fair to say there are
> divergent views on this topic, so these are my own personal comments. 
> As I have expressed, I think we are rushing into a complex area here
> and I do hope that once Akram comes up with a draft, there will be
> ample opportunity to discuss and refine the document.
> Kind regards
> Stephanie Perrin
>  
> On 2016-04-15 16:18, James M. Bladel wrote:
>> Council Colleagues -
>>  
>> As discussed during yesterday?s call, we intend to send a high-level
>> letter to ICANN (Akram) on behalf of the GNSO Council, thanking him
>> for his blog post and drawing his attention to statement from the
>> NCUC and the draft policy created by Jennifer and others.  (On this
>> latter point, I?ve edited the Key Points document to reflect the most
>> recent comments on the thread).
>>  
>> If you have any comments or edits to the letter or ?Key Points?
>> document, please post these to the list by EOD Monday, 18 APR.  Edits
>> could include changes/additions to the language, as well as inclusion
>> of other materials or links to statements from other groups.
>>  
>> The target is to post this letter by Tuesday, 19 APR.
>>  
>> Thanks?
>>  
>> J.
>>  
>
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160418/bcb0b83f/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Apr 19 05:47:06 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:47:06 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] further to the discussion last week re the harassment
 policy
In-Reply-To: <571537F9.2020109@mpicc.de>
References: <571530FF.9020607@mail.utoronto.ca> <571537F9.2020109@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <57159C2A.40605@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks to Tatiana for responding. James has returned with the following 
email, and attachments, deadline EOD Tuesday.  Let me know if you want 
me to convey anything to the group.
Kind regards,
Stephanie


Colleagues -

First, please accept my sincere thanks for a spirited, thoughtful, and 
engaged discussion of this topic and these materials on the list. Even 
if the points raised are not completely aligned, it?s reflective of the 
diverse nature of the GNSO Council & Community that this group was able 
to develop this topic so quickly and comprehensively.  And just a gentle 
reminder, that was precisely the goal of this effort: to gather, 
assemble and enumerate issues that could advance the development new 
policy, or expand the existing Expected Standards of Behavior.  It 
wasn?t the intention to actually draft that policy at the Council level. 
Also, many thanks to Mary for collecting & coordinating comments & edits 
from Jennifer, Ed, Stephanie, Volker, Phil and others.  Everyone should 
recognize their own thoughts reflected in the most recent drafts.

Where we currently stand -

  * Attached, please find a draft ?Cover Letter? from the Council to
    Akram.  This letter thanks Akram for his recent blog post, and
    encourages further work from Staff, the Board, and the Community to
    examine the issues and develop recommendations for solutions.  It
    also lays out some general questions about the nature of any future
    Policy, how it would be defined, be enforced, and respect due
    process.  It also references materials and statements from other
    communities (NCUC, IETF) and the ?Key Points? document drafted by
    the Council sub group.
  * Also attached is a draft of ?Key Points for Consideration?. These
    are issues and questions that we as a Council believe should be
    considered by future efforts.  Thanks to all who contributed to this
    document.  While not perfect, it is much more evolved and robust
    than just a few days ago.
  * Any other statements forthcoming from SGs, Cs, or other groups.  
    Please reply if you are aware of any.  For example, I believe the
    Registrar Stakeholder Group will reiterate its request to the Board
    that it engage independent experts in this effort.
  * (Finally, for all the kudos on this effort, special thanks to
    Jennifer who volunteered to coordinate *both* the sub-team Key
    Points draft, and comments leading to the (forthcoming) RrSG
    statement.  No good deed goes unpunished!)

Once again, this isn?t the end of this work, but our attempt to launch 
it properly and contribute input from the GNSO community & Council to 
the effort, which is already getting started.  There?s more to do, but I 
think we?re off to a great start.  Please reply by EOD tomorrow if you 
have any further edits or comments.

Thank you?

J.


On 2016-04-18 15:39, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> Hi Steph, Ed and all.
> My short comment after reading the document:
> 1) I certainly do not agree with the broad and subjective definition 
> of harassment, especially with regards to inappropriate remarks, 
> jokes, etc. The more you go into details with this description, the 
> more subjective it all gets. Why not following the IETF example, there 
> is a kind of simple definition. I also don't like "or any other 
> category protected by any applicable governing law" clause, if someone 
> is protected by "applicable law" my question is which law and why 
> ICANN shall define this. ICANN is not a public/private court after all.
> 2) I firmly disagree with anyone "shall report" clause. If one doesn't 
> so what? Do you have any remedies? This is the first question. The 
> second is - don't you think this is to far-reaching and certainly way 
> to subjective? If I am from a very conservative culture, say, and I 
> see to people voluntary flirting - shall I report if I find something 
> "inappropriate"?
> I am not a GNSO Councillor, only a NCSG PC member, but I will 
> certainly raise my concerns loud and clear when this document will go 
> further as it is now. I find it too vague and too far-reaching.
> Why not follow the way of IETF policy and draft something like this? A 
> nice, simple document?
> PS. All in all, I actually support Stephanie's comments. I also think 
> that if there is a tough deadline for submitting this and the document 
> still looks that vague - then the deadline needs to be extended to 
> allow more time to re-draft. Sorry again, since I am not in GNSO - 
> treat this just as an opinion.
> Best regards
> Tanya
>
> On 18/04/16 21:09, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Colleagues
>> As discussed last week, I prepared comments on the harassment 
>> policy.  I shared them with the councillors via Skype, and sent them 
>> to the GNSO last night as we had a deadline of today which we 
>> received on the 15th from James Bladel.  I attach them here.  Ed has 
>> commented (see below) but other than that, I have not received any 
>> further comments.  I know we are all very busy, but I do think it is 
>> worth thinking about this letter before it goes, lest we are not 
>> comfortable with what Akram produces later.  Jenn has proposed an 
>> extension of another day, so it is now or never....
>> Kind regards
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>>
>> James, all,
>> I am in receipt of Stephanie's comments on the proposed harassment 
>> letter. I encourage the Council to consider many of  these suggested 
>> changes to be the equivalent of hostile amendments to the work 
>> produced by our small Council working group and to reject most of 
>> them,  both on procedural and substantive grounds, The document 
>> produced by the small Council working group led by Jennifer is far 
>> superior to one incorporating changes proposed at the last minute by 
>> Stephanie and should be used as our references note going forward.
>> PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS
>> A note about how we have worked on this matter as a Council. At the 
>> Marrakech meeting I raised the issue of sexual harassment. A small 
>> working group was formed consisting of four Councillors from the NCSG 
>> - myself, Stefania, Marilia, David - and one Councillor from the 
>> Registrars in Jennifer. All Councillors were invited to join this 
>> group. Mary Wong kickstarted the group into action with an e-mail of 
>> March 25th. Jennifer immediately took the lead and on March 
>> 28th produced the prototype of the document now before us. I 
>> immediately suggested a few minor changes to the document, which were 
>> accepted. There were 17 email exchanges amongst the members of the 
>> small working group and staff prior to release of the final document 
>> to the general Councll list.
>> Once on the Council  list suggestions and comments  made on a timely 
>> basis by Donna and Phil, were acknowledged by Jennifer, and 
>> incorporated into the document. Stephanie responded on April 6th with 
>> some general comments that I believe could are best summarised by 
>> this part of her post:
>> /"It is my view that we need a privacy policy more than a harassment 
>> policy because I feel that inappropriate conduct is already in fact 
>> covered by by our acceptable conduct policy"/
>> This represents a completely different view than that adopted by the 
>> small working group. I personally reject both the premise and the 
>> conclusion. Harassment is a specific type of conduct that has 
>> connotations beyond the term "inappropriate". It is not adequately 
>> covered by current policy. I should note that although 
>> Stephanie's  comments have been on list for twelve days, no one other 
>> Councillor has posted agreement with Stephanie's view that ICANN 
>> should deal with the situation at hand through it's acceptable 
>> conduct policy.
>> As Stephanie's suggestions were a bit different in format than the 
>> other comments and not as easy to adapt to the document at hand on 
>> April  6th Jennifer asked Stephanie to produce a red line version of 
>> her comments. On April 7th Stephanie agreed. This project had a 
>> completion deadline of April 14th. No other Councillor objected to 
>> the small group proposal on list between the 7th and 14th. Then on 
>> our monthly call  Stephanie verbally objected to our draft, the time 
>> frame was  extended and we waited through the weekend for her input. 
>> Finally, eleven days after she agreed to produce a red line document, 
>> four days after the initial project deadline, Stephanie has 
>> responded. Thank you for your input, Stephanie.
>> If this material had been produced in a timely manner it could have 
>> stimulated discussion on the list, it could have stimulated 
>> discussion on our call. Instead, I view this as no more than a  way 
>> of almost  hijacking the process, I'm sure without any malicious 
>> intent - Stephanie has impeccable integrity,  at the very end so in 
>> the end  the positions she espouses are adopted out of necessity 
>> rather than as a result of considered debate. I'm somewhat resentful 
>> that I now have to spend a few hours of my Monday responding to 
>> wholesale suggestions of change that were promised weeks earlier. If 
>> the Council is to allow this type of behaviour  then why would any of 
>> us join small working groups? Why not just wait until the end, past 
>> the deadline, of all projects and then object to things when you have 
>> the most leverage? I don't believe this is an optimal way to conduct 
>> our business, whatever the reason.
>> I also take exception to Stephanies claim that "I attach a markup 
>> version of both documents.  I have circulated them to the NCSG". As 
>> far and I can tell, that simply is not true. I have not seen these 
>> documents prior to this post to the Council list. I've checked both 
>> the NCSG discussion list and the archives of the NCSG policy 
>> committee list and no such "circulation" seems to have occurred. 
>> Those are our only two official mailing lists in the NCSG. I also 
>> note that the majority of NCSG Councillors were on the small team 
>> that Jennifer so aptly led. The NCSG had ample opportunity as a group 
>> to object to the proposed reference note in a timely manner and chose 
>> not to do so.
>> SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEMS
>> 1. Stephanie has created at the outset a list of questions. Some of 
>> these have suggested outcomes that we did consider early in the small 
>> group and rejected, others would have been appropriate to consider at 
>> that time. Stephanie chose not to join this group and to challenge 
>> our decisions only at this late date.
>> -
>>
>>  1. While events at ICANN55 focused on the need for a Conference
>>     Harassment Policy, would it not be prudent to create a Harassment
>>     Policy that covers all of ICANN?s activities?
>>
>> ?
>> No.
>> Let's be clear: ICANN already has a variety of harassment policies. 
>> There is a harassment policy, required by California law, that covers 
>> employees. There is the Expected Standards of Behaviour which may or 
>> may not cover some forms of harassment. That policy was found to be 
>> flawed in the most recent highly publicised situation. I should note 
>> that both parties in that matter support the development of a 
>> conference sexual harassment policy.
>> ICANN is an outlier in not having a conference harassment policy. The 
>> International Association of Conference Centres recommends as 
>> standard industry practice that a "conference specific, clearly 
>> defined policy against harassment  be posted at prominent entry 
>> points". I see no reason for ICANN to reject standard industry 
>> practice in this regard.
>> Meetings introduce the concept of "clear and present danger" into the 
>> equation. The standards for behaviour of those in close physical 
>> proximity to one another may necessarily need to be  bit more 
>> stringent than that of a more general policy.
>> Harassment itself is also different than general conduct standards 
>> in that for harassment to occur it must be directed towards a 
>> specific individual. There is also a mens rea component of harassment 
>> not present in most of the items contained in the Expected Standards.
>> ICANN is best served by a conference specific harassment policy with 
>> clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
>> That said, I certainly would have no objection if a phrase akin to 
>> "we hope that the development of  a conference harassment policy is 
>> only the first step towards developing a wider policy against 
>> harassment in all of ICANN's activities and affairs" were added to 
>> the letter if that would meet with Stephanie's approval.
>> 2.    If not, how does one deal with harassment that continues after 
>> an event, or starts online or through conference calls, meetings, 
>> etc. outside the actual face to face conferences?
>> Through normal processes. This is not an either / or situation. Some, 
>> including myself, believe that the lack of a conference specific 
>> policy is a hole in an otherwise satisfactory policy requiring civil 
>> behaviour. I should also note that ICANN is not a state. There are 
>> also opportunities to deal with these matters through normal 
>> channels. However, given that ICANN does hold meetings in countries 
>> where harassment may be permitted legally, a specific conference 
>> harassment policy does provide some de facto  assurance of some 
>> protection within the meeting site. It is a challenge. See, for 
>> example: 
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3534495/US-woman-jailed-insulting-United-Arab-Emirates.html 
>> as to what we are facing going forward.
>> 3. What is the purpose of a harassment policy, and how does it 
>> intersect with the existing standards of behavior policy?  
>> (https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann-standards_of_behavior-jul14.pdf
>> The purpose of a conference harassment policy is to create policy 
>> which produces an environment in which all attendees are comfortable 
>> in and is one which attendees are free from harassment of any kind. 
>> It does so by delineating specific conduct that is prohibited and by 
>> establishing clear reporting obligations and requirements. This is 
>> far greater than the current ESB requirement that everyone act 
>> civilly towards one another.
>> I would also opine that the current policy does not work when applied 
>> to this type of incident   and the lack of a conference policy of a 
>> specific nature exposes ICANN legally.
>> 4./How does one differentiate between inappropriate remarks or 
>> actions, and harassing, demeaning, and abusive behavior?  Many 
>> harassment policies scope the offensive activity or actions in terms 
>> of repeated behavior that forms a pattern, or if only a single event, 
>> an event that is of very significant proportions (eg physical 
>> contact).  A policy must be clear enough that when Implementation 
>> guidance and training is provided, our global multicultural audience 
>> will be able to understand clearly when conduct and speech are 
>> unwelcome or inappropriate, and when they are very offensive to 
>> normal sensibilities and constitute harassment.  Defining normal will 
>> be challenging./
>> These question largely go to implementation and are beyond the scope 
>> of our current, initial, policy reference point.
>> Regarding Stephanies criticisms of specific points contained in the 
>> "ICANN Conference Harassment Policy - Key Points" distributed by 
>> James on 15 April at 22:55 UTC:
>> 1. I support the text as written without any changes, although 
>> certainly believe it could be approved. Please remember this is a 
>> mere reference point.
>> 2. As harassment by definition is directed at an individual I reject 
>> Stephanies concerns for the section beginning "inappropriate 
>> communication".
>> 3. As Stephanie rightly notes ICANN as a private corporation has no 
>> control over whether an accused party seeks legal redress for any 
>> perceived harm. The prohibition against retaliation is a necessary 
>> clause that encourages victims to come forward but as with all 
>> policies written by a private corporation the effect of said policy 
>> is limited to the corporations remit. That is true of this entire 
>> document. I woulds not want to limit the language as operation of law 
>> already constrains it's reach and I would prefer that the 
>> anti-retaliatory language be as broad as legally possible. The 
>> current language meets that goal. I should note the same concerns 
>> have been expressed concerning whistleblower policies and have been 
>>  found to be lacking.
>> 4. I reject Stephanie's assertion that you need to "train a couple of 
>> thousand conference attendees to recognise and prohibit this type of 
>> conduct". That is FUD. This policy empowers those who witness such 
>> behaviour to report it given that often the power relationship 
>> involved makes it impossible for the victim to report it. I note this 
>> is mere reporting; no judgement as to validity of the complaint is 
>> being made.
>> Although I would prefer to keep the language as is, I would have no 
>> objection to changing "should immediately" to "are encouraged to 
>> immediately" if that would address some of Stephanie's concerns.
>> 5. I not only reject Stephanie's assumption that the Ombudsman is or 
>> should be the first line for reporting, our small group, at my 
>> request, deleted this concept from our proposal. First, the Ombudsman 
>> in not empowered by the ICANN Bylasws to conduct investigations into 
>> relations between parties that have no direct contractual 
>> relationship with ICANN. That he did in the most recent publicised 
>> incident is being considered for litigation (against ICANN) by one of 
>> the parties involved and has prompted me to write a letter to Steve 
>> Crocker asking for an explanation / justification (response yet to be 
>> received). There are people within ICANN corporate in the human 
>> relations department who have expertise in this area and who I 
>> believe are far better qualified to handle these types of complaints 
>> than the Ombudsman. That said, I would prefer for ICANN corporate, 
>> not us,  to establish the reporting structure in line with other 
>> responsibilities and expertise of their employees.
>> 6. The line "ICANN will protect the confidentiality of individual(s) 
>> reporting suspected violations of the incident(s) to the extent 
>> permissible and with due regard for procedural fairness" is good 
>> language and should be retained. Stephanie's proposed substitution is 
>> too limiting ('investigations and interviews conducted under this 
>> policy"), too defined ("confidential") and would expose ICANN to 
>> greater legal liability should a party be dissatisfied. The text in 
>> the proposed document is read as a "best effort" clause and would not 
>> expose ICANN legally except in the case of gross negligence.
>> 7. I agree with the clause requiring staff members who become aware 
>> of "any form of harassment or potential incidents": to report them to 
>> the front line employee given responsibility for these matters. This 
>> is not just good policy in terms of stopping harassment, this is good 
>> policy in terms of limiting ICANN's exposure to lawsuits resulting 
>> from such incidents.
>> I do not believe putting links to nonspecific government harassment 
>> policies has any value whatsoever. ICANN is not a government, it is a 
>> private corporation. We are not trying to create, in this action, a 
>> comprehensive harassment policy, but rather a conference harassment 
>> policy. Links to specific conference harassment policies, of course, 
>> would be most welcome if anyone wants to spend the time to find and 
>> link to them.
>> As stated, I would prefer to keep the letter and reference document 
>> as written. I respectfully disagree with Stephanie on many of her 
>> comments and by timing her response so late there really isn't time 
>> to engage in a full conversation as would be desirable.
>> However, if it is deemed permissible for Stephanie's last minute 
>> changes to the proposed document to be accepted over my objection 
>> then I respectfully request the following additional changes be made:
>> - Addition of an opening clause
>> ?This policy aims to strengthen and safeguard the ICANN working 
>> environment so that it is a welcoming and enabling diverse 
>> environment for stakeholders from all backgrounds.
>> - Change the word 'colour' to 'ethnicity'
>> - Exclude the word 'disability', as that term is now considered to be 
>> somewhat derogatory'; handicap should suffice
>> - change 'sex' in all instances to 'gender'; 'sex' has connotations 
>> that does not fully describe the wide array of possible sexual 
>> identification categories that 'gender' does;
>> -, include 'stalking' as a prohibited offense
>> Again, my preference would be to go with the document as is. I will 
>> remind everyone that this is merely a reference note to provide an 
>> example of what a policy might look like. There will be ample 
>> opportunity for the community to weigh in on the actual proposed 
>> policy at a later date.
>> I note also that Phil has made some additional recommendations today 
>> to  strengthen the proposal. My principle objection is timing 
>> (although in a different procedural environment I would consider them 
>> friendly amendments)  - I am generally in agreement , at least in 
>> part, with all but one of his proposed changes. I will note that 
>> Phil's earlier recommendations have been incorporated into the 
>> document. His current proposals and my responses:
>> /1. What procedural due process protections will be established for 
>> parties to the dispute, and what standard of proof shall be required 
>> for an adverse finding/.
>> I agree that this would be a useful addition to the accompanying 
>> letter as a bullet point.
>> /2. I believe we need a standard that requires some intent on the 
>> part of the alleged harasser to demean, denigrate, harass, etc./
>> Harassment by legal definition has a mens rea component. I would not 
>> object to making this clear in the policy document but do not believe 
>> it is necessary.
>> /3. policy needs to be further developed to make clear that conduct 
>> of a criminal nature (assault, indecent exposure, rape) is outside 
>> the scope of any harassment policy and is to be reported by ICANN to 
>> the proper authorities./
>> We need to be careful here. It may not be clear whether an activity 
>> is or is not illegal. I would not want to create any legal obligation 
>> for ICANN to report any alleged crime. I'd suggest that rather than 
>> put this in out policy proposal we add another bullet point to the 
>> letter akin to:
>> - We believe procedures need to be developed so that those matters 
>> that are  violations of law are reported immediately by ICANN or the 
>> complaining party to the proper authorities.
>> I think we need to note this but I would be hesitant in a rushed 
>> manner to come up with exact wording within the proposed "key 
>> points". I'm fine with a bullet point in the letter.
>> /- ?You should report any actions that you believe may violate this 
>> policy no matter how slight the actions might seem? I would suggest 
>> deleting everything after the word ?policy?, leaving more discretion 
>> to a target or witness to decide when to invoke whatever procedures 
>> may be created to deal with harassment./
>> I agree.
>>
>> /-Finally, I would suggest that the term ?ICANN Conference? needs to 
>> be clearly defined to make clear its breadth. That is, does it only 
>> cover incidents that occur  at the official meeting site or are other 
>> locations and activities covered; such as meeting sponsor social 
>> events, official meeting hotels, etc.?/
>> Good point. I would limit the policy to the meeting itself, I don't 
>> believe ICANN should limit the free expression rights of sponsoring 
>> organisation, but am open to other ideas.
>>
>> **
>> *WAY FORWARD*
>> The GNSO is late in making this submission. We do need to act now.
>> My preference would to have had this conversation during the past few 
>> weeks these documents have been posted and open for participation.
>> I have no objection to changes in the documents to which there is no 
>> on list opposition. I have, however, objected to several of the 
>> changes proposed for substantive policy reasons. These documents have 
>> been available and open for comment for about two weeks. The deadline 
>> for this project was supposed to be last Thursday. Unless more 
>> widespread opposition is voiced, I would suggest the document as 
>> presented in James weekend e-mail be considered approved and sent. 
>> That said, I have no objection to requested changes by Stephanie and 
>> Phil that have not met with any opposition by EOB today to be 
>> incorporated in the final document. Where challenged, however, I 
>> believe we should stick with the original language in the absence of 
>> more widespread opposition.
>> I want to thank all my my colleagues for their work on this and, in 
>> particular, Jennifer, whose leadership and hard work have made this 
>> happen. I have very much enjoyed working with her.
>> Respectfully,
>> Ed
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> *Sent*: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:10 AM
>> *To*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council List" 
>> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Subject*: Re: [council] Letter regarding Harassment / Conduct at 
>> ICANN Meetings
>> Thanks for circulating this James.  I agree with Phil's recent 
>> comments, but I attach a markup version of both documents.  I have 
>> circulated them to the NCSG, but I think it is fair to say there are 
>> divergent views on this topic, so these are my own personal 
>> comments.  As I have expressed, I think we are rushing into a complex 
>> area here and I do hope that once Akram comes up with a draft, there 
>> will be ample opportunity to discuss and refine the document.
>> Kind regards
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2016-04-15 16:18, James M. Bladel wrote:
>>> Council Colleagues -
>>> As discussed during yesterday?s call, we intend to send a high-level 
>>> letter to ICANN (Akram) on behalf of the GNSO Council, thanking him 
>>> for his blog post and drawing his attention to statement from the 
>>> NCUC and the draft policy created by Jennifer and others.  (On this 
>>> latter point, I?ve edited the Key Points document to reflect the 
>>> most recent comments on the thread).
>>> If you have any comments or edits to the letter or ?Key Points? 
>>> document, please post these to the list by EOD Monday, 18 APR. 
>>>  Edits could include changes/additions to the language, as well as 
>>> inclusion of other materials or links to statements from other groups.
>>> The target is to post this letter by Tuesday, 19 APR.
>>> Thanks?
>>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160418/09bcba64/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CLEAN - ICANN Conference Harassment - Key Points for Consideration - updated draft 18 April-1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 31509 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160418/09bcba64/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Cover Letter to Akram - updated 18 April-1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 197313 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160418/09bcba64/attachment-0003.docx>


From mshears  Tue Apr 19 14:45:35 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:45:35 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
 - 22/03
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>

Hi all - have made some comments in the doc.  I think it is a good piece 
- I am just quibbling with a couple of points.

Matthew

On 4/17/2016 3:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to 
> ICANN?s geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>
>
> The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, 
> and consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment 
> period _until 22/03 11:59 UTC_.
>
> You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en
>
> All the best wishes,
> Mar?lia
>
>
> -- 
> *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/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160419/1fd81971/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Fri Apr 22 14:44:19 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:44:19 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2ce30wkXieH8jhv45VGaqMJw8Td5ZPhDONuaz36NqnkQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all, this is a quick reminder that we are a few hours away from the
deadline for making comments to this draft. Thanks to those who have posted
their comments.

Today at 11:59 PM UTC is will close the document and call for consensus in
the following 24 hours.

Thanks
Mar?lia

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi all - have made some comments in the doc.  I think it is a good piece -
> I am just quibbling with a couple of points.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 4/17/2016 3:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to ICANN?s
> geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation:
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, and
> consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment period *until
> 22/03 11:59 UTC*.
>
> You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en
>
> All the best wishes,
> Mar?lia
>
> --
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -  <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> http://www.politics.org.br/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>
>


-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160422/02230674/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sat Apr 23 18:08:26 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 12:08:26 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0hCUXQJwuDP0vYd4zfNZvoC45Yz_t43t6d8iCHLxOopg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

@Matt, I incorporated most of your suggestions. Can you take a look at the
document with the track changes and see if it you agree? @Bill, the "empire
thinking" part has been changed. Matt's suggestions also pointed out the
same thing.

Best!
Mar?lia

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi all - have made some comments in the doc.  I think it is a good piece -
> I am just quibbling with a couple of points.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 4/17/2016 3:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to ICANN?s
> geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation:
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, and
> consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment period *until
> 22/03 11:59 UTC*.
>
> You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en
>
> All the best wishes,
> Mar?lia
>
> --
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -  <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> http://www.politics.org.br/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>
>


-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160423/b75c7056/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sat Apr 23 18:16:12 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 12:16:12 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CONSENSUS call underway: NCSG statement on Geographic
	Regions
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1e=mVqvmG0pkhonA5YTZV=+VaXqWkzkWrceFdQDMYtfA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I just would like to remind everyone that according to the timeline
previously proposed on the list we are in the midst of a consensus call on
the draft statement on geographic regions.

I incorporated the few suggestions received and you can see the final
version of the statement here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit

If PC members have no objections until 24/04 12:00 UTC (midday), I will
forward this statement as a NCSG contribution to the public comment period.

Thanks and best wishes,
Mar?lia


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic
Regions - 22/03
To: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>


Dear all, this is a quick reminder that we are a few hours away from the
deadline for making comments to this draft. Thanks to those who have posted
their comments.

Today at 11:59 PM UTC is will close the document and call for consensus in
the following 24 hours.

Thanks
Mar?lia

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi all - have made some comments in the doc.  I think it is a good piece -
> I am just quibbling with a couple of points.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 4/17/2016 3:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to ICANN?s
> geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation:
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, and
> consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment period *until
> 22/03 11:59 UTC*.
>
> You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en
>
> All the best wishes,
> Mar?lia
>
> --
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -  <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> http://www.politics.org.br/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>
>


-- 
*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/





-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160423/c0f1dda9/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Sun Apr 24 10:19:03 2016
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 09:19:03 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0hCUXQJwuDP0vYd4zfNZvoC45Yz_t43t6d8iCHLxOopg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
	<CACpVkK0hCUXQJwuDP0vYd4zfNZvoC45Yz_t43t6d8iCHLxOopg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9EA7C518-AC9A-4C75-92EA-3DDE9B0AE464@gmail.com>

Hi

Thanks Marilia, good changes. I think anachronic geo-political ?structures? or ?arrangements?  would be clearer than ?realities? but as you like. And the 'supports further discussion? is better than 'support a radical overhaul? that we?ve not explained.

One small thought over morning coffee: we often in these things use terms like NCSG ?opposes? and ?rejects? xyz, which to some sets of eyes might seem a piece with cherished distorted images that new evidence is only slowly altering. It might seem a little less hot to say ?supports? / ?does not support??

Best

Bill

> On Apr 23, 2016, at 17:08, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> @Matt, I incorporated most of your suggestions. Can you take a look at the document with the track changes and see if it you agree? @Bill, the "empire thinking" part has been changed. Matt's suggestions also pointed out the same thing. 
> 
> Best!
> Mar?lia
> 
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
> Hi all - have made some comments in the doc.  I think it is a good piece - I am just quibbling with a couple of points.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 4/17/2016 3:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> Hello everyone, 
>> 
>> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to ICANN?s geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation:  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing> 
>> 
>> The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, and consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment period until 22/03 11:59 UTC.
>> 
>> You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en>
>> 
>> All the best wishes, 
>> Mar?lia
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>
>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu/>
>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -  <http://www.politics.org.br/>http://www.politics.org.br/ <http://www.politics.org.br/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> -- 
> 
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org <http://cdt.org/>
> E: mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987 <tel:%2B44.771.247.2987>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu/>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160424/19422d6d/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sun Apr 24 15:30:35 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 09:30:35 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3VFS+s+fZP2KLe3GN_4AqNrAHBwNhca7=7rSLyKvSHeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
	<CACpVkK0hCUXQJwuDP0vYd4zfNZvoC45Yz_t43t6d8iCHLxOopg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EA7C518-AC9A-4C75-92EA-3DDE9B0AE464@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK11+LZc-5-a1Pnf3ts0Q+6pyBfmtuQkJXRS4owHpFyq6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3VFS+s+fZP2KLe3GN_4AqNrAHBwNhca7=7rSLyKvSHeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3WGagc5wXE4m6=KZaF+ox1=zRcGs-z2yQhPfLhYn42bg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Bill. Very good suggestions. I will include them and since the
deadline has passed without objections, i will prepare the document and
send it as ncsg contribution.
Thank you all
Marilia
Em 24/04/2016 04:19, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> escreveu:

Hi

Thanks Marilia, good changes. I think anachronic geo-political ?structures?
or ?arrangements?  would be clearer than ?realities? but as you like. And
the 'supports further discussion? is better than 'support a radical
overhaul? that we?ve not explained.

One small thought over morning coffee: we often in these things use terms
like NCSG ?opposes? and ?rejects? xyz, which to some sets of eyes might
seem a piece with cherished distorted images that new evidence is only
slowly altering. It might seem a little less hot to say ?supports? / ?does
not support??

Best

Bill

On Apr 23, 2016, at 17:08, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello everyone,

@Matt, I incorporated most of your suggestions. Can you take a look at the
document with the track changes and see if it you agree? @Bill, the "empire
thinking" part has been changed. Matt's suggestions also pointed out the
same thing.

Best!
Mar?lia

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi all - have made some comments in the doc.  I think it is a good piece -
> I am just quibbling with a couple of points.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 4/17/2016 3:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is the link to the (proposed) statement on modifications to ICANN?s
> geographic regions framework for PC review and deliberation:
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPklUc8RCJhzoOmYEc7L6RAmudundJkyW5101uAVPlA/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> The PC should discuss this draft, propose any amendments if necessary, and
> consider making it an NCSG contribution to the public comment period *until
> 22/03 11:59 UTC*.
>
> You can read the final report of the Working Group here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en
>
> All the best wishes,
> Mar?lia
>
> --
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -  <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> http://www.politics.org.br/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>
>


-- 
*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/


_______________________________________________
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/20160424/640bdf08/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Sun Apr 24 16:10:10 2016
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 09:10:10 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
 - 22/03
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3WGagc5wXE4m6=KZaF+ox1=zRcGs-z2yQhPfLhYn42bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
	<CACpVkK0hCUXQJwuDP0vYd4zfNZvoC45Yz_t43t6d8iCHLxOopg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EA7C518-AC9A-4C75-92EA-3DDE9B0AE464@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK11+LZc-5-a1Pnf3ts0Q+6pyBfmtuQkJXRS4owHpFyq6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3VFS+s+fZP2KLe3GN_4AqNrAHBwNhca7=7rSLyKvSHeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3WGagc5wXE4m6=KZaF+ox1=zRcGs-z2yQhPfLhYn42bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <571CC5B2.7030106@yorku.ca>

Marilia and colleagues,

In my individual capacity I am in support of the NCSG statement on 
Modifications to ICANN?s Geographic Regions Framework. I of course 
strongly support the calls for more inclusiveness both in terms of 
representation and in the processes use within ICANN for arriving at 
representation. I however still have a concern which I stated at the 
start of the NSCG review of the geographic regions document.

While regional representation should respect the broad principles of 
diversity and inclusiveness, it should also reflect the purposes of 
representation within ICANN. Representation should reflect a ?form 
follows function? approach to the designation of regions. What appears 
to remain unclear is what are the rights and obligations of regional 
membership, both on the part of the regional member and on the part of 
ICANN? Is simply saying "the right to participate in multistakeholder 
Internet governance within ICANN's remit" enough here? When a regional 
entity confronts making a choice among regions, what should they be 
considering in terms of their future relationship with ICANN and with 
their regional colleagues? What should ICANN expect in terms of its 
obligations and and the participation of the regional entity?  Am I 
wrong in thinking that something has been left under defined here?

Sam L (NPOC)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160424/1be9271e/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sun Apr 24 16:38:46 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 10:38:46 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <571CC5B2.7030106@yorku.ca>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
	<CACpVkK0hCUXQJwuDP0vYd4zfNZvoC45Yz_t43t6d8iCHLxOopg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EA7C518-AC9A-4C75-92EA-3DDE9B0AE464@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK11+LZc-5-a1Pnf3ts0Q+6pyBfmtuQkJXRS4owHpFyq6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3VFS+s+fZP2KLe3GN_4AqNrAHBwNhca7=7rSLyKvSHeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3WGagc5wXE4m6=KZaF+ox1=zRcGs-z2yQhPfLhYn42bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<571CC5B2.7030106@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3LisGe9Gfs=XD8oypXx9F0b9bBatb3r+XjCKhWNrwePA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Sam. Much appreciated.

I agree with the importance of your questions. It seems to me that the goal
of the group that produced the report was rather utilitarian. They did not
mean to go beyond the definition of general frameworks, while your
questions are much more teleological. I think that, given the limitations
on the scope of the report, our statement tried to introduce some concerns
with regards to the goals and purpose of having geographic regions and
called for more discussion on that.

Thanks for your support.
Mar?lia

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Marilia and colleagues,
>
> In my individual capacity I am in support of the NCSG statement on
> Modifications to ICANN?s Geographic Regions Framework. I of course strongly
> support the calls for more inclusiveness both in terms of representation
> and in the processes use within ICANN for arriving at representation. I
> however still have a concern which I stated at the start of the NSCG review
> of the geographic regions document.
>
> While regional representation should respect the broad principles of
> diversity and inclusiveness, it should also reflect the purposes of
> representation within ICANN. Representation should reflect a ?form follows
> function? approach to the designation of regions. What appears to remain
> unclear is what are the rights and obligations of regional membership, both
> on the part of the regional member and on the part of ICANN? Is simply
> saying "the right to participate in multistakeholder Internet governance
> within ICANN's remit" enough here? When a regional entity confronts making
> a choice among regions, what should they be considering in terms of their
> future relationship with ICANN and with their regional colleagues? What
> should ICANN expect in terms of its obligations and and the participation
> of the regional entity?  Am I wrong in thinking that something has been
> left under defined here?
>
> Sam L (NPOC)
>
>


-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160424/ce34dfb4/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sun Apr 24 16:56:25 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 10:56:25 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3LisGe9Gfs=XD8oypXx9F0b9bBatb3r+XjCKhWNrwePA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
	<CACpVkK0hCUXQJwuDP0vYd4zfNZvoC45Yz_t43t6d8iCHLxOopg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EA7C518-AC9A-4C75-92EA-3DDE9B0AE464@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK11+LZc-5-a1Pnf3ts0Q+6pyBfmtuQkJXRS4owHpFyq6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3VFS+s+fZP2KLe3GN_4AqNrAHBwNhca7=7rSLyKvSHeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3WGagc5wXE4m6=KZaF+ox1=zRcGs-z2yQhPfLhYn42bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<571CC5B2.7030106@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK3LisGe9Gfs=XD8oypXx9F0b9bBatb3r+XjCKhWNrwePA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0C0wrDDoquYjSysEzS02vrVvcNSTRBCaL4rD+Oig4SYA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

Just to let you know, I ran the text through Ayden, who did an outstanding
work in proposing the initial draft, running consultations with the NCSG
members and consolidating the text that came before the PC. He also agrees
with the changes and thanks the PC for the great suggestions. The only
remark he made was on para 15, on the expression we added at the end:

The text initially read:
However, we wish to promote usage of the term ?states and other collective
entities? in place of ?states?.

We suggested:
However, we wish to promote usage of the term ?states and other collective
entities? in place of ?states?, in order to take into consideration
disputed territories.

In order to remain faithful to discussions among NCSG members, who imagined
several possible situations, Ayden suggested:
However, we wish to promote usage of the term ?states and other collective
entities? in place of ?states?, in order to take into consideration
situations such as disputed territories.

I believe it is a minor adjustment and I think we are in the position to
accept this modification.

Thanks
Mar?lia


On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, Sam. Much appreciated.
>
> I agree with the importance of your questions. It seems to me that the
> goal of the group that produced the report was rather utilitarian. They did
> not mean to go beyond the definition of general frameworks, while your
> questions are much more teleological. I think that, given the limitations
> on the scope of the report, our statement tried to introduce some concerns
> with regards to the goals and purpose of having geographic regions and
> called for more discussion on that.
>
> Thanks for your support.
> Mar?lia
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>> Marilia and colleagues,
>>
>> In my individual capacity I am in support of the NCSG statement on
>> Modifications to ICANN?s Geographic Regions Framework. I of course strongly
>> support the calls for more inclusiveness both in terms of representation
>> and in the processes use within ICANN for arriving at representation. I
>> however still have a concern which I stated at the start of the NSCG review
>> of the geographic regions document.
>>
>> While regional representation should respect the broad principles of
>> diversity and inclusiveness, it should also reflect the purposes of
>> representation within ICANN. Representation should reflect a ?form follows
>> function? approach to the designation of regions. What appears to remain
>> unclear is what are the rights and obligations of regional membership, both
>> on the part of the regional member and on the part of ICANN? Is simply
>> saying "the right to participate in multistakeholder Internet governance
>> within ICANN's remit" enough here? When a regional entity confronts making
>> a choice among regions, what should they be considering in terms of their
>> future relationship with ICANN and with their regional colleagues? What
>> should ICANN expect in terms of its obligations and and the participation
>> of the regional entity?  Am I wrong in thinking that something has been
>> left under defined here?
>>
>> Sam L (NPOC)
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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/
>
>
>


-- 
*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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160424/d6101b4a/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Sun Apr 24 17:09:21 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 10:09:21 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions
	- 22/03
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0C0wrDDoquYjSysEzS02vrVvcNSTRBCaL4rD+Oig4SYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2spQeFQM+k+EJohDAxb88ceJmk0VqQ4TRiMbv21ygyyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57161A5F.4040208@cdt.org>
	<CACpVkK0hCUXQJwuDP0vYd4zfNZvoC45Yz_t43t6d8iCHLxOopg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EA7C518-AC9A-4C75-92EA-3DDE9B0AE464@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK11+LZc-5-a1Pnf3ts0Q+6pyBfmtuQkJXRS4owHpFyq6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3VFS+s+fZP2KLe3GN_4AqNrAHBwNhca7=7rSLyKvSHeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3WGagc5wXE4m6=KZaF+ox1=zRcGs-z2yQhPfLhYn42bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<571CC5B2.7030106@yorku.ca>
	<CACpVkK3LisGe9Gfs=XD8oypXx9F0b9bBatb3r+XjCKhWNrwePA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK0C0wrDDoquYjSysEzS02vrVvcNSTRBCaL4rD+Oig4SYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4a20b5cbdff40e799edb206e3c2612c@toast.net>

Although I would prefer to leave the explanatory words "in order to take into consideration disputed territories" out of our reply all together, if they are to be included I strongly support Ayden's suggested alteration.
  
 Currently Hong King, for example, has GAC representation yet it is not "disputed territory". I'm not sure the Peoples Republic of China or the Republic of China officially consider their territory to be disputed: the official "One China" policy does not lend itself to that terminology.  Indigenous groups, currently considering a way into the ICANN world, would likely take umbrage at that term of well.
  
 Ed 
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 2:57 PM
To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions - 22/03   
  Hello everyone, 
  
Just to let you know, I ran the text through Ayden, who did an outstanding work in proposing the initial draft, running consultations with the NCSG members and consolidating the text that came before the PC. He also agrees with the changes and thanks the PC for the great suggestions. The only remark he made was on para 15, on the expression we added at the end:    
 The text initially read: 
 However, we wish to promote usage of the term "states and other collective entities" in place of "states". 
  
 We suggested: 
 However, we wish to promote usage of the term "states and other collective entities" in place of "states", in order to take into consideration disputed territories.  
 
 In order to remain faithful to discussions among NCSG members, who imagined several possible situations, Ayden suggested: 
 However, we wish to promote usage of the term "states and other collective entities" in place of "states", in order to take into consideration situations such as disputed territories.  
  
 I believe it is a minor adjustment and I think we are in the position to accept this modification. 
  
 Thanks 
 Mar?lia 
 

   On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:   Thanks, Sam. Much appreciated.  
 I agree with the importance of your questions. It seems to me that the goal of the group that produced the report was rather utilitarian. They did not mean to go beyond the definition of general frameworks, while your questions are much more teleological. I think that, given the limitations on the scope of the report, our statement tried to introduce some concerns with regards to the goals and purpose of having geographic regions and called for more discussion on that.
  
 Thanks for your support. 
 Mar?lia

     On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:   Marilia and colleagues,

In my individual capacity I am in support of the NCSG statement on Modifications to ICANN's Geographic Regions Framework. I of course strongly support the calls for more inclusiveness both in terms of representation and in the processes use within ICANN for arriving at representation. I however still have a concern which I stated at the start of the NSCG review of the geographic regions document.

While regional representation should respect the broad principles of diversity and inclusiveness, it should also reflect the purposes of representation within ICANN. Representation should reflect a "form follows function" approach to the designation of regions. What appears to remain unclear is what are the rights and obligations of regional membership, both on the part of the regional member and on the part of ICANN? Is simply saying "the right to participate in multistakeholder Internet governance within ICANN's remit" enough here? When a regional entity confronts making a choice among regions, what should they be considering in terms of their future relationship with ICANN and with their regional colleagues? What should ICANN expect in terms of its obligations and and the participation of the regional entity?  Am I wrong in thinking that something has been left under defined here?

Sam L (NPOC) 

    

    

--         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/ 
  
   

    
--        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/ 
  
   


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160424/d80a1ad7/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Apr 25 18:20:43 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:20:43 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG: Budget Call | Monday 25 April 2016 | 19:00 UTC
Message-ID: <20160425152043.GC30238@tarvainen.info>

Anybody interested in a last-minute effort to say something about ICANN
budget, please join the call. Apologies for late notice.

Tapani

----- Forwarded message from Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> -----

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for Budget Call on Monday 25 April 2016 at 19:00 UTC


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


Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/jovlokz


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Tuesday, 26 April 2016, 05:00
Tokyo: Tuesday, 26 April 2016, 04:00
Beijing: Tuesday, 26 April 2016, 03:00
Moscow: Monday, 25 April 2016, 22:00
New Delhi: Tuesday, 26 April 2016, 00:30
Paris: Monday, 25 April 2016, 21:00
Buenos Aires: Monday, 25 April 2016, 16:00
New York: Monday, 25 April 2016, 15:00
Los Angeles: Monday, 25 April 2016, 12:00


Agenda: TBC


Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: HR

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

----- End forwarded message -----



From lanfran  Mon Apr 25 19:33:21 2016
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:33:21 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG: Budget Call | Monday 25 April 2016 | 19:00
 UTC
In-Reply-To: <20160425152043.GC30238@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160425152043.GC30238@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <571E46D1.5030807@yorku.ca>

Tapani,

I just got off another conference call and have time conflicts so I will 
miss this call.

My only overall concern is probably not addressable at this level. It is 
the apparent ease with which staff gets funding to start outreach 
initiatives around our constituencies,
initiatives that should be designed bottom up and for which the 
constituency groups have little access to ICANN funding,
and too little effective engagement in initiative design and execution.

That is one of my nagging concerns at the moment.

Sam

On 4/25/2016 11:20 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Anybody interested in a last-minute effort to say something about ICANN
> budget, please join the call. Apologies for late notice.
>
> Tapani
>




From maryam.bakoshi  Mon Apr 25 21:29:42 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:29:42 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER: NCSG: Budget Call | Monday 25 April 2016 |
	19:00 UTC
Message-ID: <91ab5f6a90594cc78b5c90a12cf7287a@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for Budget Call on Monday 25 April 2016 at 19:00 UTC


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


Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/jovlokz


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Tuesday, 26 April 2016, 05:00
Tokyo: Tuesday, 26 April 2016, 04:00
Beijing: Tuesday, 26 April 2016, 03:00
Moscow: Monday, 25 April 2016, 22:00
New Delhi: Tuesday, 26 April 2016, 00:30
Paris: Monday, 25 April 2016, 21:00
Buenos Aires: Monday, 25 April 2016, 16:00
New York: Monday, 25 April 2016, 15:00
Los Angeles: Monday, 25 April 2016, 12:00


Agenda: TBC


Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: HR

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/20160425/a8a6fce4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6860 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160425/a8a6fce4/attachment-0001.ics>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Apr 26 00:11:55 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:11:55 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG: Budget Call | Monday 25 April 2016 | 19:00
 UTC
In-Reply-To: <571E46D1.5030807@yorku.ca>
References: <20160425152043.GC30238@tarvainen.info> <571E46D1.5030807@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <0f50b502-bed6-8af0-f95c-f77d75ac3c00@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think quite a few of us share that concern Sam.   File under who is 
running this place, anyway?

Stephanie


On 2016-04-25 18:33, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Tapani,
>
> I just got off another conference call and have time conflicts so I 
> will miss this call.
>
> My only overall concern is probably not addressable at this level. It 
> is the apparent ease with which staff gets funding to start outreach 
> initiatives around our constituencies,
> initiatives that should be designed bottom up and for which the 
> constituency groups have little access to ICANN funding,
> and too little effective engagement in initiative design and execution.
>
> That is one of my nagging concerns at the moment.
>
> Sam
>
> On 4/25/2016 11:20 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Anybody interested in a last-minute effort to say something about ICANN
>> budget, please join the call. Apologies for late notice.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160425/2c55077f/attachment.html>


From mshears  Fri Apr 29 16:58:53 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:58:53 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN FY17 budget - urgent
Message-ID: <5723689D.2050304@cdt.org>

Hi all

The deadline for comments on the budget is tomorrow.

We have some points/questions/concerns in the following googledoc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1upIil8gS2wTPQL2RfL2aEgGESSwJ-G1TIOwqGTuGFMo/edit?usp=sharing

It would be greatly appreciated if folks could spend a couple of minutes 
and help turn the words in the googledoc into something we might be able 
to submit.

Apologies for this being VERY last minute.

And thanks for any assistance you can provide.

The budget consultation dox are here:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy17-five-year-2016-03-05-en 


Matthew

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987




From rafik.dammak  Fri Apr 29 17:09:44 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 23:09:44 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN FY17 budget - urgent
In-Reply-To: <5723689D.2050304@cdt.org>
References: <5723689D.2050304@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=RaNkJYctDpJseQvD8GoyMwD_WeTNHf=Ts=qq-LB0GhQ@mail.gmail.com>

Matt,

the google doc is in view mode.

Rafik


2016-04-29 22:58 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>:

> Hi all
>
> The deadline for comments on the budget is tomorrow.
>
> We have some points/questions/concerns in the following googledoc:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1upIil8gS2wTPQL2RfL2aEgGESSwJ-G1TIOwqGTuGFMo/edit?usp=sharing
>
> It would be greatly appreciated if folks could spend a couple of minutes
> and help turn the words in the googledoc into something we might be able to
> submit.
>
> Apologies for this being VERY last minute.
>
> And thanks for any assistance you can provide.
>
> The budget consultation dox are here:
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy17-five-year-2016-03-05-en
>
> Matthew
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160429/08b73ba9/attachment.html>


From mshears  Fri Apr 29 18:40:58 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:40:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN FY17 budget - urgent
In-Reply-To: <5723689D.2050304@cdt.org>
References: <5723689D.2050304@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5723808A.8040108@cdt.org>

Apologies - the link is now enabled for editing.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1upIil8gS2wTPQL2RfL2aEgGESSwJ-G1TIOwqGTuGFMo/edit?usp=sharing

On 4/29/2016 2:58 PM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The deadline for comments on the budget is tomorrow.
>
> We have some points/questions/concerns in the following googledoc:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1upIil8gS2wTPQL2RfL2aEgGESSwJ-G1TIOwqGTuGFMo/edit?usp=sharing 
>
>
> It would be greatly appreciated if folks could spend a couple of 
> minutes and help turn the words in the googledoc into something we 
> might be able to submit.
>
> Apologies for this being VERY last minute.
>
> And thanks for any assistance you can provide.
>
> The budget consultation dox are here:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy17-five-year-2016-03-05-en 
>
>
> Matthew
>

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987