From rafik.dammak  Thu Dec  1 01:54:36 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 08:54:36 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member
 for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <C6F5703B-FAC9-49C1-8B4D-F1A7C0F9CA93@egyptig.org>
References: <E3B3A31C-09BB-4BA6-A844-A46EA9A43C60@icann.org>
	<A3DD0B84-A6C4-4803-A1BC-5CE663CB57EE@toast.net>
	<02cd6e66-8816-7dd7-c0e8-04870af7b677@kathykleiman.com>
	<C6F5703B-FAC9-49C1-8B4D-F1A7C0F9CA93@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmKb4k0FmQuNQauX+jxVPaTw9_KamRErhFZ2HdEvR1MxA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I think we should initiate a call for candidates by Thursday. we just need
to amend a previous call and put the details about the auctions working
group, in particular the area of expertise. indeed the deadline should be
monday .

we can do a doodle poll among the candidates we get.

@Marilia @Matt @David can we get this done?

Best,

Rafik


2016-12-01 5:50 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Yes?, would be helpful to get this on NCSG-DISCUSS as soon as possible.
> The PC will eventually need to appoint someone. Best get started sooner,
> rather than later.
>
> Also, each of the 4 GNSO SGs will be appointing a member, while the GNSO
> is allowed up to 5 members on the CCWG. Any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed - it's a critical place for us to have person. Avri did a lot of
> work on this issue in the past. Other likely candidates (who we might
> recruit)?
> >
> >
> > On 11/30/2016 1:01 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Where are we on this?
> >>
> >> If nowhere can we get a call out on
> >> list and make sure we are able to get sign off on an appointment by
> Monday?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> >>> Date: 30 November 2016 at 17:52:46 GMT
> >>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>> Subject: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new
> gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
> >>>
> >>> Dear All,
> >>>
> >>> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been
> requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
> by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that
> members:
> >>>
> >>>     ? Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally
> expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG.
> Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with
> allocation and final disbursement of funds;
> >>>     ? Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on
> an on-going and long-term basis;
> >>>     ? Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and
> concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
> >>>     ? Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
> >>>     ? Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN
> serves (standards, domains and numbers);
> >>>     ? Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in
> which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the
> Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
> >>>
> >>> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization
> appointed members that:
> >>>
> >>> In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members
> have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below),
> they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering
> Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that
> the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and
> deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering
> Organization with the CCWG.
> >>>
> >>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member
> selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better
> contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking
> at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as
> well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
> >>>
> >>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive
> processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include
> reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is
> represented.
> >>>
> >>> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to
> select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed
> members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Marika
> >>>
> >>> Marika Konings
> >>> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org
> >>>
> >>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161201/2dd34a14/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Dec  1 02:22:11 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:22:11 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning
In-Reply-To: <FDC3C5BF-2F9E-4345-A143-B23DFCB98D49@icann.org>
References: <FDC3C5BF-2F9E-4345-A143-B23DFCB98D49@icann.org>
Message-ID: <16fa6f4f-5b1a-05ac-79f5-69e14bc63545@mail.utoronto.ca>

My apologies for being late to the meeting yesterday, and for having 
persistent difficulties in understanding what Tapani was saying.  Did we 
discuss this questionnaire at all?  If not I will simply send my 
responses as it is getting late, happy to receive comments and convey 
them.......

Steph

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning
Date: 	Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:54:12 +0000
From: 	Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear Councilors,

Item 11 on the agenda of the December 1 Council meeting is a discussion 
on planning for ICANN58. On November 23, James sent an email the Council 
list requesting feedback on several questions related to meeting 
planning. The attached document provides an overview of responses to the 
following questions:

(1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day?

(2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)?  The current 
Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions.

(3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and 
how to choose the top 5?

(4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts 
between working sessions and HITs?

(5) Any other specific feedback you?d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting

Rubens, Michele, Donna, Rafik, Ed and Carlos provided responses to the 
above questions. Please reference the attached for full text of the 
comments, but staff notes a few common threads in the responses that may 
feed into further discussion in the Council:

-There were several responses supporting a single constituency day. 
Rubens, Michele, and Rafik supported a single constituency day.

-Several responses supported either reducing the number of HIT sessions 
or rethinking the HIT concept. Ed suggested having a single HIT. Rubens 
supported having 1 or 2 at most. Rafik suggested 3. Michele and Donna 
recommended taking a step back to look more broadly at goals around the 
HIT concept and then planning accordingly.

-Rubens, Ed, and Carlos all supported the notion that when in doubt, 
make meeting A more like meeting B than meeting C.

The issue of scheduling was also raised in the Council session in 
Hyderabad (transcript here: 
http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/c8/I57%20HYD_Mon07Nov2016-GNSO%20Public%20Meeting%202-en.pdf). 


Several themes came up in the discussion, including:

-Improving communication during the planning process

-Revisiting the rubric used for scheduling: take a step back, clarify 
and prioritize objectives for ICANN meetings, develop schedule based on 
priorities to use the time effectively

-Focusing meetings on ICANN?s core, substantive work

-Managing and (to the extent possible) avoiding critical scheduling 
conflicts

-Avoiding duplication of content across sessions

-Scheduling sessions in a way that maximizes productivity and does not 
overload participants

Please note that the above is not intended to be a full summary. It 
highlights some of the points that have been raised to support further 
discussion.

Kind regards,

Emily

*Emily Barabas *| Policy Specialist

*ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161130/b26656ae/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Input on ICANN58 Planning.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 38256 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161130/b26656ae/attachment-0001.xlsx>


From egmorris1  Thu Dec  1 16:39:11 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 09:39:11 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?fw=3A_Proposed_Consultation_Response_-_Propos?=
	=?utf-8?q?al_for_Lao_Script_Root_Zone=E2=80=AC_Label_Generation_Ru?=
	=?utf-8?b?bGVzIChMR1Ip?=
Message-ID: <eec89290cc084e4189ec0e21ccbc2334@toast.net>

Hello everyone,
  
 I am forwarding this to the PC from a DISCUSS list post by Ayden.
  
 Too often the more obscure public comments go without response. Volunteers put a lot of work into these groups. It should be acknowledged.  I just read the report, have no objection to it, agree completely with Ayden's comments and would encourage us to post it as a NCSG comment.
  
 Thanks for stepping up Ayden!
  
 Best,
  
 Ed
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 1:39 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)   
 Greetings all,
  
 I have drafted a brief consultation response on behalf of the NCSG in relation to the Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR). Comments can be submitted until 10 December. I consider the proposal to be very reasonable and not controversial, so I was thinking we could submit the following message of support:

The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP) which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. Thank you again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
  
 You can read the consultation documents in full here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en
  
 Please feel free to edit my statement, especially if you think I have overlooked something. I will forward whatever materials we have to the NCSG Policy Committee to consider submitting on behalf of the NCSG on 5 December, to give them a few days to contemplate submission. Thanks!

  
 Best wishes,
  
   Ayden F?rdeline
 linkedin.com/in/ferdeline

  

  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161201/e52b035a/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Dec  2 07:02:49 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 00:02:49 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Meeting Invite/ GNSO Review implementation
 plan webinar 08 December 2016 at 14:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <88d16ed67cc94646ad98f44d4444e89d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <88d16ed67cc94646ad98f44d4444e89d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <7c29b3c8-fe53-261f-e12e-d76f98d2b90a@mail.utoronto.ca>

fyi



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Meeting Invite/ GNSO Review implementation plan 
webinar 08 December 2016 at 14:00 UTC
Date: 	Fri, 2 Dec 2016 03:07:20 +0000
From: 	Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
CC: 	gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>



Dear All,

The GNSO Review implementation plan webinar is scheduled for Thursday, 
08 December 2016 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

See the plan at: 
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-plan-21nov16-en.pdf 
and the motion at: 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+2016

Although the focus of this webinar is to assist GNSO Council members in 
their deliberations on the implementation plan and motion, if you know 
others who wish to join, please feel free to forward the invitation.

06:00 PST, 09:00 EST, 14:00 London, 15:00 CEST, 01:00 Sydney (Friday)

For other places:*http://tinyurl.com/jynesrn*

**

*Adobe Connect_ WITH AUDIO enabled: 
_*https://participate.icann.org/gnso-review

The dial-in details are below ? please let us know if you require a 
dial-out.

*Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats: 
*gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>

_________________________________________________________________________

Participant passcode: GNSO WEBINAR


*Dial in numbers:*

*Country*

	

	

*Toll Numbers*

	

*Freephone/
Toll Free Number*


	
	
	

ARGENTINA

	

	

	

0800-777-0519

AUSTRALIA

	

ADELAIDE:

	

61-8-8121-4842

	

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

	

BRISBANE:

	

61-7-3102-0944

	

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

	

CANBERRA:

	

61-2-6100-1944

	

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

	

MELBOURNE:

	

61-3-9010-7713

	

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

	

PERTH:

	

61-8-9467-5223

	

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

	

SYDNEY:

	

61-2-8205-8129

	

1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA

	

	

43-1-92-81-113

	

0800-005-259

BELGIUM

	

	

32-2-400-9861

	

0800-3-8795

BRAZIL

	

SAO PAULO:

	

55-11-3958-0779

	

0800-7610651

CHILE

	

	

	

1230-020-2863

CHINA

	

CHINA A:

	

86-400-810-4789

	

10800-712-1670

CHINA

	

CHINA B:

	

86-400-810-4789

	

10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA

	

	

	

01800-9-156474

CROATIA

	

	

	

080-08-06-309

CZECH REPUBLIC

	

	

420-2-25-98-56-64

	

800-700-177

DENMARK

	

	

45-7014-0284

	

8088-8324

EGYPT

	

	

	

0800000-9029

ESTONIA

	

	

	

800-011-1093

FINLAND

	

	

358-9-5424-7162

	

0-800-9-14610

FRANCE

	

LYON:

	

33-4-26-69-12-85

	

080-511-1496

FRANCE

	

MARSEILLE:

	

33-4-86-06-00-85

	

080-511-1496

FRANCE

	

PARIS:

	

33-1-70-70-60-72

	

080-511-1496

GERMANY

	

	

49-69-2222-20362

	

0800-664-4247

GREECE

	

	

30-80-1-100-0687

	

00800-12-7312

HONG KONG

	

	

852-3001-3863

	

800-962-856

HUNGARY

	

	

36-1-700-8856

	

06-800-12755

INDIA

	

BANGALORE:

	

91-80-48030674

	

INDIA

	

MUMBAI:

	

91-22-49412807

	

INDIA

	

INDIA A:

	

	

000-800-852-1268

INDIA

	

INDIA B:

	

	

000-800-001-6305

INDIA

	

INDIA C:

	

	

1800-300-00491

INDONESIA

	

	

	

001-803-011-3982

IRELAND

	

	

353-1-246-7646

	

1800-992-368

ISRAEL

	

	

	

1-80-9216162

ITALY

	

MILAN:

	

39-02-3600-6007

	

800-986-383

ITALY

	

ROME:

	

39-06-8751-6018

	

800-986-383

ITALY

	

TORINO:

	

39-011-510-0118

	

800-986-383

JAPAN

	

OSAKA:

	

81-6-7878-2631

	

0066-33-132439

JAPAN

	

TOKYO:

	

81-3-6868-2631

	

0066-33-132439

LATVIA

	

	

	

8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG

	

	

352-27-000-1364

	

8002-9246

MALAYSIA

	

	

	

1-800-81-3065

MEXICO

	

GUADALAJARA (JAL):

	

52-33-3208-7310

	

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO

	

MEXICO CITY:

	

52-55-5062-9110

	

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO

	

MONTERREY:

	

52-81-2482-0610

	

001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS

	

	

31-20-718-8588

	

0800-023-4378

NEW ZEALAND

	

	

64-9-970-4771

	

0800-447-722

NORWAY

	

	

47-21-590-062

	

800-15157

PANAMA

	

	

	

011-001-800-5072065

PERU

	

	

	

0800-53713

PHILIPPINES

	

	

63-2-858-3716

	

1800-111-42453

POLAND

	

	

	

00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL

	

	

351-2-10054705

	

8008-14052

ROMANIA

	

	

40-31-630-01-79

	

RUSSIA

	

	

	

8-10-8002-0144011

SAUDI ARABIA

	

	

	

800-8-110087

SINGAPORE

	

	

65-6883-9230

	

800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC

	

	

421-2-322-422-25

	

0800-002066

SOUTH AFRICA

	

	

	

080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA

	

	

82-2-6744-1083

	

00798-14800-7352

SPAIN

	

	

34-91-414-25-33

	

800-300-053

SWEDEN

	

	

46-8-566-19-348

	

0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND

	

	

41-44-580-6398

	

0800-120-032

TAIWAN

	

	

886-2-2795-7379

	

00801-137-797

THAILAND

	

	

	

001-800-1206-66056

TURKEY

	

	

	

00-800-151-0516

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

	

	

	

8000-35702370

UNITED KINGDOM

	

BIRMINGHAM:

	

44-121-210-9025

	

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

	

GLASGOW:

	

44-141-202-3225

	

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

	

LEEDS:

	

44-113-301-2125

	

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

	

LONDON:

	

44-20-7108-6370

	

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

	

MANCHESTER:

	

44-161-601-1425

	

0808-238-6029

URUGUAY

	

	

	

000-413-598-3421

USA

	

	

1-517-345-9004

	

866-692-5726

VENEZUELA

	

	

	

0800-1-00-3702

VIETNAM

	

	

	

120-11751

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161202/48946e9b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Review implementation plan webinar 08 December 2016.ics
Type: text/calendar
Size: 229906 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161202/48946e9b/attachment-0001.ics>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Dec  2 15:12:11 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 22:12:11 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] For your review - draft Council responses
 to CCWG Accountability survey
In-Reply-To: <97A4A956-85E2-4AEC-8B77-9D8222B9D397@icann.org>
References: <97A4A956-85E2-4AEC-8B77-9D8222B9D397@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkeC=eqXGH9yH_V0WY3Bu8fGaXaaOYXmNd47R9qMwz4FQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

the letter from the ws2 SO/AC accountability subgroup was shared
previously. GNSO council leadership prepared this draft response but we
still need a response from NCSG to the questions listed.
I do think we have to work urgently on responding to them .
@Matt I think you are active in the subgroup and I know that Farzaneh is
one of the co-rapporteur, can we work on draft on the coming days?

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: 2016-12-02 3:51 GMT+09:00
Subject: [council] For your review - draft Council responses to CCWG
Accountability survey
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>


Dear All,



In preparation for item 9 ? * GNSO Council Response to Questions from the
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs concerning Work Strems* (see further details
below), please find attached a draft GNSO Council response for your review.
Note that this draft only focuses on the GNSO Council aspects as it is the
expectation that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and/or Constituencies will provide
their respective responses to the survey.



Best regards,



Marika





*Item 9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? GNSO Council Response to Questions from the
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs concerning Work Stream 2 (10 minutes)*

*On 4 November 2016, the co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on
ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) wrote to all SO/AC leaders
seeking input by early December on the r*esources and documents used by
each SO/AC to maintain accountability to its respective designated
community, taking into account the particular or specific working
modalities of each SO/AC (and any subgroups) (https://gnso.icann.org/
mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19440.html)[gnso.icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_mailing-2Dlists_archives_council_msg19440.html-29&d=DgMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FOLHRkyP1CJilEE0xYQhJllo1ue6MlXmKJPFl3FO5U8&s=mR_wcp_sCCm1zlfn_Br4l10pr58ZXz409FXmaDqq9NM&e=>.
The GNSO Council leadership is working on a possible response from the
Council, and has requested feedback from each Stakeholder Group and
Constituency on the topic. Here the Council will discuss whether or not to
send a response to the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs.

9.1 ? Status summary (GNSO Council leadership)

9.2 ? Council discussion

9.3 ? Next steps





*Marika Konings*

*Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *

*Email: marika.konings at icann.org <marika.konings at icann.org>  *



*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*

*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses
<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161202/85ade7df/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SO AC questions - draft GNSO Council responses - 1 December 2016.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 26851 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161202/85ade7df/attachment-0001.docx>


From ncsg  Fri Dec  2 18:19:59 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:19:59 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?utf-8?q?fw=3A_Proposed_Consultation_Response_-_Propos?=
 =?utf-8?q?al_for_Lao_Script_Root_Zone=E2=80=AC_Label_Generation_Rules_=28?=
 =?utf-8?q?LGR=29?=
In-Reply-To: <eec89290cc084e4189ec0e21ccbc2334@toast.net>
References: <eec89290cc084e4189ec0e21ccbc2334@toast.net>
Message-ID: <20161202161958.o2ohor5z6e7bf3uf@roller.tarvainen.info>

I already commented this on the -discuss list. While I have no
objection to it as it stands, I think it could be improved by flagging
a few potential problems, even if only highlighting them as issues
we're happy to have been considered.

Tapani
(changing planes at Dallas airport)

On Dec 01 09:39, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> 
>  I am forwarding this to the PC from a DISCUSS list post by Ayden.
> 
>  Too often the more obscure public comments go without response. Volunteers put a lot of work into these groups. It should be acknowledged.  I just read the report, have no objection to it, agree completely with Ayden's comments and would encourage us to post it as a NCSG comment.
> 
>  Thanks for stepping up Ayden!
> 
>  Best,
> 
>  Ed
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
>  From: "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 1:39 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
>  Greetings all,
> 
>  I have drafted a brief consultation response on behalf of the NCSG in relation to the Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR). Comments can be submitted until 10 December. I consider the proposal to be very reasonable and not controversial, so I was thinking we could submit the following message of support:
> 
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP) which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. Thank you again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
> 
>  You can read the consultation documents in full here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en
> 
>  Please feel free to edit my statement, especially if you think I have overlooked something. I will forward whatever materials we have to the NCSG Policy Committee to consider submitting on behalf of the NCSG on 5 December, to give them a few days to contemplate submission. Thanks!
> 
> 
>  Best wishes,
> 
>    Ayden F?rdeline
>  linkedin.com/in/ferdeline



From aelsadr  Sat Dec  3 15:11:19 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 15:11:19 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois IRT letter to
	GNSO Council
References: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6260327629@LAEX02.MSK.local>
Message-ID: <0CD4F9DC-2B25-4D80-9E45-7035861FCAA5@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I periodically keep sending updates about progress of the implementation of the ?thick? whois Consensus Policy to the Policy Committee list, particularly concerning progress on the identification of issues regarding how privacy/data protection laws may present problems with the policy.

Back when there was still a PDP WG working on this, it recommended that a legal review be done during implementation to identify conflicts with privacy/data protection laws that the PDP WG failed to identify and mitigate against. Last year, a memo was produced by ICANN Legal detailing their findings. I don?t have a copy handy, but am pretty sure that I sent one to this list at the time. I?ll try to find another one, and repost, but thought this update is also interesting.

The Implementation Review Team is preparing to report to the GNSO Council that there are still outstanding issues in a changing legal landscape, which are not being ignored by the IRT. I think the attached letter does a good job of raising these concerns.

Also noteworthy is that there is an open public comment period on the Consensus Policy transitioning ?thin? registries to ?thick? here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-implementation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-implementation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en>. The deadline to submit comments is December 15th, and we discussed this briefly on last week?s NCSG monthly call. Mindful that this policy is in the implementation phase of its lifecycle, and not the development, I don?t really have much more to add to what this letter says, but thought I?d share in case others feel differently.

Note that the GNSO now has new processes such as the Expedited PDP or GGP (GNSO Guidance Process), which may be used to revisit some of these issues, if the GNSO Council deems it necessary to do so. However, I believe that in the absence of the necessary legal expertise on this, any new effort will end up being as inconclusive as every other one has in the past (including the EWG).

Wasn?t there a mention of EU Data Commissioners attending the next ICANN meeting? If that is the case, is this something folks would like to share with them in advance (as in now)?

Anyway?, just thought to give you all a heads-up.

Thanks.

Amr

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois IRT letter to GNSO Council
> Date: December 2, 2016 at 5:22:16 PM GMT+2
> To: 'Dennis Chang' <dennis.chang at icann.org>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
> 
> Fellow IRT members,
>  
> As discussed on our call on Tuesday, attached please find a final draft version of the letter to GNSO Council.  It corrects typos, adds a couple of citations, and mentions that our transition plan is currently out for public comment. 
>  
> As I understand it, Dennis will now set a deadline for any further comments or statements of support, and will then put the letter in the appropriate format for transmittal to GNSO council. 
>  
> Thanks to all for your contributions. 
>  
> Steve Metalitz 
>   
>  
> 
> Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
> T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>
> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>  
> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
>  
> From: Dennis Chang [mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 6:03 PM
> To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; Michelle DeSmyter
> Subject: Thick Whois IRT Meeting Agenda: 20161129
>  
> Dear Thick Whois IRT,
>  
> The agenda for our next meeting has been posted on the IRT Wiki page and provided below for your convenience
> https://community.icann.org/display/TWCPI/Thick+Whois+IRT+Meetings%3A+Agenda+and+Minutes <https://community.icann.org/display/TWCPI/Thick+Whois+IRT+Meetings%3A+Agenda+and+Minutes>
>  
>  
> 29 November 2016
> Agenda:
> Draft memo to GNSO Council regarding Privacy (Mark Anderson email 26 August 2016)
> Complete IRT discussion
> Gather IRT support to send the memo to GNSO council
> Next Steps
>  
>  
> As we agreed at our last IRT meeting, Steve Metalitz is holding the pen on the draft memo.
> Please provide him with your comments as soon as you can.
>  
> Steve,
> If you could distribute the updated memo before the meeting, Michelle can upload it to the AC Room for us to use for the meeting.
>  
>  
> ? 
> Kind Regards,
> Dennis S. Chang
> GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
> +1 213 293 7889
> Skype: dennisSchang
> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>   "One World, One Internet"
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161203/575b44f3/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161203/575b44f3/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161203/575b44f3/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Final Draft letter to GNSO Council for circulation (8421498).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16578 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161203/575b44f3/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161203/575b44f3/attachment-0005.html>


From mshears  Sat Dec  3 18:26:58 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 16:26:58 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for volunteers: new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <eaf9dbd5-a9ad-1c6d-9651-8335f5d10e97@cdt.org>
References: <20161201073341.ukkiob4suncbaojx@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<eaf9dbd5-a9ad-1c6d-9651-8335f5d10e97@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <504d3ff5-ff4a-fd4d-8962-186ac8da6bc8@cdt.org>

REMINDER

We need a volunteer to take on this important role and welcome 
additional expressions of interest.

For those who apply, and have applied, please take 10 minutes to respond 
to the questions outlined below.

Deadline for selection is December 5th!

Thanks.

Matthew


On 01/12/2016 09:23, matthew shears wrote:
> Hi all
>
> To borrow from the email from James it is important for the PC to be 
> able to select wisely from among those who are interested. Please 
> provide ample information about yourself, and importantly what skills 
> specific you would bring to the WG so that the PC is able to make the 
> very best decision.
>
> For guidance, and as a member of the PC, l would ask that those who 
> are interested please include in their expression of interest 
> information responding to the following (drawn from the e-mail 
> transmitted by Tapani):
>
>   * Provide your motivation for wanting this role
>   * Indicate that you have sufficient and appropriate  knowledge and
>     expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the
>     CCWG.   For example, and borrowing from James e-mail again,
>     _please describe in detail your skills and expertise relevant to
>     this particular WG_ and specifically any knowledge of finance,
>     business, non-profit administration and potentially an
>     understanding of laws around non-profits.
>   * Indicate your ability and commitment to participate in the
>     activities of the CCWG on an ongoing basis (CCWGs require
>     considerable time and effort).
>   * Describe your prior experience at ICANN, how you have participated
>     in a CCWG or similar,  and how you have contributed to the goals
>     of NCSG, etc., and how you solicited, reported back and
>     communicated (where appropriate) the views and concerns of
>     individuals in the organization that appointed you.
>   * Describe your experience and degree of knowledge of the needs of
>     the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and
>     numbers) and well as your understanding of the broader ecosystem
>     of the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates.
>
> This information and any other relevant information you wish to share 
> will be critical to the PCs decision - all the more so given the very 
> tight deadline.
>
> Thanks for your understanding.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 01/12/2016 07:34, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We need to appoint someone fot the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CWG.
>> Deadline is next Monday (Dec 5).
>>
>> Take a look at the description below and if you think you could do it,
>> please come forward.
>>
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> (en route to Guadalajara, online only intermittently today and tomorrow,
>> apologies for slow reactions to emails)
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message -----
>>
>>> From: Marika Konings<marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> Date: 30 November 2016 at 17:52:46 GMT
>>> To:"council at gnso.icann.org"  <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> Subject: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>   
>>> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>>   
>>> Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
>>> Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
>>> Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
>>> Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
>>> Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
>>> Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
>>>   
>>> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that:
>>>   
>>> In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
>>>   
>>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
>>>   
>>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is represented.
>>>   
>>> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
>>>   
>>> Best regards,
>>>   
>>> Marika
>>>   
>>> Marika Konings
>>> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>> Email:marika.konings at icann.org   
>>>   
>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
>>>   
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161203/2b3ecc05/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sat Dec  3 23:55:46 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 16:55:46 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for volunteers: new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <504d3ff5-ff4a-fd4d-8962-186ac8da6bc8@cdt.org>
References: <20161201073341.ukkiob4suncbaojx@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<eaf9dbd5-a9ad-1c6d-9651-8335f5d10e97@cdt.org>
	<504d3ff5-ff4a-fd4d-8962-186ac8da6bc8@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <87c23fca-a3c6-f4fc-0eb6-54596784ea48@mail.utoronto.ca>

I would like to apply for this role.  I have provided some answers to 
the questions below, happy to elaborate further or provide my resume if 
required.

Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-12-03 11:26, matthew shears wrote:
>
>   * Provide your motivation for wanting this role
>
I think it is critically important that these fund are used 
appropriately, that sufficient money is set aside for risk management, 
and that they do not become a slush fund for pet projects of certain 
stakeholders.  I have not actually heard all the proposals for their 
use, and would be interested in doing the research as to what is being 
considered by all parties, including those outside ICANN who are always 
looking for funding.
>
>  *
>
>
>   * Indicate that you have sufficient and appropriate  knowledge and
>     expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the
>     CCWG.   For example, and borrowing from James e-mail again,
>     _please describe in detail your skills and expertise relevant to
>     this particular WG_ and specifically any knowledge of finance,
>     business, non-profit administration and potentially an
>     understanding of laws around non-profits.
>
I was a senior manager in the federal government in Canada, and 
therefore have considerable training and experience in managing 
budgets.  I also worked for many years with civil society, finding them 
funding, administering contracts to produce research and participation 
in the policy process, and managing conferences.  I was on the program 
committee of the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference for a decade 
and chaired the conference in Montreal in 2007.  I worked in the private 
sector at Zero Knowledge Systems and managed the budget of the privacy 
group there, and I have also run my own company (Digital Discretion Inc) 
since 2003.  I was a senior fellow at EPIC for two years, and I have 
participated in their advisory committee for many years, taking an 
active interest in their funding activities.  I believe I have a broad 
range of financial experience, therefore, that could be beneficial to 
the work on this committee.
>
>   * Indicate your ability and commitment to participate in the
>     activities of the CCWG on an ongoing basis (CCWGs require
>     considerable time and effort).
>
I have restricted my activities recently to the privacy work (RDS PDP) 
and GNSO Council.  I report regularly on these activities, and prepare 
regular briefs on privacy issues at ICANN writ large.  I intend to do 
the same with respect to this committee, as it is vitally important that 
this process be fully transparent.  I did not participate in the CCWG on 
the IANA transfer, because I know my limits and felt I did not have 
sufficient bandwidth to contribute, although I did follow the email 
traffic and listen in on key calls. I am fully aware of the workload 
that this project will entail.
>
>   * Describe your prior experience at ICANN, how you have participated
>     in a CCWG or similar,  and how you have contributed to the goals
>     of NCSG, etc., and how you solicited, reported back and
>     communicated (where appropriate) the views and concerns of
>     individuals in the organization that appointed you.
>
I was recruited by NCUC to join the Experts Working Group on RDS, and 
even though I was not an NCSG member at the time, I reported fully on 
what was going on.  I have participated actively since I joined the 
NCSG, and I am also an inactive member of NARALO.  I have spoken 
numerous times on the issues on which I am involved, and have written 
comments on PPSAI, GNSO review, RDS, and others.  I am an active GNSO 
council member with a perfect attendance record.  I have volunteered to 
mentor people, and have been campaigning since the recent GNSO council 
elections on improving our communications amongst our elected 
representatives and with members.
>
>   * Describe your experience and degree of knowledge of the needs of
>     the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and
>     numbers) and well as your understanding of the broader ecosystem
>     of the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates.
>
I spent my government career in the Department of Communications and 
Industry in the telecom sector, working on international trade, policy, 
and electronic commerce.  I have a strong background on internet policy 
issues, a deep knowledge of the ITU and its processes, and where ICANN 
fits in the Internet governance system. I am finishing a doctorate on 
why ICANN has not privacy, so have done considerable research on that 
particular policy process, which is rather central to its management of 
the DNS.  I have worked on International standards since the early 90s, 
and follow the Canadian shadow groups on numerous ISO standards.  I led 
a group at the European standards organization CEN (on privacy 
standards) and have a reasonable knowledge of the different standards 
organizations.  I am currently on an IEEE standards development group, 
looking at a privacy framework for wireless devices.  I do not 
participate at the IETF but am familiar with its work and how it functions.

I would be happy to elaborate further on my understanding of the field 
in whihc we work, but I hope the above brief sketch will persuade you 
that I have the experience and the attitude required to do this work.  I 
am volunteering because I regard this committee as bvery important, and 
am committed to both openness, and a fair representation of civil 
society's needs and views on this process. I also have lengthy service 
in government managing processes with competitive stakeholders, so I can 
bring a thorough understanding of the needs of business and technical 
stakeholders to this debate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161203/6422ae3e/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Sun Dec  4 18:21:51 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 10:21:51 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE Call for volunteers: new gTLD Auction Proceeds
	CCWG
Message-ID: <20161204162150.c2pxi4wifx5t2rva@roller.tarvainen.info>

----- Forwarded message from Sonigitu Ekpe <soekpe at gmail.com> -----

Dear Tapani and PC,


Please find below my expression of interest.


As an activist, always ready to help and participate in fostering integrity
and promoting good governance, maintaining public confidence in
organisations. Ensuring transparent transactions for a clean business
environment in the non-profit organization?s long-term survival which
depends to some degree on its capacity to sustain relationships with core
constituencies, such as private donors, members, community volunteers, and
other community organizations, thereby creating a network of social trust
around the organization.


These social networks are essential for mobilizing collective action and
addressing social problems; serving as conduits for free expression and
social change.

I have been involved in the IT Industry for over 10 years in areas
including ICT Policy development, Internet Governance, Open Source Software
Technologies, Data Management and technologies and, accounting, Human
Resource Planning and Development.


During my service as a financial officer in an International NGO, I do
clearly understand the laws governing non-profit accounting and
administration; effective reporting and communication to the constituency
that appoints me is a compulsory task to enhance collective bargain.
Likewise, I shall bring to bear the business skills and experiences while
serving an Israeli electro- mechanical company as logistics and community
relation manager.


My attendance at the first ICANN policy meeting held in Helsinki was my
first physical meeting and I did participate very effectively during the
CCWG meeting and NCSG outreach and did learn from mentors. Although, I have
being hosting remote hubs for ICANN meeting and participating in many
working groups in the last few years with a strong background in
environment governance and international development.


I do clearly, understand the Internet communities ICANN serve and the
politics that surrounds its operations. We can learn more from each other
when information is open. A free exchange of ideas is critical to creating
an environment where people are allowed to learn and use existing
information toward creating new ideas.


When we are free to collaborate, we create. We can solve problems that no
one person may be able to solve on their own. Rapid prototypes can lead to
rapid failures, but that leads to better solutions found faster. When
you're free to experiment, you can look at problems in new ways and look
for answers in new places. You can then learn by doing.


This shall be my first time to serve NCSG if granted an opportunity, it
shall be very critical for me to harness the wisdom of the NCSG movement
and the collective power of all stakeholders to achieve major impact in
this new role as I delegate my time and efforts to serve.


Thank you and warm regards.


Sonigitu Ekpe

Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179
 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"

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



From egmorris1  Mon Dec  5 03:39:06 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 20:39:06 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
Message-ID: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>

 
 Hello everybody,
  
  
 Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed 
Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt 
Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before 
it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have 
time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so 
now.
  
 Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff 
report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted 
previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL 
renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business 
Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions 
anyone may have on this comment.
  
 Sincerely,
  
 Ed and Stefania   
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161204/081ca7ea/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 48577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161204/081ca7ea/attachment-0001.obj>


From dave  Mon Dec  5 21:04:57 2016
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 03:04:57 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
Message-ID: <DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>

I'm in favour of endorsement.

David

Sent from my iPad

> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
>  
> Hello everybody,
>  
>  
> Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so now.
>  
> Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on this comment.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> Ed and Stefania   
>  
> <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161206/607016fd/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec  5 22:28:23 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 05:28:23 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThktAr4mny_3pnc6oUA+OjHRVd0NVTYZS6dXOn3My2nXOA@mail.gmail.com>

I support the endorsement.

Rafik

2016-12-06 4:04 GMT+09:00 David Cake <dave at davecake.net>:

> I'm in favour of endorsement.
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hello everybody,
>
>
> Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed
> Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt
> Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before
> it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have
> time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so
> now.
>
> Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff
> report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted
> previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL
> renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business
> Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions
> anyone may have on this comment.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ed and Stefania
>
>
> <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161206/c0ad22e6/attachment.html>


From kathy  Mon Dec  5 22:31:01 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:31:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThktAr4mny_3pnc6oUA+OjHRVd0NVTYZS6dXOn3My2nXOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<CAH5sThktAr4mny_3pnc6oUA+OjHRVd0NVTYZS6dXOn3My2nXOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3c18a212-d6e0-3555-3b86-e845b2e6c965@kathykleiman.com>

I strongly support the endorsement. It's an important comment on a 
critical topic at a very timely moment.

Best, Kathy


On 12/5/2016 3:28 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> I support the endorsement.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2016-12-06 4:04 GMT+09:00 David Cake <dave at davecake.net 
> <mailto:dave at davecake.net>>:
>
>     I'm in favour of endorsement.
>
>     David
>
>     Sent from my iPad
>
>     On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>
>>     Hello everybody,
>>     Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the
>>     'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee
>>     Structure and to Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed
>>     the comment about 20 minutes before it's submission deadline of
>>     midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have time to present
>>     it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so now.
>>     Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the
>>     staff report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds
>>     upon that submitted previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning
>>     the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL renewals and upon our joint
>>     Reconsideration Request with the Business Constituency on the
>>     same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions anyone may
>>     have on this comment.
>>     Sincerely,
>>     Ed and Stefania
>>     <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     <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/20161205/a347fc54/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Dec  5 22:34:46 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:34:46 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
Message-ID: <20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>

Likewise.

Tapani

On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net) wrote:

> I'm in favour of endorsement.
> 
> David
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> > 
> >  
> > Hello everybody,
> >  
> >  
> > Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so now.
> >  
> > Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on this comment.
> >  
> > Sincerely,
> >  
> > Ed and Stefania   
> >  
> > <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>




From ncsg  Mon Dec  5 23:38:31 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:38:31 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE Call for volunteers: new gTLD Auction
 Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <20161204162150.c2pxi4wifx5t2rva@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161204162150.c2pxi4wifx5t2rva@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20161205213830.ab65zoghrrw7ofzu@roller.tarvainen.info>

All,

We should decide this *today*. I guess the formal deadline is midnight UTC,
but in practice I guess it's enough if we send in the name before midnight
California time today.

I've noticed the following volunteers (let me know if I've missed some):

Sonigitu Ekpe
Sam Lanfranco
Stephanie Perrin
Kris Seeburn
Klaus Stoll

Sonigitu, Sam and Stephanie replied at least something to questions
Matt posed, Kris explained his interest earlier to some length.

Perhaps PC Chair or co-chairs would like to propose a procedure
for selecting one of them?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From kdrstoll  Tue Dec  6 02:27:04 2016
From: kdrstoll (Klaus Stoll)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 01:27:04 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE Call for volunteers: new gTLD Auction
 Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <20161205213830.ab65zoghrrw7ofzu@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161204162150.c2pxi4wifx5t2rva@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161205213830.ab65zoghrrw7ofzu@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <4569f0b9-e175-e75b-3b33-589a2f848a23@gmail.com>

Dear NCSG

As Sam is on the list, I withdraw my self-nomination in his favor.

Yours

Klaus


On 12/5/2016 10:38 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> All,
>
> We should decide this *today*. I guess the formal deadline is midnight UTC,
> but in practice I guess it's enough if we send in the name before midnight
> California time today.
>
> I've noticed the following volunteers (let me know if I've missed some):
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
> Sam Lanfranco
> Stephanie Perrin
> Kris Seeburn
> Klaus Stoll
>
> Sonigitu, Sam and Stephanie replied at least something to questions
> Matt posed, Kris explained his interest earlier to some length.
>
> Perhaps PC Chair or co-chairs would like to propose a procedure
> for selecting one of them?
>




From stephanie.perrin  Tue Dec  6 02:52:10 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 19:52:10 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Motion: Confirmation of GNSO Appointed
 Members and Co-Chair to CCWG-Auction Proceeds
In-Reply-To: <30CC8B2B-AE66-4BB2-BA65-8DD0E6CFA3CE@godaddy.com>
References: <30CC8B2B-AE66-4BB2-BA65-8DD0E6CFA3CE@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <6d5f8abe-f11d-9cdc-c9ed-c124f3b791fe@mail.utoronto.ca>



are we going to miss the deadline on this?
Stephanie
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Motion: Confirmation of GNSO Appointed Members and 
Co-Chair to CCWG-Auction Proceeds
Date: 	Mon, 5 Dec 2016 22:58:43 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>



Councilors ?


Attached, and copied below, please find a motion to approve the GNSO 
appointed Members and Co-Chairs to CCWG Auction Proceeds.  Note that our 
co-chair candidate (Jonathan Robinson) and the list of members is listed 
in brackets, as we are still waiting to finalize these.  Please ensure 
that your SG-designated Member is sent to the list by EOD today.


Thank you,

J.

**

*Motion ? Confirmation of GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and Members to the 
CCWG-Auction Proceeds*

Whereas,

1.The GNSO Council adopted the charter for the CCWG new gTLD Auction 
Proceeds during its meeting on 7 November 2016;

2.As a Chartering Organization, the GNSO can appoint a minimum of 2 and 
a maximum of 5 Members to the CCWG. Members are expected to serve as a 
liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. 
Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering 
Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of 
the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization 
with the CCWG.

3.The Charter specifies that a chair may be appointed by each Chartering 
Organizations. Chartering Organizations that do decide to appoint a 
chair should make reasonable efforts that the proposed chair / co-chair 
has the necessary experience to manage an effort of this nature by, for 
example, having actively participated as a member in at least one CCWG 
or ICANN Working Group throughout its lifecycle in order to have 
relevant or related experience of the different tasks that come with 
chairing a CCWG. Prior leadership experience (chair / co-chair / 
vice-chair) is desirable.

4.The GNSO Council notes that that best efforts have been to ensure that 
GNSO appointed members:

oHave sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to 
participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate 
experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and 
final disbursement of funds;

oCommit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an 
on-going and long-term basis;

oSolicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of 
individuals in the organization that appoints them;

oCommit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;

oUnderstand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves 
(standards, domains and numbers);

oUnderstand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which 
ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the 
Internet industry, including those not yet connected.

Resolved

1.The GNSO Council appoints [Jonathan Robinson] as the GNSO Appointed 
Co-Chair and Member to the CCWG ? Auction Proceeds.

2.The GNSO Council confirms [include names] as GNSO appointed members to 
the CCWG-Auction Proceeds.

3.The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and the GNSO 
appointed members to ensure that the GNSO community is kept up to date 
on the progress of the deliberations as well as making sure that input 
from the GNSO community is sought on a regular basis.

4.The GNSO Council encourages other interested in this topic to join 
this effort as a participant or observer.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161205/73b18e60/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Motion ? Confirmation Chair and Members CCWG Auction Proceeds - upd 5 December 2016[1].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 131650 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161205/73b18e60/attachment-0001.docx>


From mshears  Tue Dec  6 05:49:34 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 21:49:34 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE Call for volunteers: new gTLD Auction
 Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <20161205213830.ab65zoghrrw7ofzu@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161204162150.c2pxi4wifx5t2rva@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161205213830.ab65zoghrrw7ofzu@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <064793af-d0fc-0552-26b6-0de9cbcb94ba@cdt.org>

Hi Tapani

After discussion with Marilia, I think that we are going to have to ask 
for an extension, as the PC has not had the opportunity to review given 
the limited time frame.

This is unfortunate but travel to the IGF and related activities have 
gotten in the way.

I would like to propose an extension for the PC to consider the 
candidacies through end of day Friday.

Thanks.

Matthew




On 05/12/2016 15:38, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> All,
>
> We should decide this *today*. I guess the formal deadline is midnight UTC,
> but in practice I guess it's enough if we send in the name before midnight
> California time today.
>
> I've noticed the following volunteers (let me know if I've missed some):
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
> Sam Lanfranco
> Stephanie Perrin
> Kris Seeburn
> Klaus Stoll
>
> Sonigitu, Sam and Stephanie replied at least something to questions
> Matt posed, Kris explained his interest earlier to some length.
>
> Perhaps PC Chair or co-chairs would like to propose a procedure
> for selecting one of them?
>

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987




From Stefania.Milan  Tue Dec  6 10:48:51 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 08:48:51 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE Call for volunteers: new gTLD Auction
 Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <064793af-d0fc-0552-26b6-0de9cbcb94ba@cdt.org>
References: <20161204162150.c2pxi4wifx5t2rva@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161205213830.ab65zoghrrw7ofzu@roller.tarvainen.info>,
	<064793af-d0fc-0552-26b6-0de9cbcb94ba@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <A854C3D1-D407-4618-BCB9-228EA15C715B@EUI.eu>

It makes sense to me, thanks all of you.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 6, 2016, at 03:50, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tapani
>
> After discussion with Marilia, I think that we are going to have to ask for an extension, as the PC has not had the opportunity to review given the limited time frame.
>
> This is unfortunate but travel to the IGF and related activities have gotten in the way.
>
> I would like to propose an extension for the PC to consider the candidacies through end of day Friday.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
>> On 05/12/2016 15:38, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> We should decide this *today*. I guess the formal deadline is midnight UTC,
>> but in practice I guess it's enough if we send in the name before midnight
>> California time today.
>>
>> I've noticed the following volunteers (let me know if I've missed some):
>>
>> Sonigitu Ekpe
>> Sam Lanfranco
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> Kris Seeburn
>> Klaus Stoll
>>
>> Sonigitu, Sam and Stephanie replied at least something to questions
>> Matt posed, Kris explained his interest earlier to some length.
>>
>> Perhaps PC Chair or co-chairs would like to propose a procedure
>> for selecting one of them?
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From aelsadr  Tue Dec  6 14:57:45 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:57:45 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] RE Call for volunteers: new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <064793af-d0fc-0552-26b6-0de9cbcb94ba@cdt.org>
References: <20161204162150.c2pxi4wifx5t2rva@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161205213830.ab65zoghrrw7ofzu@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<064793af-d0fc-0552-26b6-0de9cbcb94ba@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <9268CB84-CDD5-4C60-9234-3E0BA33B7D8E@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Hope all?s going well for folks at the IGF. Best to let the Council know that our appointment will be slightly delayed.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 6, 2016, at 5:49 AM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tapani
> 
> After discussion with Marilia, I think that we are going to have to ask for an extension, as the PC has not had the opportunity to review given the limited time frame.
> 
> This is unfortunate but travel to the IGF and related activities have gotten in the way.
> 
> I would like to propose an extension for the PC to consider the candidacies through end of day Friday.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 05/12/2016 15:38, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> We should decide this *today*. I guess the formal deadline is midnight UTC,
>> but in practice I guess it's enough if we send in the name before midnight
>> California time today.
>> 
>> I've noticed the following volunteers (let me know if I've missed some):
>> 
>> Sonigitu Ekpe
>> Sam Lanfranco
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> Kris Seeburn
>> Klaus Stoll
>> 
>> Sonigitu, Sam and Stephanie replied at least something to questions
>> Matt posed, Kris explained his interest earlier to some length.
>> 
>> Perhaps PC Chair or co-chairs would like to propose a procedure
>> for selecting one of them?
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From egmorris1  Tue Dec  6 16:33:07 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:33:07 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member
	for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
References: <120EB153-0A5E-4AB4-AFBA-408E3A3D1732@nic.br>
Message-ID: <82627BDF-6432-4E0F-884F-F49AB6C682AE@toast.net>

Hello,

As indicated below RySG has appointed Jon Nevett from Donuts to the Auction Proceeds CCWG.

We have a number of highly qualified and motivated volunteers for our appointment to this CCWG. I hope ALL will participate in the proceedings. We need as many volunteers there as are able to donate their time and talents.

In differentiating between our highly qualified volunteers I note that one volunteer brings something to the position no one else does: a seat on the GNSO Council. As the principle difference between a Member and a Participant is the reporting obligation to the NCSG of the Member,  I do see the added value of having that individual also being a Member of Council so if there are any shenanigans going on she not only can report that back to us but also can directly pursue that issue on Council.

As such I support Stephanie Perrin for the position. Not only does Stephanie have the position on Council but she has the experience and savvy to go toe to toe with Donuts in areas of disagreement. She also has shown that once she accepts a position she will show up- something we had problems with with the appointees to the group that drafted this Charter. We can count on Stephanie to be there.

I would ask, though, that all volunteers are asked to join the group as participants. As the CCWG - Accountability demonstrates on most issues there is little difference between Members and Volunteers and numbers to count. We need folks there.

Thanks,

Ed Morris



Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> Date: 6 December 2016 at 13:15:47 GMT
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz at pir.org>, Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
> 
> 
> Marika,
> 
> Since Jonathan Robinson seems to run unopposed to be CCWG GNSO Co-Chair and will need to bring his well-known capabilities on behalf of the full GNSO community, the RySG appoints Jon Nevett to be a member of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Rubens
> 
> 
>> On Nov 30, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear All,
>>  
>> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>  
>> Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
>> Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
>> Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
>> Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
>> Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
>> Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
>>  
>> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that:
>>  
>> In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
>>  
>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
>>  
>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is represented.
>>  
>> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Marika
>>  
>> Marika Konings
>> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org  
>>  
>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. 
>>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161206/919d7c2e/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Dec  7 01:15:08 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 18:15:08 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one
 member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <F36DFE18-701B-4233-8E72-BCAD4BD44B92@godaddy.com>
References: <F36DFE18-701B-4233-8E72-BCAD4BD44B92@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <489007af-cccc-cedf-1ee4-976414ed8340@mail.utoronto.ca>

The fact that the Rrsg has managed to drag Elliot out for this working 
group confirms my suspicious that this is going to be a formidable 
struggle. We had better choose carefully, and have lots of backup. yes, 
I am aware that we are not giving away the money yet....but I expect we 
are going to have a pretty big fight over not giving the money back on 
our hands, if indeed we have any reasonable ideas about what to do with 
it in the first place....

Cheers Stephanie

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for 
new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
Date: 	Tue, 6 Dec 2016 21:52:13 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de 
<Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
CC: 	Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Council, GNSO 
<council at gnso.icann.org>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton at tucows.com>



Colleagues ?

Graeme Bunton (RrSG Chair) has informed me that the Registrars have appointed Elliot Noss to this CCWG.

Thank you,

J.



On 12/6/16, 7:06 , "owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

     
     Hi,
     
     The NCSG hasn?t had the chance to decide on an appointment yet, but we expect this to be done by end of day, Friday.
     
     Thanks.
     
     Amr
     
     > On Dec 5, 2016, at 11:09 PM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de wrote:
     >
     > Dear Marika,
     >
     >
     > the Commercial Stakeholder Group has appointed Tony Harris as member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG.
     >
     > Best regards
     >
     > Wolf-Ulrich
     >
     >
     >
     >
     > -----Original-Nachricht-----
     > Betreff: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
     > Datum: 2016-11-30T18:52:55+0100
     > Von: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings at icann.org>
     > An: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
     >
     >
     >
     > Dear All,
     >
     >
     > As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
     >
     >
     > 	? Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
     > 	? Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
     > 	? Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
     > 	? Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
     > 	? Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
     > 	? Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
     >
     > The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that:
     >
     >
     > In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
     >
     >
     >
     > Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
     >
     >
     >
     > Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is represented.
     >
     >
     > As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
     >
     >
     > Best regards,
     >
     >
     > Marika
     >
     >
     > Marika Konings
     >
     > Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
     >
     > Email: marika.konings at icann.org
     >
     >
     >
     > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
     >
     > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
     >
     >
     >
     
     
     


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161206/d1066866/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Wed Dec  7 21:20:40 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 13:20:40 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one
 member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <82627BDF-6432-4E0F-884F-F49AB6C682AE@toast.net>
References: <120EB153-0A5E-4AB4-AFBA-408E3A3D1732@nic.br>
	<82627BDF-6432-4E0F-884F-F49AB6C682AE@toast.net>
Message-ID: <20161207192039.yaogmh7mafev6osr@roller.tarvainen.info>

All,

Even with the deadline extension we're running out of time here,
so let's try to move forward with this.

I agree with Ed's observation that we have several good candidates,
and after thinking about it I find the argument about a councillor
being good for the position to be persuasive.

So I second his endorsement of Stephanie, and ask all PC members to
express their position as soon as possible, whether +1 or -1 or
endorsement of someone else.

Tapani

On Dec 06 14:33, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> As indicated below RySG has appointed Jon Nevett from Donuts to the Auction Proceeds CCWG.
> 
> We have a number of highly qualified and motivated volunteers for our appointment to this CCWG. I hope ALL will participate in the proceedings. We need as many volunteers there as are able to donate their time and talents.
> 
> In differentiating between our highly qualified volunteers I note that one volunteer brings something to the position no one else does: a seat on the GNSO Council. As the principle difference between a Member and a Participant is the reporting obligation to the NCSG of the Member,  I do see the added value of having that individual also being a Member of Council so if there are any shenanigans going on she not only can report that back to us but also can directly pursue that issue on Council.
> 
> As such I support Stephanie Perrin for the position. Not only does Stephanie have the position on Council but she has the experience and savvy to go toe to toe with Donuts in areas of disagreement. She also has shown that once she accepts a position she will show up- something we had problems with with the appointees to the group that drafted this Charter. We can count on Stephanie to be there.
> 
> I would ask, though, that all volunteers are asked to join the group as participants. As the CCWG - Accountability demonstrates on most issues there is little difference between Members and Volunteers and numbers to count. We need folks there.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ed Morris
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> > Date: 6 December 2016 at 13:15:47 GMT
> > To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> > Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz at pir.org>, Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> > Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
> > 
> > 
> > Marika,
> > 
> > Since Jonathan Robinson seems to run unopposed to be CCWG GNSO Co-Chair and will need to bring his well-known capabilities on behalf of the full GNSO community, the RySG appoints Jon Nevett to be a member of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rubens
> > 
> > 
> >> On Nov 30, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Dear All,
> >>  
> >> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
> >>  
> >> Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
> >> Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
> >> Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
> >> Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
> >> Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
> >> Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
> >>  
> >> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that:
> >>  
> >> In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
> >>  
> >> Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
> >>  
> >> Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is represented.
> >>  
> >> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
> >>  
> >> Best regards,
> >>  
> >> Marika
> >>  
> >> Marika Konings
> >> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
> >> Email: marika.konings at icann.org  
> >>  
> >> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. 
> >>  
> > 



From aelsadr  Wed Dec  7 22:20:56 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 22:20:56 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member
	for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <20161207192039.yaogmh7mafev6osr@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <120EB153-0A5E-4AB4-AFBA-408E3A3D1732@nic.br>
	<82627BDF-6432-4E0F-884F-F49AB6C682AE@toast.net>
	<20161207192039.yaogmh7mafev6osr@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <C9DB757C-B38A-4A72-B082-5B63DD8FC00A@egyptig.org>

+1 from me.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 7, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> Even with the deadline extension we're running out of time here,
> so let's try to move forward with this.
> 
> I agree with Ed's observation that we have several good candidates,
> and after thinking about it I find the argument about a councillor
> being good for the position to be persuasive.
> 
> So I second his endorsement of Stephanie, and ask all PC members to
> express their position as soon as possible, whether +1 or -1 or
> endorsement of someone else.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Dec 06 14:33, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> As indicated below RySG has appointed Jon Nevett from Donuts to the Auction Proceeds CCWG.
>> 
>> We have a number of highly qualified and motivated volunteers for our appointment to this CCWG. I hope ALL will participate in the proceedings. We need as many volunteers there as are able to donate their time and talents.
>> 
>> In differentiating between our highly qualified volunteers I note that one volunteer brings something to the position no one else does: a seat on the GNSO Council. As the principle difference between a Member and a Participant is the reporting obligation to the NCSG of the Member,  I do see the added value of having that individual also being a Member of Council so if there are any shenanigans going on she not only can report that back to us but also can directly pursue that issue on Council.
>> 
>> As such I support Stephanie Perrin for the position. Not only does Stephanie have the position on Council but she has the experience and savvy to go toe to toe with Donuts in areas of disagreement. She also has shown that once she accepts a position she will show up- something we had problems with with the appointees to the group that drafted this Charter. We can count on Stephanie to be there.
>> 
>> I would ask, though, that all volunteers are asked to join the group as participants. As the CCWG - Accountability demonstrates on most issues there is little difference between Members and Volunteers and numbers to count. We need folks there.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Ed Morris
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
>>> Date: 6 December 2016 at 13:15:47 GMT
>>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz at pir.org>, Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marika,
>>> 
>>> Since Jonathan Robinson seems to run unopposed to be CCWG GNSO Co-Chair and will need to bring his well-known capabilities on behalf of the full GNSO community, the RySG appoints Jon Nevett to be a member of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rubens
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 30, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>>> 
>>>> Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
>>>> Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
>>>> Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
>>>> Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
>>>> Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
>>>> Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
>>>> 
>>>> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that:
>>>> 
>>>> In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
>>>> 
>>>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
>>>> 
>>>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is represented.
>>>> 
>>>> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Marika
>>>> 
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org  
>>>> 
>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From Stefania.Milan  Wed Dec  7 22:29:18 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 20:29:18 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one
 member	for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <C9DB757C-B38A-4A72-B082-5B63DD8FC00A@egyptig.org>
References: <120EB153-0A5E-4AB4-AFBA-408E3A3D1732@nic.br>
	<82627BDF-6432-4E0F-884F-F49AB6C682AE@toast.net>
	<20161207192039.yaogmh7mafev6osr@roller.tarvainen.info>,
	<C9DB757C-B38A-4A72-B082-5B63DD8FC00A@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB52108617E45D5F876BBA689F7850@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear all
I definitely support Stephanie. As I know how busy she is with a variety of ICANN stuff, and I was considering voluntering myself for the position but kept hesitating... I offer to be a sort of alternate, if desired by this group. Best, Stefania



________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Inviato: mercoled? 7 dicembre 2016 21.20.56
A: Tapani Tarvainen
Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member      for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG

+1 from me.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 7, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Even with the deadline extension we're running out of time here,
> so let's try to move forward with this.
>
> I agree with Ed's observation that we have several good candidates,
> and after thinking about it I find the argument about a councillor
> being good for the position to be persuasive.
>
> So I second his endorsement of Stephanie, and ask all PC members to
> express their position as soon as possible, whether +1 or -1 or
> endorsement of someone else.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Dec 06 14:33, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> As indicated below RySG has appointed Jon Nevett from Donuts to the Auction Proceeds CCWG.
>>
>> We have a number of highly qualified and motivated volunteers for our appointment to this CCWG. I hope ALL will participate in the proceedings. We need as many volunteers there as are able to donate their time and talents.
>>
>> In differentiating between our highly qualified volunteers I note that one volunteer brings something to the position no one else does: a seat on the GNSO Council. As the principle difference between a Member and a Participant is the reporting obligation to the NCSG of the Member,  I do see the added value of having that individual also being a Member of Council so if there are any shenanigans going on she not only can report that back to us but also can directly pursue that issue on Council.
>>
>> As such I support Stephanie Perrin for the position. Not only does Stephanie have the position on Council but she has the experience and savvy to go toe to toe with Donuts in areas of disagreement. She also has shown that once she accepts a position she will show up- something we had problems with with the appointees to the group that drafted this Charter. We can count on Stephanie to be there.
>>
>> I would ask, though, that all volunteers are asked to join the group as participants. As the CCWG - Accountability demonstrates on most issues there is little difference between Members and Volunteers and numbers to count. We need folks there.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ed Morris
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
>>> Date: 6 December 2016 at 13:15:47 GMT
>>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz at pir.org>, Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
>>>
>>>
>>> Marika,
>>>
>>> Since Jonathan Robinson seems to run unopposed to be CCWG GNSO Co-Chair and will need to bring his well-known capabilities on behalf of the full GNSO community, the RySG appoints Jon Nevett to be a member of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rubens
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>>>
>>>> Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
>>>> Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
>>>> Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
>>>> Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
>>>> Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
>>>> Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
>>>>
>>>> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that:
>>>>
>>>> In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
>>>>
>>>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
>>>>
>>>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is represented.
>>>>
>>>> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Marika
>>>>
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org
>>>>
>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
>>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From mariliamaciel  Wed Dec  7 22:47:22 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 14:47:22 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
	deadline Dec 8
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear PC members,



We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and
communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9.


There are four candidates:



Sonigitu Ekpe

Sam Lanfranco

Stephanie Perrin

Kris Seeberg



Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are attached.

Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If you are
more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew Sheers
directly, please feel free to do so.


Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC
Thursday December 8th.


Thanks and best wishes,

Marilia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161207/273661ce/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sonigitu Ekpe Auctions CCWG.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 15813 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161207/273661ce/attachment-0004.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Stephanie Perrin Auctions CCWG.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 14841 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161207/273661ce/attachment-0005.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sam Lanfranco Auctions CCWG.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 13951 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161207/273661ce/attachment-0006.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Kris Seeburn Auctions CCWG.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 13671 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161207/273661ce/attachment-0007.docx>


From ncsg  Thu Dec  8 00:14:06 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:14:06 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy call 13 December
Message-ID: <20161207221405.uqndeogtxv5tmk4p@roller.tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

Things are a bit rushed because of the IGF and Maryam's absence,
but on the basis of earlier feedback I propose to have our policy
call on next Tuesday, 13 December, at 2000 UTC.

If that's an impossible time for you please let me know.

Also if you have something you want to have on the agenda
besides the usual (council agenda, public comments) let
me know.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From stephanie.perrin  Thu Dec  8 01:36:23 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:36:23 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
 deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9258c922-9a3a-956d-d586-078d1fbede04@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am going to vote for myself.  Sends a really bad signal if one does not:-)

Stephanie Perrin


On 2016-12-07 15:47, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Dear PC members,
>
> We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and 
> communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9.
>
>
> There are four candidates:
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
>
> Sam Lanfranco
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> Kris Seeberg
>
> Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are attached.
>
> Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If 
> you are more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew 
> Sheers directly, please feel free to do so.
>
> *
> *
>
> Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC 
> Thursday December 8th.
>
>
> Thanks and best wishes,
>
> Marilia
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161207/56a3e5a5/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Thu Dec  8 03:44:16 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 01:44:16 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy call 13 December
In-Reply-To: <20161207221405.uqndeogtxv5tmk4p@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161207221405.uqndeogtxv5tmk4p@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521FE91AF5FF22F8F986817F7840@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I can make it this time :-)
Ed and I are thinking about submitting a comment on the PTI budget(deadline 10 Decemeber, though) so that might be added to the list of things to discuss (if we ever pull it off the ground).
st.

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Inviato: mercoled? 7 dicembre 2016 23.14.06
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: [PC-NCSG] Policy call 13 December

Dear all,

Things are a bit rushed because of the IGF and Maryam's absence,
but on the basis of earlier feedback I propose to have our policy
call on next Tuesday, 13 December, at 2000 UTC.

If that's an impossible time for you please let me know.

Also if you have something you want to have on the agenda
besides the usual (council agenda, public comments) let
me know.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

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

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From pileleji  Thu Dec  8 09:18:23 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:18:23 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one
 member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <20161207192039.yaogmh7mafev6osr@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <120EB153-0A5E-4AB4-AFBA-408E3A3D1732@nic.br>
	<82627BDF-6432-4E0F-884F-F49AB6C682AE@toast.net>
	<20161207192039.yaogmh7mafev6osr@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAEux40vLaS=uz4Vwyr+yeX3jGX5DyUq2gvJjrBsM8+kUNNCdbQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1 Stephanie

On 7 December 2016 at 20:20, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

> All,
>
> Even with the deadline extension we're running out of time here,
> so let's try to move forward with this.
>
> I agree with Ed's observation that we have several good candidates,
> and after thinking about it I find the argument about a councillor
> being good for the position to be persuasive.
>
> So I second his endorsement of Stephanie, and ask all PC members to
> express their position as soon as possible, whether +1 or -1 or
> endorsement of someone else.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Dec 06 14:33, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > As indicated below RySG has appointed Jon Nevett from Donuts to the
> Auction Proceeds CCWG.
> >
> > We have a number of highly qualified and motivated volunteers for our
> appointment to this CCWG. I hope ALL will participate in the proceedings.
> We need as many volunteers there as are able to donate their time and
> talents.
> >
> > In differentiating between our highly qualified volunteers I note that
> one volunteer brings something to the position no one else does: a seat on
> the GNSO Council. As the principle difference between a Member and a
> Participant is the reporting obligation to the NCSG of the Member,  I do
> see the added value of having that individual also being a Member of
> Council so if there are any shenanigans going on she not only can report
> that back to us but also can directly pursue that issue on Council.
> >
> > As such I support Stephanie Perrin for the position. Not only does
> Stephanie have the position on Council but she has the experience and savvy
> to go toe to toe with Donuts in areas of disagreement. She also has shown
> that once she accepts a position she will show up- something we had
> problems with with the appointees to the group that drafted this Charter.
> We can count on Stephanie to be there.
> >
> > I would ask, though, that all volunteers are asked to join the group as
> participants. As the CCWG - Accountability demonstrates on most issues
> there is little difference between Members and Volunteers and numbers to
> count. We need folks there.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ed Morris
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> > > Date: 6 December 2016 at 13:15:47 GMT
> > > To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> > > Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, Paul Diaz <
> pdiaz at pir.org>, Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>, Jonathan Robinson <
> jrobinson at afilias.info>
> > > Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for
> new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
> > >
> > >
> > > Marika,
> > >
> > > Since Jonathan Robinson seems to run unopposed to be CCWG GNSO
> Co-Chair and will need to bring his well-known capabilities on behalf of
> the full GNSO community, the RySG appoints Jon Nevett to be a member of the
> new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rubens
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Nov 30, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear All,
> > >>
> > >> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been
> requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
> by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that
> members:
> > >>
> > >> Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to
> participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate
> experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final
> disbursement of funds;
> > >> Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an
> on-going and long-term basis;
> > >> Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of
> individuals in the organization that appoints them;
> > >> Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
> > >> Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves
> (standards, domains and numbers);
> > >> Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which
> ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the
> Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
> > >>
> > >> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization
> appointed members that:
> > >>
> > >> In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed
> members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see
> below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective
> Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary,
> ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the
> progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from
> the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
> > >>
> > >> Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member
> selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better
> contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking
> at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as
> well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
> > >>
> > >> Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive
> processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include
> reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is
> represented.
> > >>
> > >> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to
> select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed
> members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> Marika
> > >>
> > >> Marika Konings
> > >> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> > >> Email: marika.konings at icann.org
> > >>
> > >> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
> > >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
> > >>
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161208/718e242a/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Dec  8 18:35:24 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:35:24 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
	deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear PC members, this is a quick reminder that the deadline to express your
support for one of the four candidates to the CCWG on auction proceeds
is *today
at 23:59 UTC*.
Thank you very much.
Marilia

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear PC members,
>
>
>
> We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and
> communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9.
>
>
> There are four candidates:
>
>
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
>
> Sam Lanfranco
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> Kris Seeberg
>
>
>
> Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are attached.
>
> Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If you
> are more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew Sheers
> directly, please feel free to do so.
>
>
> Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC
> Thursday December 8th.
>
>
> Thanks and best wishes,
>
> Marilia
>
>
>


-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161208/32cfa5c0/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Dec  8 18:57:07 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:57:07 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
 deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <9258c922-9a3a-956d-d586-078d1fbede04@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<9258c922-9a3a-956d-d586-078d1fbede04@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK04Oz2muYT90fpNMp6qLs9H=kCXECBgg1x9FeC1Y-H_wA@mail.gmail.com>

I support Stephanie for this position.
Marilia

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I am going to vote for myself.  Sends a really bad signal if one does not
> :-)
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2016-12-07 15:47, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Dear PC members,
>
>
>
> We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and
> communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9.
>
>
> There are four candidates:
>
>
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
>
> Sam Lanfranco
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> Kris Seeberg
>
>
>
> Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are attached.
>
> Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If you
> are more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew Sheers
> directly, please feel free to do so.
>
>
> Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC
> Thursday December 8th.
>
>
> Thanks and best wishes,
>
> Marilia
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161208/2e6da400/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Dec  8 18:58:31 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 10:58:31 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
	deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3k0gSxWk-=0Z8vh2AnAg_mEumav2mAY8Be6Z7KTDKZ5g@mail.gmail.com>

For the sake of clarity, we have registered expressions of support coming
from the PC members below. If you have not yet expressed your preference,
please do so in the next hours.

Thanks
Marilia

Tapani Tervainen
Ed Morris
Stefania Milan
Stephanie Perrin
Amr
Matthew Sheers
Marilia Maciel



On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear PC members, this is a quick reminder that the deadline to express
> your support for one of the four candidates to the CCWG on auction proceeds
> is *today at 23:59 UTC*.
> Thank you very much.
> Marilia
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear PC members,
>>
>>
>>
>> We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and
>> communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9.
>>
>>
>> There are four candidates:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sonigitu Ekpe
>>
>> Sam Lanfranco
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> Kris Seeberg
>>
>>
>>
>> Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are attached.
>>
>> Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If you
>> are more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew Sheers
>> directly, please feel free to do so.
>>
>>
>> Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC
>> Thursday December 8th.
>>
>>
>> Thanks and best wishes,
>>
>> Marilia
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
> *Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
> *@MariliaM*
>
>
>


-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161208/4cd57a8a/attachment-0001.html>


From pileleji  Thu Dec  8 19:04:32 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:04:32 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
 deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tiO-YkWE0wyEpsaiS6q40S+yMLUyZu=w4K5K01vgpDAQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues,

All 4 candidates supported from my end.

Thank you

Poncelet

On 8 December 2016 at 17:35, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear PC members, this is a quick reminder that the deadline to express
> your support for one of the four candidates to the CCWG on auction proceeds
> is *today at 23:59 UTC*.
> Thank you very much.
> Marilia
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear PC members,
>>
>>
>>
>> We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and
>> communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9.
>>
>>
>> There are four candidates:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sonigitu Ekpe
>>
>> Sam Lanfranco
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> Kris Seeberg
>>
>>
>>
>> Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are attached.
>>
>> Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If you
>> are more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew Sheers
>> directly, please feel free to do so.
>>
>>
>> Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC
>> Thursday December 8th.
>>
>>
>> Thanks and best wishes,
>>
>> Marilia
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
> *Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
> *@MariliaM*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161208/47968107/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Dec  8 23:04:08 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:04:08 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a
 Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review
In-Reply-To: <D5213E8C-B7EA-4AA3-A118-FB8BAA5BA3B2@godaddy.com>
References: <D5213E8C-B7EA-4AA3-A118-FB8BAA5BA3B2@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <45021798-c28d-2901-9ece-879f2cbb339e@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think this one is important guys, how do we feel about this?

cheers sp



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] FW: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited 
Scope of the ATRT3 Review
Date: 	Thu, 8 Dec 2016 19:59:44 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>



Councilors ?

Please see the letter below from the CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs.

As we previously discussed, the scheduled reviews of RDS / WHOIS are 
colliding with existing policy development and implementation work, 
which could potentially lead to two groups examining the same issues and 
also drawing from the same pool of volunteers. Staff and the Community 
have kicked off a proposal to limit the scope of the RDS/WHOIS Review 
Team, and the GNSO is providing feedback (thank you, Susan & Keith!)

And now the CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs are raising similar concerns regarding 
the third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3), which 
expected to launch in 2017.  They?ve identified 6 of 9 CCWG-ACT 
Workstream 2 topics as potentially colliding with this scheduled 
review.  As a result and following conversations with the Board, the 
CCWG-ACCT leadership is asking that all SO/ACs consider a ?limited 
scope? for ATRT3 that focuses on reviewing the implementation & 
effectiveness of the previous (ATRT2) review.  They are asking for our 
feedback and support on this proposal.

Please take a look at the full letter below, and let?s start a 
conversation on the list and leave the door open for a Discussion Item 
during our next call on 15 DEC.

Thanks ?

J.

*From: *Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>

*Date: *Friday, December 2, 2016 at 4:07 **

*Subject: *CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the 
ATRT3 Review

Dear SO & AC Chairs,

The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the ICANN 
56 in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of topics, 
and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see 
Annex 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue).

In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points:

?Collision of topics between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is potential for 
significant overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of ATRT3 as 6 of 
the 9 WS2 topics are accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could 
also consider.

?Timing of the two activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an objective 
of completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is expected to 
take 12 months to complete, is currently scheduled to begin in January 
2017 but could potentially be delayed until February 2018 under the new 
Bylaws (which require ATRT every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for 
every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at best, to have both of 
these activities working on the same topics independently, while drawing 
on the same pool of community volunteers. At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups 
could issue recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative.

?Implementation of recommendations ? The Bylaws for WS2 give CCWG 
recommendations greater weight when it comes to board consideration, 
relative to recommendations from an ATRT organized under the AoC.

While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as 
communicated in our 8-Aug-2016 letter 
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann-board-08aug16-en.pdf> 
to the Board of ICANN:

Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing 
implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new 
recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT 
would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and 
transparency topics and make recommendations

The ICANN Board replied 
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-al-24oct16-en.pdf> 
to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying,

It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important 
community review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding 
duplication of resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN 
community have a voice in determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in 
alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the ICANN Organization stand 
ready to support the community?s direction.

Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the 
following approach:

?Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new Bylaws) 
a small group of review team members that have either participated in or 
closely tracked ATRT2.

?Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment" reporting 
on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed and/or 
implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues identified by 
ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation.

?Specifically request that the Review Team exclude the issues that are 
already covered by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1).

?Suggesting that the work be conducted & completed more quickly than 
normal, such as asking that the Final Report be issued within six months

If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the 
next steps would be:

?SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN CEO 
and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate and 
articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community

?Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought

?Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team members and encourage them to 
apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team

?Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review Team to adopt that tracks the 
limited Scope

Best regards,

Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill

CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161208/54baf3d1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG-Accountability-WS2-ATRT3 Letter To SOACs.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 951325 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161208/54baf3d1/attachment-0001.pdf>


From mariliamaciel  Fri Dec  9 19:10:04 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:10:04 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
 deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40tiO-YkWE0wyEpsaiS6q40S+yMLUyZu=w4K5K01vgpDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40tiO-YkWE0wyEpsaiS6q40S+yMLUyZu=w4K5K01vgpDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1+h_70p7CDxsYPMj0m2-a2HQaAPhmmjFt9CHhYW34h3w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I come back to you with the result of the selection process for the CCWG on
auction proceeds. Stephanie Perrin will be our representative, with 8 votes
from PC members. All other candidates had one vote each.

Thanks, Stephanie, for agreeing to serve in such an important and
challenging group. It would be good to put in practice the suggestion of
creating an informal WG to give support to our representative.

All the best
Marilia

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> All 4 candidates supported from my end.
>
> Thank you
>
> Poncelet
>
> On 8 December 2016 at 17:35, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear PC members, this is a quick reminder that the deadline to express
>> your support for one of the four candidates to the CCWG on auction proceeds
>> is *today at 23:59 UTC*.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Marilia
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear PC members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and
>>> communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are four candidates:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sonigitu Ekpe
>>>
>>> Sam Lanfranco
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>> Kris Seeberg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are
>>> attached.
>>>
>>> Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If you
>>> are more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew Sheers
>>> directly, please feel free to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>> Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC
>>> Thursday December 8th.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and best wishes,
>>>
>>> Marilia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Mar?lia Maciel*
>> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>>
>> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
>> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
>> *Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|*
>> * Twitter: **@MariliaM*
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240 <(220)%20437-0240>
> Fax:(220) 4390793 <(220)%20439-0793>
> Cell:(220) 9912508 <(220)%20991-2508>
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161209/a273df32/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Dec  9 19:38:27 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:38:27 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
 deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1+h_70p7CDxsYPMj0m2-a2HQaAPhmmjFt9CHhYW34h3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40tiO-YkWE0wyEpsaiS6q40S+yMLUyZu=w4K5K01vgpDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1+h_70p7CDxsYPMj0m2-a2HQaAPhmmjFt9CHhYW34h3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5ce05377-ec0e-37f7-a685-53d8cffe6637@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks for entrusting me with this job, and believe me when I say I am 
counting on all of you for your support and help in figuring out what 
will happen on this group.  I expect it will be very challenging.

I am asking Tapani to set up a mailing list for those interested in 
discussing the issues as they arise, and I promise I will post 
faithfully my impressions and concerns after every meeting.  We can test 
out the new improved communications I talked about during the council 
elections campaign.

Regards,

Stephanie Perrin


On 2016-12-09 12:10, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I come back to you with the result of the selection process for the 
> CCWG on auction proceeds. Stephanie Perrin will be our representative, 
> with 8 votes from PC members. All other candidates had one vote each.
>
> Thanks, Stephanie, for agreeing to serve in such an important and 
> challenging group. It would be good to put in practice the suggestion 
> of creating an informal WG to give support to our representative.
>
> All the best
> Marilia
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm 
> <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Colleagues,
>
>     All 4 candidates supported from my end.
>
>     Thank you
>
>     Poncelet
>
>     On 8 December 2016 at 17:35, Marilia Maciel
>     <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Dear PC members, this is a quick reminder that the deadline to
>         express your support for one of the four candidates to the
>         CCWG on auction proceeds is *_today at 23:59 UTC_*.
>         Thank you very much.
>         Marilia
>
>         On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Marilia Maciel
>         <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Dear PC members,
>
>             We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction
>             Proceeds CCWG and communicate our choice to the GNSO by
>             end of day Friday December 9.
>
>
>             There are four candidates:
>
>             Sonigitu Ekpe
>
>             Sam Lanfranco
>
>             Stephanie Perrin
>
>             Kris Seeberg
>
>             Their respective statements/responses to suggested
>             questions are attached.
>
>             Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC
>             list. If you are more comfortable sending the person's
>             name to me AND Matthew Sheers directly, please feel free
>             to do so.
>
>             *
>             *
>
>             Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by
>             23:59 UTC Thursday December 8th.
>
>
>             Thanks and best wishes,
>
>             Marilia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         -- 
>
>         *Mar?lia Maciel*
>         Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
>         WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva -
>         Switzerland
>         *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 <tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> *| *
>         *Email*: _MariliaM at diplomacy.edu
>         <mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu>____*|*__*Twitter*: __ at MariliaM_
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>     Coordinator
>     The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>     MDI Road Kanifing South
>     P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>     The Gambia, West Africa
>     Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%20437-0240>
>     Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%20439-0793>
>     Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%20991-2508>
>     Skype: pons_utd
>     /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>     http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>     www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>     www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>
>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>     http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>     <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>     /www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>     <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>
>     *
>     *
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 <tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> *| *
> *Email*: _MariliaM at diplomacy.edu 
> <mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu>____*|*__*Twitter*: __ at MariliaM_
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161209/23e8f27e/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Fri Dec  9 19:46:22 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:46:22 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
 deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <5ce05377-ec0e-37f7-a685-53d8cffe6637@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40tiO-YkWE0wyEpsaiS6q40S+yMLUyZu=w4K5K01vgpDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1+h_70p7CDxsYPMj0m2-a2HQaAPhmmjFt9CHhYW34h3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5ce05377-ec0e-37f7-a685-53d8cffe6637@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <c4fb32e7-695b-6359-20b8-8db220678b7d@cdt.org>

Congratulations.  Very happy to support you in this important role.  
Please add me to the proposed mailing list.

Thanks.


On 09/12/2016 11:38, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Thanks for entrusting me with this job, and believe me when I say I am 
> counting on all of you for your support and help in figuring out what 
> will happen on this group.  I expect it will be very challenging.
>
> I am asking Tapani to set up a mailing list for those interested in 
> discussing the issues as they arise, and I promise I will post 
> faithfully my impressions and concerns after every meeting. We can 
> test out the new improved communications I talked about during the 
> council elections campaign.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> On 2016-12-09 12:10, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I come back to you with the result of the selection process for the 
>> CCWG on auction proceeds. Stephanie Perrin will be our 
>> representative, with 8 votes from PC members. All other candidates 
>> had one vote each.
>>
>> Thanks, Stephanie, for agreeing to serve in such an important and 
>> challenging group. It would be good to put in practice the suggestion 
>> of creating an informal WG to give support to our representative.
>>
>> All the best
>> Marilia
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm 
>> <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>     All 4 candidates supported from my end.
>>
>>     Thank you
>>
>>     Poncelet
>>
>>     On 8 December 2016 at 17:35, Marilia Maciel
>>     <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Dear PC members, this is a quick reminder that the deadline
>>         to express your support for one of the four candidates to the
>>         CCWG on auction proceeds is *_today at 23:59 UTC_*.
>>         Thank you very much.
>>         Marilia
>>
>>         On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Marilia Maciel
>>         <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             Dear PC members,
>>
>>             We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction
>>             Proceeds CCWG and communicate our choice to the GNSO by
>>             end of day Friday December 9.
>>
>>
>>             There are four candidates:
>>
>>             Sonigitu Ekpe
>>
>>             Sam Lanfranco
>>
>>             Stephanie Perrin
>>
>>             Kris Seeberg
>>
>>             Their respective statements/responses to suggested
>>             questions are attached.
>>
>>             Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the
>>             PC list. If you are more comfortable sending the person's
>>             name to me AND Matthew Sheers directly, please feel free
>>             to do so.
>>
>>             *
>>             *
>>
>>             Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by
>>             23:59 UTC Thursday December 8th.
>>
>>
>>             Thanks and best wishes,
>>
>>             Marilia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>
>>         *Mar?lia Maciel*
>>         Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>>
>>         WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva -
>>         Switzerland
>>         *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 <tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632>
>>         *| *
>>         *Email*: _MariliaM at diplomacy.edu
>>         <mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu>____*|*__*Twitter*: __ at MariliaM_
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>     Coordinator
>>     The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>     MDI Road Kanifing South
>>     P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>     The Gambia, West Africa
>>     Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%20437-0240>
>>     Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%20439-0793>
>>     Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%20991-2508>
>>     Skype: pons_utd
>>     /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>>     http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>     www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>>     www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>
>>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>     http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>     <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>     /www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>     <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>>
>>     *
>>     *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *Mar?lia Maciel*
>> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>>
>> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
>> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 <tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> *| *
>> *Email*: _MariliaM at diplomacy.edu 
>> <mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu>____*|*__*Twitter*: __ at MariliaM_
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161209/057a9394/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Fri Dec  9 21:10:57 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:10:57 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
 deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <5ce05377-ec0e-37f7-a685-53d8cffe6637@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40tiO-YkWE0wyEpsaiS6q40S+yMLUyZu=w4K5K01vgpDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1+h_70p7CDxsYPMj0m2-a2HQaAPhmmjFt9CHhYW34h3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5ce05377-ec0e-37f7-a685-53d8cffe6637@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20161209191056.qeqmbnbkcw6lr7r2@roller.tarvainen.info>

On Dec 09 12:38, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> I am asking Tapani to set up a mailing list for those interested in
> discussing the issues as they arise

List created. To subscribe, go to

https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/auctionproceeds

and fill in your address as usual.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From t.tropina  Fri Dec  9 22:22:24 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:22:24 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC resignation
Message-ID: <d6b5423a-4a72-58b9-8ae3-7cfa0ebda9b1@mpicc.de>

Dear policy committee members,

it was wonderful to be on board for almost a year. However, since I was
elected for the European seat at the NCUC EC I have to resign from my
position of the NCUC elected representative. I see a clear conflict here
- NCUC PC representatives are appointed by EC. Even if it is possible to
wear two hats, I would rather like some new faces to join this committee
and get more involved in policy work. So I ask the PC to accept my
resignation.

Thanks to you all!

PS. I have no idea, whether I still can be an observer on this list...
If yes, would be awesome, if not, I am fine with this!

Warm regards,

Tanya




From stephanie.perrin  Fri Dec  9 23:17:30 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 16:17:30 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC resignation
In-Reply-To: <d6b5423a-4a72-58b9-8ae3-7cfa0ebda9b1@mpicc.de>
References: <d6b5423a-4a72-58b9-8ae3-7cfa0ebda9b1@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <02b4f047-816b-59c5-312e-4f83e7493ca6@mail.utoronto.ca>

I believe you can, and please do, we need you!

Stephanie


On 2016-12-09 15:22, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> Dear policy committee members,
>
> it was wonderful to be on board for almost a year. However, since I was
> elected for the European seat at the NCUC EC I have to resign from my
> position of the NCUC elected representative. I see a clear conflict here
> - NCUC PC representatives are appointed by EC. Even if it is possible to
> wear two hats, I would rather like some new faces to join this committee
> and get more involved in policy work. So I ask the PC to accept my
> resignation.
>
> Thanks to you all!
>
> PS. I have no idea, whether I still can be an observer on this list...
> If yes, would be awesome, if not, I am fine with this!
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Tanya
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161209/6e564505/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Fri Dec  9 23:44:00 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:44:00 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC resignation
In-Reply-To: <02b4f047-816b-59c5-312e-4f83e7493ca6@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <d6b5423a-4a72-58b9-8ae3-7cfa0ebda9b1@mpicc.de>
	<02b4f047-816b-59c5-312e-4f83e7493ca6@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20161209214359.a4i7o6pnbi2iwmxl@roller.tarvainen.info>

Remaining as an observer is certainly possible. NCSG Charter
says (2.5.1) 

"The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to participate as
observers."

Tapani

On Dec 09 16:17, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> I believe you can, and please do, we need you!
> 
> Stephanie
> 
> 
> On 2016-12-09 15:22, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> > Dear policy committee members,
> > 
> > it was wonderful to be on board for almost a year. However, since I was
> > elected for the European seat at the NCUC EC I have to resign from my
> > position of the NCUC elected representative. I see a clear conflict here
> > - NCUC PC representatives are appointed by EC. Even if it is possible to
> > wear two hats, I would rather like some new faces to join this committee
> > and get more involved in policy work. So I ask the PC to accept my
> > resignation.
> > 
> > Thanks to you all!
> > 
> > PS. I have no idea, whether I still can be an observer on this list...
> > If yes, would be awesome, if not, I am fine with this!
> > 
> > Warm regards,
> > 
> > Tanya



From aelsadr  Sat Dec 10 10:14:55 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:14:55 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
	deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1+h_70p7CDxsYPMj0m2-a2HQaAPhmmjFt9CHhYW34h3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40tiO-YkWE0wyEpsaiS6q40S+yMLUyZu=w4K5K01vgpDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1+h_70p7CDxsYPMj0m2-a2HQaAPhmmjFt9CHhYW34h3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAFD1303-9B77-4E3F-BBD4-65EFE800314C@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for getting this done. I just sent a note to the GNSO Council informing them of Stephanie?s appointment.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:10 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I come back to you with the result of the selection process for the CCWG on auction proceeds. Stephanie Perrin will be our representative, with 8 votes from PC members. All other candidates had one vote each. 
> 
> Thanks, Stephanie, for agreeing to serve in such an important and challenging group. It would be good to put in practice the suggestion of creating an informal WG to give support to our representative. 
> 
> All the best
> Marilia  
> 
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> All 4 candidates supported from my end.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Poncelet
> 
> On 8 December 2016 at 17:35, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear PC members, this is a quick reminder that the deadline to express your support for one of the four candidates to the CCWG on auction proceeds is today at 23:59 UTC. 
> Thank you very much.
> Marilia 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear PC members,
> 
>  
> We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9. 
> 
> 
> 
> There are four candidates:
> 
>  
> Sonigitu Ekpe
> 
> Sam Lanfranco
> 
> Stephanie Perrin
> 
> Kris Seeberg
> 
>  
> Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are attached.
> 
> Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If you are more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew Sheers directly, please feel free to do so. 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC Thursday December 8th.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks and best wishes,
> 
> 
> Marilia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> 
> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 | 
> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> www.waigf.org
> www,insistglobal.com
> www.npoc.org
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> 
> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 | 
> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Sat Dec 10 10:17:38 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:17:38 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC resignation
In-Reply-To: <20161209214359.a4i7o6pnbi2iwmxl@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <d6b5423a-4a72-58b9-8ae3-7cfa0ebda9b1@mpicc.de>
	<02b4f047-816b-59c5-312e-4f83e7493ca6@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161209214359.a4i7o6pnbi2iwmxl@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <0C24467C-25A5-4BD3-A96F-F2520CE1E625@egyptig.org>

Hi,

That?s right. In the past, I don?t believe we?ve unsubscribed former PC members.

In any case, it?s been great having you on the PC, Tatiana. Good luck on the EC, and looking forward to your replacement either with yourself or a new NCUC appointee.

Thanks, and best wishes.

Amr

> On Dec 9, 2016, at 11:44 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> Remaining as an observer is certainly possible. NCSG Charter
> says (2.5.1) 
> 
> "The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to participate as
> observers."
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Dec 09 16:17, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
> 
>> I believe you can, and please do, we need you!
>> 
>> Stephanie
>> 
>> 
>> On 2016-12-09 15:22, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>>> Dear policy committee members,
>>> 
>>> it was wonderful to be on board for almost a year. However, since I was
>>> elected for the European seat at the NCUC EC I have to resign from my
>>> position of the NCUC elected representative. I see a clear conflict here
>>> - NCUC PC representatives are appointed by EC. Even if it is possible to
>>> wear two hats, I would rather like some new faces to join this committee
>>> and get more involved in policy work. So I ask the PC to accept my
>>> resignation.
>>> 
>>> Thanks to you all!
>>> 
>>> PS. I have no idea, whether I still can be an observer on this list...
>>> If yes, would be awesome, if not, I am fine with this!
>>> 
>>> Warm regards,
>>> 
>>> Tanya
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Sat Dec 10 22:16:08 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 15:16:08 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
 deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <BAFD1303-9B77-4E3F-BBD4-65EFE800314C@egyptig.org>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40tiO-YkWE0wyEpsaiS6q40S+yMLUyZu=w4K5K01vgpDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1+h_70p7CDxsYPMj0m2-a2HQaAPhmmjFt9CHhYW34h3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAFD1303-9B77-4E3F-BBD4-65EFE800314C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <7dda746c-82a1-0b3b-93f1-2ec2a09ed197@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks AMr.  I am going to compile a little summary of what this whole 
thing is and send out to list to get folks to join the discussion group.

cheers SP


On 2016-12-10 03:14, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for getting this done. I just sent a note to the GNSO Council informing them of Stephanie?s appointment.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:10 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I come back to you with the result of the selection process for the CCWG on auction proceeds. Stephanie Perrin will be our representative, with 8 votes from PC members. All other candidates had one vote each.
>>
>> Thanks, Stephanie, for agreeing to serve in such an important and challenging group. It would be good to put in practice the suggestion of creating an informal WG to give support to our representative.
>>
>> All the best
>> Marilia
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> All 4 candidates supported from my end.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Poncelet
>>
>> On 8 December 2016 at 17:35, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear PC members, this is a quick reminder that the deadline to express your support for one of the four candidates to the CCWG on auction proceeds is today at 23:59 UTC.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Marilia
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear PC members,
>>
>>   
>> We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are four candidates:
>>
>>   
>> Sonigitu Ekpe
>>
>> Sam Lanfranco
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> Kris Seeberg
>>
>>   
>> Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are attached.
>>
>> Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If you are more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew Sheers directly, please feel free to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC Thursday December 8th.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and best wishes,
>>
>>
>> Marilia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Mar?lia Maciel
>> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>>
>> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
>> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 |
>> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>> Skype: pons_utd
>> www.ymca.gm
>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>> www.waigf.org
>> www,insistglobal.com
>> www.npoc.org
>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Mar?lia Maciel
>> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>>
>> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
>> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 |
>> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20161210/0afcfcec/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Sat Dec 10 23:13:47 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:13:47 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds -
 deadline Dec 8
In-Reply-To: <7dda746c-82a1-0b3b-93f1-2ec2a09ed197@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CACpVkK2mONqYAoFUdggUidVECSMReLbLU6S6AdD+ZtBYydhM_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3scPvnEyLKaMtYu16JB6A1X6aVQGS=j0sUcTA=H24miQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40tiO-YkWE0wyEpsaiS6q40S+yMLUyZu=w4K5K01vgpDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1+h_70p7CDxsYPMj0m2-a2HQaAPhmmjFt9CHhYW34h3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAFD1303-9B77-4E3F-BBD4-65EFE800314C@egyptig.org>,
	<7dda746c-82a1-0b3b-93f1-2ec2a09ed197@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521EDAAD24FC55E1BB819F3F7860@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I am in and happy to support Steph :-)

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Inviato: sabato 10 dicembre 2016 21.16.08
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Urgent: selection for new gTLD Auction Proceeds - deadline Dec 8

Thanks AMr.  I am going to compile a little summary of what this whole thing is and send out to list to get folks to join the discussion group.

cheers SP

On 2016-12-10 03:14, Amr Elsadr wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for getting this done. I just sent a note to the GNSO Council informing them of Stephanie?s appointment.

Thanks again.

Amr



On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:10 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM><mailto:mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

Dear all,

I come back to you with the result of the selection process for the CCWG on auction proceeds. Stephanie Perrin will be our representative, with 8 votes from PC members. All other candidates had one vote each.

Thanks, Stephanie, for agreeing to serve in such an important and challenging group. It would be good to put in practice the suggestion of creating an informal WG to give support to our representative.

All the best
Marilia

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm><mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

All 4 candidates supported from my end.

Thank you

Poncelet

On 8 December 2016 at 17:35, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com><mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
Dear PC members, this is a quick reminder that the deadline to express your support for one of the four candidates to the CCWG on auction proceeds is today at 23:59 UTC.
Thank you very much.
Marilia

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com><mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
Dear PC members,


We have to select a member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG and communicate our choice to the GNSO by end of day Friday December 9.



There are four candidates:


Sonigitu Ekpe

Sam Lanfranco

Stephanie Perrin

Kris Seeberg


Their respective statements/responses to suggested questions are attached.

Please send the name of your preferred candidate to the PC list. If you are more comfortable sending the person's name to me AND Matthew Sheers directly, please feel free to do so.



Given the timeline please communicate your preferences by 23:59 UTC Thursday December 8th.



Thanks and best wishes,


Marilia






--

Mar?lia Maciel
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 |
Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:MariliaM at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter: @MariliaM



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




--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm>
http://jokkolabs.net/en/
www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org>
www,insistglobal.com
www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org>
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>







--

Mar?lia Maciel
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 |
Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:MariliaM at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter: @MariliaM


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




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



The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From Stefania.Milan  Mon Dec 12 15:52:11 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:52:11 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and budget
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear PC members
hope you have all safely returned from Mexico.
Last Saturday Ed and I managed to submit a public comment to the draft PTI FY18 operating plan and budget, which I enclose below.
Notwithstanding the best intentions, we ended up working on this last minute, submitting it right on deadline --which meant no time to run it by the PC.
We do hope however that the PC will decide to support it so that we can notify staff accordingly.
All the best, Stefania and Ed


----
COMMENT ON DRAFT PTI FY18 OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET

We welcome this opportunity to comment on the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). A California public benefit corporation (entity number C3933089), the PTI is a corporate affiliate of ICANN (California entity number C2121683) whose stated function, to provide IANA services on behalf of ICANN, in certain circumstances is to be capable of separation from ICANN (see generally, articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws). As we review the PTI Operating Plan and Budget we question whether the PTI?s dependence upon ICANN is so extreme that it may better be viewed as a division of ICANN rather than as an affiliate--that is to say, a separate corporation controlled by ICANN, as it is supposed to be. We would encourage more separation between the two entities to bolster public confidence in the integrity of the transition and to improve overall accountability.

Independence from ICANN and accountability of the PTI. Concerning more specifically the budget, we note that the grand total, including support services, of the PTI operational budget shows that a majority of budgeted items are either shared costs or ICANN support service allocations attributed to the PTI: $5,000,000 of the PTI?s $9,600,000 operational budget consist of costs shared with ICANN or are support services provided to the PTI by ICANN. The $2,800,000 in support services provided to PTI by ICANN is particularly troublesome. We would prefer PTI to develop into an entity capable of providing most of its operational capabilities independently or, at the very least, openly shared with ICANN. The PTI should not be dependent upon staff employed exclusively by ICANN to function.

As an example, we have become aware of the status of the Ombudsman with PTI. The Ombudsman provides his services on a contractual basis to ICANN; he is not an ICANN employee. Our understanding is that he will be providing his services to PTI as well, when or if needed, through his contract with ICANN. This is wrong. The Ombudsman should be independently and directly contracted by PTI for any services he shall undertake for the company, in order to safeguard its independent role. The same holds true for any other independent contractor, particularly those providing professional services.

Caretaker Budget. We also express our concern over the establishment of the initial Caretaker Budget by the ICANN Chief Financial Officer for FY18 without prior consultation with the community regarding vision and priorities. While we understand that this budget might largely retrace the proposed budget for the operation of the IANA Services and not much flexibility may be possible here, we would like to observe that the Caretaker Budget comes into use only if the community rejects the proposed budget itself. It makes little sense for the Caretaker IANA Budget to be identical to the budget which has been rejected by the community.

We recognize that this initial Caretaker Budget proposal may be a result of FY18 being the first full budgetary cycle for the PTI. As such, as a matter of good faith and form, we suggest that the Caretaker Budget proposed for FY18 be submitted to both the GNSO Council and CCNSO Council for feedback and approval. These two groups have enhanced status with regards the PTI (see, for example, section 19.1.b.2 of the ICANN Bylaws), and if the PTI budget were to be rejected by the Empowered Community the legitimacy of the initial Caretaker Budget would be enhanced by prior approval of the GNSO and CCNSO.

As to the specifics of the proposed Operating Plan and Budget:

1.We note that travel and meeting expenses are slated to rise 42.3% from FY17 to FY18  due to money budgeted for three Board meetings per annum as well as ?incremental? community engagement. Given the rather limited remit of the PTI, can we be assured this budgeted amount is not expected to escalate so rapidly in coming years?
2.Following from the above, we notice that no specific outreach efforts are mentioned in the document and no further indication of their overall purpose, target and content is provided. We wonder what outreach activities are the PTI planning, and what professional figure within PTI will be in charge of planning said activities.
3.The same goes for the community engagement activities. We wonder whether PTI will have the ability to create its own community engagement strategy, or whether this will be derived from ICANN?s.
4.Merit awards for existing employees are responsible for an increase of $200,000 in personnel costs in FY18 from the FY17 baseline. With a staff FTE of just 22.6 this seems to be rather generous. Would you please be more specific about the merit rewards program (i.e. basis of rewards, spread amongst x number of employees etc.)?
5.An additional $70,000 is budgeted for outside legal expenses in FY18. We find that surprising given that FY17 costs incurred for setting up the PTI as a legal entity were presumably one time expenses. Would you please help us understand the basis for this increased budgeted cost, the total amount budgeted for external legal expenses in FY18, the reasons it is anticipated these costs will be incurred? We would also like to know whether PTI automatically contracts with ICANN?s external counsel, or whether it retains the ability to select its own external provider of legal services?


Respectfully,

Edward Morris
Stefania Milan
GNSO Councillors
Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From stephanie.perrin  Mon Dec 12 16:58:18 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:58:18 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and
 budget
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks for doing this guys!  Looks good to me, I endorse.

Steph


On 2016-12-12 08:52, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> Dear PC members
> hope you have all safely returned from Mexico.
> Last Saturday Ed and I managed to submit a public comment to the draft PTI FY18 operating plan and budget, which I enclose below.
> Notwithstanding the best intentions, we ended up working on this last minute, submitting it right on deadline --which meant no time to run it by the PC.
> We do hope however that the PC will decide to support it so that we can notify staff accordingly.
> All the best, Stefania and Ed
>
>
> ----
> COMMENT ON DRAFT PTI FY18 OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET
>
> We welcome this opportunity to comment on the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). A California public benefit corporation (entity number C3933089), the PTI is a corporate affiliate of ICANN (California entity number C2121683) whose stated function, to provide IANA services on behalf of ICANN, in certain circumstances is to be capable of separation from ICANN (see generally, articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws). As we review the PTI Operating Plan and Budget we question whether the PTI?s dependence upon ICANN is so extreme that it may better be viewed as a division of ICANN rather than as an affiliate--that is to say, a separate corporation controlled by ICANN, as it is supposed to be. We would encourage more separation between the two entities to bolster public confidence in the integrity of the transition and to improve overall accountability.
>
> Independence from ICANN and accountability of the PTI. Concerning more specifically the budget, we note that the grand total, including support services, of the PTI operational budget shows that a majority of budgeted items are either shared costs or ICANN support service allocations attributed to the PTI: $5,000,000 of the PTI?s $9,600,000 operational budget consist of costs shared with ICANN or are support services provided to the PTI by ICANN. The $2,800,000 in support services provided to PTI by ICANN is particularly troublesome. We would prefer PTI to develop into an entity capable of providing most of its operational capabilities independently or, at the very least, openly shared with ICANN. The PTI should not be dependent upon staff employed exclusively by ICANN to function.
>
> As an example, we have become aware of the status of the Ombudsman with PTI. The Ombudsman provides his services on a contractual basis to ICANN; he is not an ICANN employee. Our understanding is that he will be providing his services to PTI as well, when or if needed, through his contract with ICANN. This is wrong. The Ombudsman should be independently and directly contracted by PTI for any services he shall undertake for the company, in order to safeguard its independent role. The same holds true for any other independent contractor, particularly those providing professional services.
>
> Caretaker Budget. We also express our concern over the establishment of the initial Caretaker Budget by the ICANN Chief Financial Officer for FY18 without prior consultation with the community regarding vision and priorities. While we understand that this budget might largely retrace the proposed budget for the operation of the IANA Services and not much flexibility may be possible here, we would like to observe that the Caretaker Budget comes into use only if the community rejects the proposed budget itself. It makes little sense for the Caretaker IANA Budget to be identical to the budget which has been rejected by the community.
>
> We recognize that this initial Caretaker Budget proposal may be a result of FY18 being the first full budgetary cycle for the PTI. As such, as a matter of good faith and form, we suggest that the Caretaker Budget proposed for FY18 be submitted to both the GNSO Council and CCNSO Council for feedback and approval. These two groups have enhanced status with regards the PTI (see, for example, section 19.1.b.2 of the ICANN Bylaws), and if the PTI budget were to be rejected by the Empowered Community the legitimacy of the initial Caretaker Budget would be enhanced by prior approval of the GNSO and CCNSO.
>
> As to the specifics of the proposed Operating Plan and Budget:
>
> 1.We note that travel and meeting expenses are slated to rise 42.3% from FY17 to FY18  due to money budgeted for three Board meetings per annum as well as ?incremental? community engagement. Given the rather limited remit of the PTI, can we be assured this budgeted amount is not expected to escalate so rapidly in coming years?
> 2.Following from the above, we notice that no specific outreach efforts are mentioned in the document and no further indication of their overall purpose, target and content is provided. We wonder what outreach activities are the PTI planning, and what professional figure within PTI will be in charge of planning said activities.
> 3.The same goes for the community engagement activities. We wonder whether PTI will have the ability to create its own community engagement strategy, or whether this will be derived from ICANN?s.
> 4.Merit awards for existing employees are responsible for an increase of $200,000 in personnel costs in FY18 from the FY17 baseline. With a staff FTE of just 22.6 this seems to be rather generous. Would you please be more specific about the merit rewards program (i.e. basis of rewards, spread amongst x number of employees etc.)?
> 5.An additional $70,000 is budgeted for outside legal expenses in FY18. We find that surprising given that FY17 costs incurred for setting up the PTI as a legal entity were presumably one time expenses. Would you please help us understand the basis for this increased budgeted cost, the total amount budgeted for external legal expenses in FY18, the reasons it is anticipated these costs will be incurred? We would also like to know whether PTI automatically contracts with ICANN?s external counsel, or whether it retains the ability to select its own external provider of legal services?
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Edward Morris
> Stefania Milan
> GNSO Councillors
> Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161212/5c857224/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Mon Dec 12 17:27:14 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:27:14 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and
 budget
In-Reply-To: <031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>

Agreed.

Tapani

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:58:18AM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> Thanks for doing this guys!  Looks good to me, I endorse.
> 
> Steph
> 
> 
> On 2016-12-12 08:52, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> > Dear PC members
> > hope you have all safely returned from Mexico.
> > Last Saturday Ed and I managed to submit a public comment to the draft PTI FY18 operating plan and budget, which I enclose below.
> > Notwithstanding the best intentions, we ended up working on this last minute, submitting it right on deadline --which meant no time to run it by the PC.
> > We do hope however that the PC will decide to support it so that we can notify staff accordingly.
> > All the best, Stefania and Ed
> > 
> > 
> > ----
> > COMMENT ON DRAFT PTI FY18 OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET
> > 
> > We welcome this opportunity to comment on the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). A California public benefit corporation (entity number C3933089), the PTI is a corporate affiliate of ICANN (California entity number C2121683) whose stated function, to provide IANA services on behalf of ICANN, in certain circumstances is to be capable of separation from ICANN (see generally, articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws). As we review the PTI Operating Plan and Budget we question whether the PTI?s dependence upon ICANN is so extreme that it may better be viewed as a division of ICANN rather than as an affiliate--that is to say, a separate corporation controlled by ICANN, as it is supposed to be. We would encourage more separation between the two entities to bolster public confidence in the integrity of the transition and to improve overall accountability.
> > 
> > Independence from ICANN and accountability of the PTI. Concerning more specifically the budget, we note that the grand total, including support services, of the PTI operational budget shows that a majority of budgeted items are either shared costs or ICANN support service allocations attributed to the PTI: $5,000,000 of the PTI?s $9,600,000 operational budget consist of costs shared with ICANN or are support services provided to the PTI by ICANN. The $2,800,000 in support services provided to PTI by ICANN is particularly troublesome. We would prefer PTI to develop into an entity capable of providing most of its operational capabilities independently or, at the very least, openly shared with ICANN. The PTI should not be dependent upon staff employed exclusively by ICANN to function.
> > 
> > As an example, we have become aware of the status of the Ombudsman with PTI. The Ombudsman provides his services on a contractual basis to ICANN; he is not an ICANN employee. Our understanding is that he will be providing his services to PTI as well, when or if needed, through his contract with ICANN. This is wrong. The Ombudsman should be independently and directly contracted by PTI for any services he shall undertake for the company, in order to safeguard its independent role. The same holds true for any other independent contractor, particularly those providing professional services.
> > 
> > Caretaker Budget. We also express our concern over the establishment of the initial Caretaker Budget by the ICANN Chief Financial Officer for FY18 without prior consultation with the community regarding vision and priorities. While we understand that this budget might largely retrace the proposed budget for the operation of the IANA Services and not much flexibility may be possible here, we would like to observe that the Caretaker Budget comes into use only if the community rejects the proposed budget itself. It makes little sense for the Caretaker IANA Budget to be identical to the budget which has been rejected by the community.
> > 
> > We recognize that this initial Caretaker Budget proposal may be a result of FY18 being the first full budgetary cycle for the PTI. As such, as a matter of good faith and form, we suggest that the Caretaker Budget proposed for FY18 be submitted to both the GNSO Council and CCNSO Council for feedback and approval. These two groups have enhanced status with regards the PTI (see, for example, section 19.1.b.2 of the ICANN Bylaws), and if the PTI budget were to be rejected by the Empowered Community the legitimacy of the initial Caretaker Budget would be enhanced by prior approval of the GNSO and CCNSO.
> > 
> > As to the specifics of the proposed Operating Plan and Budget:
> > 
> > 1.We note that travel and meeting expenses are slated to rise 42.3% from FY17 to FY18  due to money budgeted for three Board meetings per annum as well as ?incremental? community engagement. Given the rather limited remit of the PTI, can we be assured this budgeted amount is not expected to escalate so rapidly in coming years?
> > 2.Following from the above, we notice that no specific outreach efforts are mentioned in the document and no further indication of their overall purpose, target and content is provided. We wonder what outreach activities are the PTI planning, and what professional figure within PTI will be in charge of planning said activities.
> > 3.The same goes for the community engagement activities. We wonder whether PTI will have the ability to create its own community engagement strategy, or whether this will be derived from ICANN?s.
> > 4.Merit awards for existing employees are responsible for an increase of $200,000 in personnel costs in FY18 from the FY17 baseline. With a staff FTE of just 22.6 this seems to be rather generous. Would you please be more specific about the merit rewards program (i.e. basis of rewards, spread amongst x number of employees etc.)?
> > 5.An additional $70,000 is budgeted for outside legal expenses in FY18. We find that surprising given that FY17 costs incurred for setting up the PTI as a legal entity were presumably one time expenses. Would you please help us understand the basis for this increased budgeted cost, the total amount budgeted for external legal expenses in FY18, the reasons it is anticipated these costs will be incurred? We would also like to know whether PTI automatically contracts with ICANN?s external counsel, or whether it retains the ability to select its own external provider of legal services?
> > 
> > 
> > Respectfully,
> > 
> > Edward Morris
> > Stefania Milan
> > GNSO Councillors
> > Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> > 
> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

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


-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From stephanie.perrin  Tue Dec 13 03:00:18 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 20:00:18 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] for Maryam
Message-ID: <18b0df60-7597-f7c0-0034-4c5d0ea8c3a4@mail.utoronto.ca>

Some of you may be aware that Maryam Bakoshi is on family leave.  Her 
mother has died, and on your behalf (NCSG) I sent flowers today.

Those who wish to help contribute can see me at our next meeting.

cheers

Stephanie Perrin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161212/29048a2e/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Tue Dec 13 14:00:31 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:00:31 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] for Maryam
In-Reply-To: <18b0df60-7597-f7c0-0034-4c5d0ea8c3a4@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <18b0df60-7597-f7c0-0034-4c5d0ea8c3a4@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAEux40vBhndDzb4i++9RQRd1o5s1HnAJivdJgsmoD_PufjkC5w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for sharing Stephanie,

May the good Lord guide Maryam and her family on the loss of her mother,
my  condolences to her.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 13 December 2016 at 02:00, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Some of you may be aware that Maryam Bakoshi is on family leave.  Her
> mother has died, and on your behalf (NCSG) I sent flowers today.
>
> Those who wish to help contribute can see me at our next meeting.
>
> cheers
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161213/87319f9e/attachment.html>


From mshears  Tue Dec 13 15:36:32 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:36:32 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] for Maryam
In-Reply-To: <18b0df60-7597-f7c0-0034-4c5d0ea8c3a4@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <18b0df60-7597-f7c0-0034-4c5d0ea8c3a4@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <b57208c5-74e1-0f7d-d89c-c32aa7546fea@cdt.org>

Thanks so much for organizing Stephanie.


On 12/12/2016 20:00, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Some of you may be aware that Maryam Bakoshi is on family leave.  Her 
> mother has died, and on your behalf (NCSG) I sent flowers today.
>
> Those who wish to help contribute can see me at our next meeting.
>
> cheers
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161213/3b5bd333/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Tue Dec 13 15:37:23 2016
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:37:23 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] for Maryam
In-Reply-To: <b57208c5-74e1-0f7d-d89c-c32aa7546fea@cdt.org>
References: <18b0df60-7597-f7c0-0034-4c5d0ea8c3a4@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<b57208c5-74e1-0f7d-d89c-c32aa7546fea@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <4103DEB6-21CB-4969-B71F-A4D24B525C13@gmail.com>

+1

Bill

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 14:36, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks so much for organizing Stephanie.
> 
> On 12/12/2016 20:00, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Some of you may be aware that Maryam Bakoshi is on family leave.  Her mother has died, and on your behalf (NCSG) I sent flowers today. 
>> 
>> Those who wish to help contribute can see me at our next meeting.
>> 
>> cheers 
>> 
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161213/670316cc/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Tue Dec 13 17:23:47 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:23:47 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] for Maryam
In-Reply-To: <4103DEB6-21CB-4969-B71F-A4D24B525C13@gmail.com>
References: <18b0df60-7597-f7c0-0034-4c5d0ea8c3a4@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<b57208c5-74e1-0f7d-d89c-c32aa7546fea@cdt.org>,
	<4103DEB6-21CB-4969-B71F-A4D24B525C13@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB52160E282831266DD8D869FF79B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Thanks Stephanie for taking care of this. Stefi

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Inviato: marted? 13 dicembre 2016 14.37.23
A: Matt Shears
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] for Maryam

+1

Bill

On Dec 13, 2016, at 14:36, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:


Thanks so much for organizing Stephanie.

On 12/12/2016 20:00, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

Some of you may be aware that Maryam Bakoshi is on family leave.  Her mother has died, and on your behalf (NCSG) I sent flowers today.

Those who wish to help contribute can see me at our next meeting.

cheers

Stephanie Perrin



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



--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

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

************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org>
************************************************


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From egmorris1  Tue Dec 13 19:11:41 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:11:41 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointments Policy
Message-ID: <24070f49ff6b4a7fb27361e70da4046a@toast.net>

Hello everybody,
  
 ?During the Council meeting in Hyderabad,  Susan Kawaguchi of the Business Constituency  and myself were tasked with the job of developing a standardised appointments procedure for the GNSO. I am pleased to report that we've completed our work and within the past hour have submitted our plan to GNSO Council Chair James Baldel. I have attached a copy of our proposal for your consideration. 
  
 I'm proud of what we've come up with. It is a document full of compromises but I do believe it is a proposal that protects the interests of the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC and will generate GNSO appointments of the highest quality. Among the highlights: 
  
  
 ?- A standing GNSO Selection Committee, one whose composition reflects the diversity of the GNSO, which shall serve as the coordinating body for the appointment process. 
  
 ?- A procedure which encourages the largest number of possible candidates from all parts of the GNSO, combined with a ranking system designed to ensure merit based selection in combination with a rotation system ensuring equal representation amongst the Stakeholder Groups for Review Team appointments. 
  
 ?-A comprehensive appointments procedure designed both for Review Team appointments (section II) and any other appointments (section 111) the GNSO Council may be asked to make. No more ad hoc processes. 
  
 -An unqualified commitment to transparency in the process. No longer will applications go into a "black box" and come out with selections made on an unknown basis from an unknown pool of candidates. Unless otherwise directed by Council, the entire appointments process will be fully open and transparent. 
  
 ?There was one area Susan and I were not able to come to an agreement on: the composition of the GNSO Selection Committee. I preferred a committee consisting of the GNSO Council Chair and one member selected from each Stakeholder Group. Susan preferred a committee consisting of the GNSO Council Chair and one member of each Constituency and Stakeholder Group. We agreed to put this decision to the full Council where I trust RySG and RrSG will join what I hope will be our position in supporting Stakeholder Group based appointments. 
  
 I regret the I will be unable to join you on the call tonight or or the full Council meeting on Thursday. As many of you know, I've asked the NCSG EC to appoint a Temporary Alternate to replace me on Council for the next few weeks. I have a few minor medical procedures I'm scheduled to undergo in hospital  and unfortunately the National Health Service has schedule them for this week and for the week of our January call. I hope to rejoin all of you as soon as I can. This leave will not impact any of my other activity in ICANN and I certainly expect to be active, as required, between the calls. 
  
 In he interim, I'm more than happy to answer any questions anyone may have about this proposal. I do not know when it will be scheduled for Council consideration, but I did want to let everyone know the result of our work and to give you time to consider our work. 
  
 Kind Regards, 
  
 Edward Morris  
  
  
  
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161213/cfdc5b51/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APPOINTMENTS PROCEDURE (FINAL).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 119084 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161213/cfdc5b51/attachment-0001.docx>


From avri  Tue Dec 13 22:35:35 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:35:35 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointments Policy
In-Reply-To: <24070f49ff6b4a7fb27361e70da4046a@toast.net>
References: <24070f49ff6b4a7fb27361e70da4046a@toast.net>
Message-ID: <08862045-10ab-a0bb-e012-5e7baa49a1eb@apc.org>

Hi,


On 13-Dec-16 12:11, Edward Morris wrote:
> ? There was one area Susan and I were not able to come to an agreement
> on: the composition of the GNSO Selection Committee. I preferred
> a committee consisting of the GNSO Council Chair and one member
> selected from each Stakeholder Group. Susan preferred a committee
> consisting of the GNSO Council Chair and one member of each
> Constituency and Stakeholder Group. We agreed to put this decision to
> the full Council where I trust RySG and RrSG will join what I hope
> will be our position in supporting Stakeholder Group based appointments.

If we go the way of a bigger selection team, should be the same number
from each SG.  If they want 3 from their SG, then each SG gets 3.

just a thought,
avri


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




From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 14 06:18:19 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:18:19 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointments Policy
In-Reply-To: <24070f49ff6b4a7fb27361e70da4046a@toast.net>
References: <24070f49ff6b4a7fb27361e70da4046a@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThncrne4+tMbSRaXVjcQf6jA_NuenwakSQdaxigqdob1NQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

Thanks for this,
quick questions:
- can you please give more clarification about the idea of rotation and
what is the rationale behind that? any specific use case?the SG don't have
a guarantee to get one of their nominees to be selected for RT?
- for ranking and operating procedures, will the committee set for every
selection process those details i.e. they can be changed every time?
- with regard to call for applications, currently it is not managed by the
council but the staff working on the reviews.

Best,

Rafik


2016-12-14 2:11 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hello everybody,
>
> ?During the Council meeting in Hyderabad,  Susan Kawaguchi of the
> Business Constituency  and myself were tasked with the job of developing
> a standardised appointments procedure for the GNSO. I am pleased to report
> that we've completed our work and within the past hour have submitted our
> plan to GNSO Council Chair James Baldel. I have attached a copy of our
> proposal for your consideration.
>
> I'm proud of what we've come up with. It is a document full of compromises
> but I do believe it is a proposal that protects the interests of the NCSG,
> NCUC and NPOC and will generate GNSO appointments of the highest quality.
> Among the highlights:
>
>
> ?- A standing GNSO Selection Committee, one whose composition reflects the
> diversity of the GNSO, which shall serve as the coordinating body for
> the appointment process.
>
> ?- A procedure which encourages the largest number of possible candidates
> from all parts of the GNSO, combined with a ranking system designed to
> ensure merit based selection in combination with a rotation system ensuring
> equal representation amongst the Stakeholder Groups for Review Team
> appointments.
>
> ?-A comprehensive appointments procedure designed both for Review Team
> appointments (section II) and any other appointments (section 111) the GNSO
> Council may be asked to make. No more ad hoc processes.
>
> -An unqualified commitment to transparency in the process. No longer will
> applications go into a "black box" and come out with selections made on
> an unknown basis from an unknown pool of candidates. Unless otherwise
> directed by Council, the entire appointments process will be fully open and
> transparent.
>
> ?There was one area Susan and I were not able to come to an agreement on:
> the composition of the GNSO Selection Committee. I preferred
> a committee consisting of the GNSO Council Chair and one member selected
> from each Stakeholder Group. Susan preferred a committee consisting of the
> GNSO Council Chair and one member of each Constituency and Stakeholder
> Group. We agreed to put this decision to the full Council where I trust
> RySG and RrSG will join what I hope will be our position in supporting
> Stakeholder Group based appointments.
>
> I regret the I will be unable to join you on the call tonight or or the
> full Council meeting on Thursday. As many of you know, I've asked the NCSG
> EC to appoint a Temporary Alternate to replace me on Council for the next
> few weeks. I have a few minor medical procedures I'm scheduled to undergo
> in hospital  and unfortunately the National Health Service has schedule
> them for this week and for the week of our January call. I hope to rejoin
> all of you as soon as I can. This leave will not impact any of my other
> activity in ICANN and I certainly expect to be active, as required, between
> the calls.
>
> In he interim, I'm more than happy to answer any questions anyone may have
> about this proposal. I do not know when it will be scheduled for Council
> consideration, but I did want to let everyone know the result of our work
> and to give you time to consider our work.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Edward Morris
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161214/d7e623f3/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 14 09:00:17 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:00:17 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Proposed_Consultati?=
	=?utf-8?q?on_Response_-_Proposal_for_Lao_Script_Root_Zone=E2=80=AC?=
	=?utf-8?q?_Label_Generation_Rules_=28LGR=29?=
In-Reply-To: <VupL4Hefy0FxJkHoFM_3TgppTod3CjVQiZ7ajl6mQdf0eixckGae8tH8KTUYNwCsb8QPRLxeB9CWlmJY15cCriK2KOwVhsoZcbZQOnhZg9Q=@ferdeline.com>
References: <3t5RJY3vKw59HAOBlOrd1jpvfR3TRsQ72JYKmg_J11-VesCGBbDBppk-643cYSHDK76eo6ipC1RVvKRU41Rvxyr3WJFQH_JXiJxAJF1lE38=@ferdeline.com>
	<20161202103033.pkrkarh4ptrif2k2@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<U0p2dkglLa3LGHK3vdxyMh90Jo3OMA7NKsXeljwLtVKFDJt08pK83a4fBxHxYR-9brb5ynYCqLkPDiRMPD2WTSfMRYqL3Aei8SIELcKTeOw=@ferdeline.com>
	<InkZAz3pXaN7R4cYxKq1MQILAbSxDxj6ZkxlpdzakctxTq023zZ3okmbW1fO6Og5MWRc2vF_7PwQRtzqpiZlUdZGCIk2RjpNsmAuab6C8Nw=@ferdeline.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521477938BD53F4885D199BF7860@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<uL7s96CL19pavjwQY2ZTKgoh51uKj6j3qGW1elUN8AJ4ZPZ_tsdAXkajuz4BtEUJpiHWfU6Z06J9MsMOUco_8w7tg6st7IHkDTlddTRDR2o=@ferdeline.com>
	<VupL4Hefy0FxJkHoFM_3TgppTod3CjVQiZ7ajl6mQdf0eixckGae8tH8KTUYNwCsb8QPRLxeB9CWlmJY15cCriK2KOwVhsoZcbZQOnhZg9Q=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmE1HC5rDV0RS+rvNOw52d3HFjiokoGjKsp2j2Q9Jr3KQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

we got another request for endorsment for public comment. the draft was
discussed in NCSG list and some edits were done in response.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Date: 2016-12-14 15:52 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for
Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu


I am unable to post to the Policy Committee's list, as I am not a member.
Could someone who is please ask the Policy Committee if they support the
ratification of the attached statement? Sorry to be unable to join the PC's
call last night and to ask myself - the call completely slipped my mind.
Thank you.

Ayden F?rdeline
linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:27 PM
UTC Time: 10 December 2016 23:27
From: icann at ferdeline.com
To: "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU>
NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Thanks for this feedback, Stefania. It is very useful. Taking into account
your suggestions I have reworded the consultation response slightly. There
are now just under 30 minutes until the consultation period ends, and I'm
about to board a plane, so I'm going to submit this comment with a small
note that it has not yet been endorsed by the NCSG Policy Committee but has
been reviewed by three members of the Policy Committee. If the PC is
comfortable supporting this statement after it is submitted, that is
brilliant ? if not, it will be my personal remarks. I trust this will be
okay.

*The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
other scripts such as Thai, and we trust that a comprehensive mitigation
plan to avoid said confusion will be in place at the time of
implementation. Thank you again for inviting our input on your work. We are
grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our views. As you move
forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your
progress.*

Ayden F?rdeline
linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
Local Time: 10 December 2016 3:12 PM
UTC Time: 10 December 2016 21:12
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Thanks Ayden for doing this. It is greatly appreciated.
One minor point: would it be possible to make concrete suggestions towards
a "comprehensive mitigation plan"? Just asking, I wouldn't have a clue
myself. I realize that this is last minute, though, and that what I suggest
might require more work...
Either way, I personally (also as a member of the NCSG Policy Committee)
support the submission of this public comment on support of our stakeholder
group.
Thanks again!
Best, Stefania

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> per conto di Ayden
F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
Inviato: sabato 10 dicembre 2016 18.50.06
A: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Oggetto: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)

Hi all, please find attached a new draft of this consultation response (the
text which has changed is in bold for emphasis). Feedback is welcomed:
The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
other scripts, however we would encourage the creation of a more
comprehensive mitigation plan. Thank you again for inviting our input on
your work. We are grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our
views. As you move forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG
updated on your progress.

Best wishes,

Ayden F?rdeline
linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:38 AM
UTC Time: 10 December 2016 17:38
From: icann at ferdeline.com
To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>,
pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>

Tapani, hi-

Thanks for this feedback. I am just rushing to board a flight to Dallas, so
thought I might quickly send through a revised consultation response. The
only difference here is the addition of the sentence in bold, which I hope
addresses the legitimate concerns that you raised. Do you think this is
adequate? Please note that comments on this consultation close in 12 hours
time, so I am also c/c'ing the Policy Committee into this email in the
hopes that it may still be possible to lodge this response, provided it is
suitable and addresses your concerns (and the concerns of others in the
NCSG).

The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We offer,
however, one word of caution: we encourage the creation of a comprehensive
mitigation plan with measures to avoid consumer confusion where there are
visually similar marks between the Lao script and other scripts. Thank you
again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we
ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.

Best wishes,

Ayden F?rdeline
linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
Local Time: 2 December 2016 4:30 AM
UTC Time: 2 December 2016 10:30
From: ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Hi Ayden,

Thanks for picking this up. I'm looking at the proposal waiting
for next flight towards Mexico, upon very quick reading it seems
pretty good but a few things caught my eye.

First, the diphthong treatment: it would seem to leave room for
potential confusion by allowing same word to appear in multiple
different forms.

Now I've forgotten all of the 20 or so words of Lao I once knew and
don't really know if that's a real danger (are there any Lao speakers
among us?), but we might want to flag that in some way.

I was also looking for a mention of Lao numerals, didn't see any,
not sure if it could be an issue (and too tired to recall or google
how other variants of Arabic numerals have been treated).

Another thing I found interesting struck is the analysis of
cross-script variants: I'm not quite sure their conclusion to avoid
defining any simply because Thai and Lao code points cannot be mixed
in a label sufficient - again I'd need a Lao or at least Thai speaker
to confirm my suspicion but I could imagine an acronym that'd be
confusingly similar with some font.

Lacking real expertise I'm not suggesting explicit criticism of any of
those points, but perhaps language that flags them and commends the
Lao GP for considering them and noting that such issues are in general
important and merit thoroughness might work.

--
Tapani Tarvainen


On Dec 01 08:37, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:

> Greetings all,
>
> I have drafted a brief consultation response on behalf of the NCSG in
relation to the [Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules](
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en) (LGR).
Comments can be submitted until 10 December. I consider the proposal to be
very reasonable and not controversial, so I was thinking we could submit
the following message of support:
>
>
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. Thank you
again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we
ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
>
>
> You can read the consultation documents in full here:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en
>
> Please feel free to edit my statement, especially if you think I have
overlooked something. I will forward whatever materials we have to the NCSG
Policy Committee to consider submitting on behalf of the NCSG on 5
December, to give them a few days to contemplate submission. Thanks!
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
<http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline%5D(http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)>



The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/b4a51297/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG-Comment-Lao.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34969 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/b4a51297/attachment-0001.pdf>


From mariliamaciel  Wed Dec 14 13:19:17 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 05:19:17 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] for Maryam
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB52160E282831266DD8D869FF79B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <18b0df60-7597-f7c0-0034-4c5d0ea8c3a4@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<b57208c5-74e1-0f7d-d89c-c32aa7546fea@cdt.org>
	<4103DEB6-21CB-4969-B71F-A4D24B525C13@gmail.com>
	<DB3PR05MB52160E282831266DD8D869FF79B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0TrmZRTxasTdjkUz8o1XGYJ8rL4V67OBEO=0E+ipfqeg@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, Steph. Very thoughtful and kind, as you are.
M

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>
wrote:

> Thanks Stephanie for taking care of this. Stefi
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di William Drake <
> wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Inviato: marted? 13 dicembre 2016 14.37.23
> A: Matt Shears
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] for Maryam
>
> +1
>
> Bill
>
> On Dec 13, 2016, at 14:36, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshear
> s at cdt.org>> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks so much for organizing Stephanie.
>
> On 12/12/2016 20:00, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Some of you may be aware that Maryam Bakoshi is on family leave.  Her
> mother has died, and on your behalf (NCSG) I sent flowers today.
>
> Those who wish to help contribute can see me at our next meeting.
>
> cheers
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> ************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ************************************************
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/ec544a43/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Dec 14 14:44:45 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 07:44:45 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointments Policy
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThncrne4+tMbSRaXVjcQf6jA_NuenwakSQdaxigqdob1NQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <24070f49ff6b4a7fb27361e70da4046a@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThncrne4+tMbSRaXVjcQf6jA_NuenwakSQdaxigqdob1NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46a69b97ec0945848d6ae657b2aaa47b@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,
  
 Thanks for the questions. Much appreciated.
  
  
  
   - can you please give more clarification about the idea of rotation and what is the rationale behind that? any specific use case?the SG don't have a guarantee to get one of their nominees to be selected for RT?
  
 Sure.
  
 For Review Teams the GNSO can nominate at first go seven individuals but only the top three are guaranteed a spot on the Review Team. The rotation proposal is designed to guarantee that no Stakeholder Group will be shut out of the Review Teams more than once of every four opportunities . Under the proposal every Stakeholder Group will be guaranteed an applicant in the top three positions, guaranteed selection, for three of every four review team calls (provided they provide at lease one applicant).
  
 For other appointments the rotation is contained within the ranking itself: no Stakeholder Group shall have two candidates selected for a group until all other Stakeholder Groups (provided they submitted applications) have had at least one candidate selected.
  
 One of the things these rules should prevent is the ability of the individual CSG constituencies to make claims on multiple appointments due to their claimed great internal diversity. It also guarantees the NCSG equality in guaranteed appointments with the other Stakeholder Groups and should prevent stacking of nominations as happened with the recent CCT debacle.
  
  
  
 - for ranking and operating procedures, will the committee set for every selection process those details i.e. they can be changed every time? 
  
 Our goal was continuity and standardisation of the process itself while leaving flexibility for determining the criteria for selection. So while the mechanics should stay the same the Committee will have flexibility in determining the criteria for ranking and selection (which makes sense: the same skill set for CSC, for example, may be different than that needed for CCT).
  
  
 - with regard to call for applications, currently it is not managed by the council but the staff working on the reviews.
  
 Absolutely correct. That's why we inserted the word 'appropriately' in section 1(b). If there is a role for the Council and the Selection Committee in issuing the call it will assume that, if not it won't.
  
 Thanks again for the questions. If I can provide any other information or clarification please let me know. I know the proposal can and perhaps will be improved but hopefully we've gotten things off to a good start.
  
 Ed
  
  
  
 Best,
  
 Rafik
   2016-12-14 2:11 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:   Hello everybody,
  
 ?During the Council meeting in Hyderabad,  Susan Kawaguchi of the Business Constituency  and myself were tasked with the job of developing a standardised appointments procedure for the GNSO. I am pleased to report that we've completed our work and within the past hour have submitted our plan to GNSO Council Chair James Baldel. I have attached a copy of our proposal for your consideration. 
  
 I'm proud of what we've come up with. It is a document full of compromises but I do believe it is a proposal that protects the interests of the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC and will generate GNSO appointments of the highest quality. Among the highlights: 
  
  
 ?- A standing GNSO Selection Committee, one whose composition reflects the diversity of the GNSO, which shall serve as the coordinating body for the appointment process. 
  
 ?- A procedure which encourages the largest number of possible candidates from all parts of the GNSO, combined with a ranking system designed to ensure merit based selection in combination with a rotation system ensuring equal representation amongst the Stakeholder Groups for Review Team appointments. 
  
 ?-A comprehensive appointments procedure designed both for Review Team appointments (section II) and any other appointments (section 111) the GNSO Council may be asked to make. No more ad hoc processes. 
  
 -An unqualified commitment to transparency in the process. No longer will applications go into a "black box" and come out with selections made on an unknown basis from an unknown pool of candidates. Unless otherwise directed by Council, the entire appointments process will be fully open and transparent. 
  
 ?There was one area Susan and I were not able to come to an agreement on: the composition of the GNSO Selection Committee. I preferred a committee consisting of the GNSO Council Chair and one member selected from each Stakeholder Group. Susan preferred a committee consisting of the GNSO Council Chair and one member of each Constituency and Stakeholder Group. We agreed to put this decision to the full Council where I trust RySG and RrSG will join what I hope will be our position in supporting Stakeholder Group based appointments. 
  
 I regret the I will be unable to join you on the call tonight or or the full Council meeting on Thursday. As many of you know, I've asked the NCSG EC to appoint a Temporary Alternate to replace me on Council for the next few weeks. I have a few minor medical procedures I'm scheduled to undergo in hospital  and unfortunately the National Health Service has schedule them for this week and for the week of our January call. I hope to rejoin all of you as soon as I can. This leave will not impact any of my other activity in ICANN and I certainly expect to be active, as required, between the calls. 
  
 In he interim, I'm more than happy to answer any questions anyone may have about this proposal. I do not know when it will be scheduled for Council consideration, but I did want to let everyone know the result of our work and to give you time to consider our work. 
  
 Kind Regards, 
   
 Edward Morris   
   
   
   
   

_______________________________________________
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/20161214/46bd722e/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Dec 14 15:28:48 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 08:28:48 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appointments Policy
In-Reply-To: <08862045-10ab-a0bb-e012-5e7baa49a1eb@apc.org>
References: <24070f49ff6b4a7fb27361e70da4046a@toast.net>
	<08862045-10ab-a0bb-e012-5e7baa49a1eb@apc.org>
Message-ID: <e682827731f84b129121c2586b262b5d@toast.net>

Hi Avri,
  
  
 If we go the way of a bigger selection team, should be the same number 
from each SG. If they want 3 from their SG, then each SG gets 3. just a 
thought, avri --- 
  
 I totally agree.
  
 I very much prefer the smaller group. Once you get to thirteen members 
things get unwieldily and I'd suggest at that point we might as well just 
make the entire Council itself the selection committee.
  
 I think the colleague with whom I worked on this understands that. Its 
just the CSG seems incapable of approaching any issue concerning 
representation without yelling and screaming about the 'inequitable 
'position they find themselves being equal with the other SG's. Sad.
  
 Ed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/e463cbed/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Wed Dec 14 15:47:51 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:47:51 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Proposed_Consultati?=
 =?utf-8?q?on_Response_-_Proposal_for_Lao_Script_Root_Zone=E2=80=AC_Label_?=
 =?utf-8?q?Generation_Rules_=28LGR=29?=
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmE1HC5rDV0RS+rvNOw52d3HFjiokoGjKsp2j2Q9Jr3KQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3t5RJY3vKw59HAOBlOrd1jpvfR3TRsQ72JYKmg_J11-VesCGBbDBppk-643cYSHDK76eo6ipC1RVvKRU41Rvxyr3WJFQH_JXiJxAJF1lE38=@ferdeline.com>
	<20161202103033.pkrkarh4ptrif2k2@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<U0p2dkglLa3LGHK3vdxyMh90Jo3OMA7NKsXeljwLtVKFDJt08pK83a4fBxHxYR-9brb5ynYCqLkPDiRMPD2WTSfMRYqL3Aei8SIELcKTeOw=@ferdeline.com>
	<InkZAz3pXaN7R4cYxKq1MQILAbSxDxj6ZkxlpdzakctxTq023zZ3okmbW1fO6Og5MWRc2vF_7PwQRtzqpiZlUdZGCIk2RjpNsmAuab6C8Nw=@ferdeline.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521477938BD53F4885D199BF7860@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<uL7s96CL19pavjwQY2ZTKgoh51uKj6j3qGW1elUN8AJ4ZPZ_tsdAXkajuz4BtEUJpiHWfU6Z06J9MsMOUco_8w7tg6st7IHkDTlddTRDR2o=@ferdeline.com>
	<VupL4Hefy0FxJkHoFM_3TgppTod3CjVQiZ7ajl6mQdf0eixckGae8tH8KTUYNwCsb8QPRLxeB9CWlmJY15cCriK2KOwVhsoZcbZQOnhZg9Q=@ferdeline.com>
	<CAH5sThmE1HC5rDV0RS+rvNOw52d3HFjiokoGjKsp2j2Q9Jr3KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161214134751.p4latfkuceey226d@tarvainen.info>

+1 for endorsing Ayden's comment.

Tapani

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 04:00:17PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> we got another request for endorsment for public comment. the draft was
> discussed in NCSG list and some edits were done in response.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Date: 2016-12-14 15:52 GMT+09:00
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for
> Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> 
> 
> I am unable to post to the Policy Committee's list, as I am not a member.
> Could someone who is please ask the Policy Committee if they support the
> ratification of the attached statement? Sorry to be unable to join the PC's
> call last night and to ask myself - the call completely slipped my mind.
> Thank you.
> 
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:27 PM
> UTC Time: 10 December 2016 23:27
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU>
> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> 
> Thanks for this feedback, Stefania. It is very useful. Taking into account
> your suggestions I have reworded the consultation response slightly. There
> are now just under 30 minutes until the consultation period ends, and I'm
> about to board a plane, so I'm going to submit this comment with a small
> note that it has not yet been endorsed by the NCSG Policy Committee but has
> been reviewed by three members of the Policy Committee. If the PC is
> comfortable supporting this statement after it is submitted, that is
> brilliant ? if not, it will be my personal remarks. I trust this will be
> okay.
> 
> *The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
> pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
> consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
> other scripts such as Thai, and we trust that a comprehensive mitigation
> plan to avoid said confusion will be in place at the time of
> implementation. Thank you again for inviting our input on your work. We are
> grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our views. As you move
> forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your
> progress.*
> 
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> Local Time: 10 December 2016 3:12 PM
> UTC Time: 10 December 2016 21:12
> From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> 
> Thanks Ayden for doing this. It is greatly appreciated.
> One minor point: would it be possible to make concrete suggestions towards
> a "comprehensive mitigation plan"? Just asking, I wouldn't have a clue
> myself. I realize that this is last minute, though, and that what I suggest
> might require more work...
> Either way, I personally (also as a member of the NCSG Policy Committee)
> support the submission of this public comment on support of our stakeholder
> group.
> Thanks again!
> Best, Stefania
> 
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> per conto di Ayden
> F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
> Inviato: sabato 10 dicembre 2016 18.50.06
> A: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Oggetto: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> 
> Hi all, please find attached a new draft of this consultation response (the
> text which has changed is in bold for emphasis). Feedback is welcomed:
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
> pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
> consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
> other scripts, however we would encourage the creation of a more
> comprehensive mitigation plan. Thank you again for inviting our input on
> your work. We are grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our
> views. As you move forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG
> updated on your progress.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:38 AM
> UTC Time: 10 December 2016 17:38
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>,
> pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Tapani, hi-
> 
> Thanks for this feedback. I am just rushing to board a flight to Dallas, so
> thought I might quickly send through a revised consultation response. The
> only difference here is the addition of the sentence in bold, which I hope
> addresses the legitimate concerns that you raised. Do you think this is
> adequate? Please note that comments on this consultation close in 12 hours
> time, so I am also c/c'ing the Policy Committee into this email in the
> hopes that it may still be possible to lodge this response, provided it is
> suitable and addresses your concerns (and the concerns of others in the
> NCSG).
> 
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We offer,
> however, one word of caution: we encourage the creation of a comprehensive
> mitigation plan with measures to avoid consumer confusion where there are
> visually similar marks between the Lao script and other scripts. Thank you
> again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
> this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we
> ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> Local Time: 2 December 2016 4:30 AM
> UTC Time: 2 December 2016 10:30
> From: ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> 
> Hi Ayden,
> 
> Thanks for picking this up. I'm looking at the proposal waiting
> for next flight towards Mexico, upon very quick reading it seems
> pretty good but a few things caught my eye.
> 
> First, the diphthong treatment: it would seem to leave room for
> potential confusion by allowing same word to appear in multiple
> different forms.
> 
> Now I've forgotten all of the 20 or so words of Lao I once knew and
> don't really know if that's a real danger (are there any Lao speakers
> among us?), but we might want to flag that in some way.
> 
> I was also looking for a mention of Lao numerals, didn't see any,
> not sure if it could be an issue (and too tired to recall or google
> how other variants of Arabic numerals have been treated).
> 
> Another thing I found interesting struck is the analysis of
> cross-script variants: I'm not quite sure their conclusion to avoid
> defining any simply because Thai and Lao code points cannot be mixed
> in a label sufficient - again I'd need a Lao or at least Thai speaker
> to confirm my suspicion but I could imagine an acronym that'd be
> confusingly similar with some font.
> 
> Lacking real expertise I'm not suggesting explicit criticism of any of
> those points, but perhaps language that flags them and commends the
> Lao GP for considering them and noting that such issues are in general
> important and merit thoroughness might work.
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> 
> On Dec 01 08:37, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
> 
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > I have drafted a brief consultation response on behalf of the NCSG in
> relation to the [Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules](
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en) (LGR).
> Comments can be submitted until 10 December. I consider the proposal to be
> very reasonable and not controversial, so I was thinking we could submit
> the following message of support:
> >
> >
> > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. Thank you
> again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
> this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we
> ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
> >
> >
> > You can read the consultation documents in full here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en
> >
> > Please feel free to edit my statement, especially if you think I have
> overlooked something. I will forward whatever materials we have to the NCSG
> Policy Committee to consider submitting on behalf of the NCSG on 5
> December, to give them a few days to contemplate submission. Thanks!
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> > Ayden F?rdeline
> > [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
> <http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline%5D(http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)>



From pileleji  Wed Dec 14 15:54:50 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:54:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
	=?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Proposed_Consultati?=
	=?utf-8?q?on_Response_-_Proposal_for_Lao_Script_Root_Zone=E2=80=AC?=
	=?utf-8?q?_Label_Generation_Rules_=28LGR=29?=
In-Reply-To: <20161214134751.p4latfkuceey226d@tarvainen.info>
References: <3t5RJY3vKw59HAOBlOrd1jpvfR3TRsQ72JYKmg_J11-VesCGBbDBppk-643cYSHDK76eo6ipC1RVvKRU41Rvxyr3WJFQH_JXiJxAJF1lE38=@ferdeline.com>
	<20161202103033.pkrkarh4ptrif2k2@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<U0p2dkglLa3LGHK3vdxyMh90Jo3OMA7NKsXeljwLtVKFDJt08pK83a4fBxHxYR-9brb5ynYCqLkPDiRMPD2WTSfMRYqL3Aei8SIELcKTeOw=@ferdeline.com>
	<InkZAz3pXaN7R4cYxKq1MQILAbSxDxj6ZkxlpdzakctxTq023zZ3okmbW1fO6Og5MWRc2vF_7PwQRtzqpiZlUdZGCIk2RjpNsmAuab6C8Nw=@ferdeline.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521477938BD53F4885D199BF7860@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<uL7s96CL19pavjwQY2ZTKgoh51uKj6j3qGW1elUN8AJ4ZPZ_tsdAXkajuz4BtEUJpiHWfU6Z06J9MsMOUco_8w7tg6st7IHkDTlddTRDR2o=@ferdeline.com>
	<VupL4Hefy0FxJkHoFM_3TgppTod3CjVQiZ7ajl6mQdf0eixckGae8tH8KTUYNwCsb8QPRLxeB9CWlmJY15cCriK2KOwVhsoZcbZQOnhZg9Q=@ferdeline.com>
	<CAH5sThmE1HC5rDV0RS+rvNOw52d3HFjiokoGjKsp2j2Q9Jr3KQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161214134751.p4latfkuceey226d@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAEux40saL995pP7_M=kRteoEV8mx4vhztWaB8yht1N+M947Eqg@mail.gmail.com>

Endorsed +1

On 14 December 2016 at 14:47, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

> +1 for endorsing Ayden's comment.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 04:00:17PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > we got another request for endorsment for public comment. the draft was
> > discussed in NCSG list and some edits were done in response.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> > Date: 2016-12-14 15:52 GMT+09:00
> > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for
> > Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> >
> >
> > I am unable to post to the Policy Committee's list, as I am not a member.
> > Could someone who is please ask the Policy Committee if they support the
> > ratification of the attached statement? Sorry to be unable to join the
> PC's
> > call last night and to ask myself - the call completely slipped my mind.
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Ayden F?rdeline
> > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script
> Root
> > Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> > Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:27 PM
> > UTC Time: 10 December 2016 23:27
> > From: icann at ferdeline.com
> > To: "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU>
> > NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >
> > Thanks for this feedback, Stefania. It is very useful. Taking into
> account
> > your suggestions I have reworded the consultation response slightly.
> There
> > are now just under 30 minutes until the consultation period ends, and I'm
> > about to board a plane, so I'm going to submit this comment with a small
> > note that it has not yet been endorsed by the NCSG Policy Committee but
> has
> > been reviewed by three members of the Policy Committee. If the PC is
> > comfortable supporting this statement after it is submitted, that is
> > brilliant ? if not, it will be my personal remarks. I trust this will be
> > okay.
> >
> > *The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> > comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> > which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> > Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support
> its
> > integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> > congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal,
> and
> > appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> > representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists,
> and
> > academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> > names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> > sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> > diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
> > pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
> > consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
> > other scripts such as Thai, and we trust that a comprehensive mitigation
> > plan to avoid said confusion will be in place at the time of
> > implementation. Thank you again for inviting our input on your work. We
> are
> > grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our views. As you move
> > forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your
> > progress.*
> >
> > Ayden F?rdeline
> > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script
> Root
> > Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> > Local Time: 10 December 2016 3:12 PM
> > UTC Time: 10 December 2016 21:12
> > From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU
> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >
> > Thanks Ayden for doing this. It is greatly appreciated.
> > One minor point: would it be possible to make concrete suggestions
> towards
> > a "comprehensive mitigation plan"? Just asking, I wouldn't have a clue
> > myself. I realize that this is last minute, though, and that what I
> suggest
> > might require more work...
> > Either way, I personally (also as a member of the NCSG Policy Committee)
> > support the submission of this public comment on support of our
> stakeholder
> > group.
> > Thanks again!
> > Best, Stefania
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Da: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> per conto di Ayden
> > F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
> > Inviato: sabato 10 dicembre 2016 18.50.06
> > A: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> > Oggetto: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script
> Root
> > Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> >
> > Hi all, please find attached a new draft of this consultation response
> (the
> > text which has changed is in bold for emphasis). Feedback is welcomed:
> > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> > comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> > which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> > Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support
> its
> > integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> > congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal,
> and
> > appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> > representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists,
> and
> > academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> > names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> > sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> > diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
> > pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
> > consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
> > other scripts, however we would encourage the creation of a more
> > comprehensive mitigation plan. Thank you again for inviting our input on
> > your work. We are grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our
> > views. As you move forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG
> > updated on your progress.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Ayden F?rdeline
> > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script
> Root
> > Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> > Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:38 AM
> > UTC Time: 10 December 2016 17:38
> > From: icann at ferdeline.com
> > To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> > NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>,
> > pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> >
> > Tapani, hi-
> >
> > Thanks for this feedback. I am just rushing to board a flight to Dallas,
> so
> > thought I might quickly send through a revised consultation response. The
> > only difference here is the addition of the sentence in bold, which I
> hope
> > addresses the legitimate concerns that you raised. Do you think this is
> > adequate? Please note that comments on this consultation close in 12
> hours
> > time, so I am also c/c'ing the Policy Committee into this email in the
> > hopes that it may still be possible to lodge this response, provided it
> is
> > suitable and addresses your concerns (and the concerns of others in the
> > NCSG).
> >
> > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> > comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> > which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> > Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support
> its
> > integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> > congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal,
> and
> > appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> > representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists,
> and
> > academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> > names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> > sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> > diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We
> offer,
> > however, one word of caution: we encourage the creation of a
> comprehensive
> > mitigation plan with measures to avoid consumer confusion where there are
> > visually similar marks between the Lao script and other scripts. Thank
> you
> > again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
> > this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work,
> we
> > ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Ayden F?rdeline
> > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script
> Root
> > Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> > Local Time: 2 December 2016 4:30 AM
> > UTC Time: 2 December 2016 10:30
> > From: ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO
> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >
> > Hi Ayden,
> >
> > Thanks for picking this up. I'm looking at the proposal waiting
> > for next flight towards Mexico, upon very quick reading it seems
> > pretty good but a few things caught my eye.
> >
> > First, the diphthong treatment: it would seem to leave room for
> > potential confusion by allowing same word to appear in multiple
> > different forms.
> >
> > Now I've forgotten all of the 20 or so words of Lao I once knew and
> > don't really know if that's a real danger (are there any Lao speakers
> > among us?), but we might want to flag that in some way.
> >
> > I was also looking for a mention of Lao numerals, didn't see any,
> > not sure if it could be an issue (and too tired to recall or google
> > how other variants of Arabic numerals have been treated).
> >
> > Another thing I found interesting struck is the analysis of
> > cross-script variants: I'm not quite sure their conclusion to avoid
> > defining any simply because Thai and Lao code points cannot be mixed
> > in a label sufficient - again I'd need a Lao or at least Thai speaker
> > to confirm my suspicion but I could imagine an acronym that'd be
> > confusingly similar with some font.
> >
> > Lacking real expertise I'm not suggesting explicit criticism of any of
> > those points, but perhaps language that flags them and commends the
> > Lao GP for considering them and noting that such issues are in general
> > important and merit thoroughness might work.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> >
> > On Dec 01 08:37, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings all,
> > >
> > > I have drafted a brief consultation response on behalf of the NCSG in
> > relation to the [Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation
> Rules](
> > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en) (LGR).
> > Comments can be submitted until 10 December. I consider the proposal to
> be
> > very reasonable and not controversial, so I was thinking we could submit
> > the following message of support:
> > >
> > >
> > > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity
> to
> > comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> > which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> > Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support
> its
> > integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> > congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal,
> and
> > appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> > representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists,
> and
> > academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> > names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> > sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> > diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. Thank
> you
> > again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
> > this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work,
> we
> > ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
> > >
> > >
> > > You can read the consultation documents in full here:
> > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en
> > >
> > > Please feel free to edit my statement, especially if you think I have
> > overlooked something. I will forward whatever materials we have to the
> NCSG
> > Policy Committee to consider submitting on behalf of the NCSG on 5
> > December, to give them a few days to contemplate submission. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ayden F?rdeline
> > > [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
> > <http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline%5D(http://www.
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/88b1bf73/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Wed Dec 14 15:58:17 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:58:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and
	budget
In-Reply-To: <20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Stefania and Ed, thank you very much for your work on this comment. I
endorse it as well.

With all endorsements expressed before, I believe it is fair to say that we
have rough consensus on endorsing it on the PC level. Stefania, could you
communicate it to staff, ccing Matt and myself?

Thank you
Marilia

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:58:18AM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
> > Thanks for doing this guys!  Looks good to me, I endorse.
> >
> > Steph
> >
> >
> > On 2016-12-12 08:52, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> > > Dear PC members
> > > hope you have all safely returned from Mexico.
> > > Last Saturday Ed and I managed to submit a public comment to the draft
> PTI FY18 operating plan and budget, which I enclose below.
> > > Notwithstanding the best intentions, we ended up working on this last
> minute, submitting it right on deadline --which meant no time to run it by
> the PC.
> > > We do hope however that the PC will decide to support it so that we
> can notify staff accordingly.
> > > All the best, Stefania and Ed
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > COMMENT ON DRAFT PTI FY18 OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET
> > >
> > > We welcome this opportunity to comment on the FY18 Operating Plan and
> Budget of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). A California public
> benefit corporation (entity number C3933089), the PTI is a corporate
> affiliate of ICANN (California entity number C2121683) whose stated
> function, to provide IANA services on behalf of ICANN, in certain
> circumstances is to be capable of separation from ICANN (see generally,
> articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws). As we review the PTI Operating
> Plan and Budget we question whether the PTI?s dependence upon ICANN is so
> extreme that it may better be viewed as a division of ICANN rather than as
> an affiliate--that is to say, a separate corporation controlled by ICANN,
> as it is supposed to be. We would encourage more separation between the two
> entities to bolster public confidence in the integrity of the transition
> and to improve overall accountability.
> > >
> > > Independence from ICANN and accountability of the PTI. Concerning more
> specifically the budget, we note that the grand total, including support
> services, of the PTI operational budget shows that a majority of budgeted
> items are either shared costs or ICANN support service allocations
> attributed to the PTI: $5,000,000 of the PTI?s $9,600,000 operational
> budget consist of costs shared with ICANN or are support services provided
> to the PTI by ICANN. The $2,800,000 in support services provided to PTI by
> ICANN is particularly troublesome. We would prefer PTI to develop into an
> entity capable of providing most of its operational capabilities
> independently or, at the very least, openly shared with ICANN. The PTI
> should not be dependent upon staff employed exclusively by ICANN to
> function.
> > >
> > > As an example, we have become aware of the status of the Ombudsman
> with PTI. The Ombudsman provides his services on a contractual basis to
> ICANN; he is not an ICANN employee. Our understanding is that he will be
> providing his services to PTI as well, when or if needed, through his
> contract with ICANN. This is wrong. The Ombudsman should be independently
> and directly contracted by PTI for any services he shall undertake for the
> company, in order to safeguard its independent role. The same holds true
> for any other independent contractor, particularly those providing
> professional services.
> > >
> > > Caretaker Budget. We also express our concern over the establishment
> of the initial Caretaker Budget by the ICANN Chief Financial Officer for
> FY18 without prior consultation with the community regarding vision and
> priorities. While we understand that this budget might largely retrace the
> proposed budget for the operation of the IANA Services and not much
> flexibility may be possible here, we would like to observe that the
> Caretaker Budget comes into use only if the community rejects the proposed
> budget itself. It makes little sense for the Caretaker IANA Budget to be
> identical to the budget which has been rejected by the community.
> > >
> > > We recognize that this initial Caretaker Budget proposal may be a
> result of FY18 being the first full budgetary cycle for the PTI. As such,
> as a matter of good faith and form, we suggest that the Caretaker Budget
> proposed for FY18 be submitted to both the GNSO Council and CCNSO Council
> for feedback and approval. These two groups have enhanced status with
> regards the PTI (see, for example, section 19.1.b.2 of the ICANN Bylaws),
> and if the PTI budget were to be rejected by the Empowered Community the
> legitimacy of the initial Caretaker Budget would be enhanced by prior
> approval of the GNSO and CCNSO.
> > >
> > > As to the specifics of the proposed Operating Plan and Budget:
> > >
> > > 1.We note that travel and meeting expenses are slated to rise 42.3%
> from FY17 to FY18  due to money budgeted for three Board meetings per annum
> as well as ?incremental? community engagement. Given the rather limited
> remit of the PTI, can we be assured this budgeted amount is not expected to
> escalate so rapidly in coming years?
> > > 2.Following from the above, we notice that no specific outreach
> efforts are mentioned in the document and no further indication of their
> overall purpose, target and content is provided. We wonder what outreach
> activities are the PTI planning, and what professional figure within PTI
> will be in charge of planning said activities.
> > > 3.The same goes for the community engagement activities. We wonder
> whether PTI will have the ability to create its own community engagement
> strategy, or whether this will be derived from ICANN?s.
> > > 4.Merit awards for existing employees are responsible for an increase
> of $200,000 in personnel costs in FY18 from the FY17 baseline. With a staff
> FTE of just 22.6 this seems to be rather generous. Would you please be more
> specific about the merit rewards program (i.e. basis of rewards, spread
> amongst x number of employees etc.)?
> > > 5.An additional $70,000 is budgeted for outside legal expenses in
> FY18. We find that surprising given that FY17 costs incurred for setting up
> the PTI as a legal entity were presumably one time expenses. Would you
> please help us understand the basis for this increased budgeted cost, the
> total amount budgeted for external legal expenses in FY18, the reasons it
> is anticipated these costs will be incurred? We would also like to know
> whether PTI automatically contracts with ICANN?s external counsel, or
> whether it retains the ability to select its own external provider of legal
> services?
> > >
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Edward Morris
> > > Stefania Milan
> > > GNSO Councillors
> > > Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> > >
> > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/efc06a93/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Dec 14 16:16:53 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:16:53 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and
	budget
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Speaking for myself, I?ve been having trouble endorsing this comment. I don?t know enough to speak against it, but wonder about the practicality of separating some of the shared costs between ICANN and PTI. For the time being, ICANN is providing the IANA services via PTI. If there is financial sense in sharing resources between the two orgs, then I?m not sure we should oppose this. There may be good reasons for certain personal not being shared, such as the ombudsman, but I?m not sure that this should be a general rule.

I?m also not convinced that while PTI is providing the IANA services, that sharing these resources negatively impacts possible future separability to an extent that warrants increasing operation costs.

But like I said?, I?m no expert on this. I would prefer this comment to be discussed on the members? list before the NCSG endorses it, but I am only one member of the PC, and cannot (nor would I wish to) veto an endorsement.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Dear Stefania and Ed, thank you very much for your work on this comment. I endorse it as well. 
> 
> With all endorsements expressed before, I believe it is fair to say that we have rough consensus on endorsing it on the PC level. Stefania, could you communicate it to staff, ccing Matt and myself? 
> 
> Thank you
> Marilia 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> Agreed.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:58:18AM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for doing this guys!  Looks good to me, I endorse.
> >
> > Steph
> >
> >
> > On 2016-12-12 08:52, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> > > Dear PC members
> > > hope you have all safely returned from Mexico.
> > > Last Saturday Ed and I managed to submit a public comment to the draft PTI FY18 operating plan and budget, which I enclose below.
> > > Notwithstanding the best intentions, we ended up working on this last minute, submitting it right on deadline --which meant no time to run it by the PC.
> > > We do hope however that the PC will decide to support it so that we can notify staff accordingly.
> > > All the best, Stefania and Ed
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > COMMENT ON DRAFT PTI FY18 OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET
> > >
> > > We welcome this opportunity to comment on the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). A California public benefit corporation (entity number C3933089), the PTI is a corporate affiliate of ICANN (California entity number C2121683) whose stated function, to provide IANA services on behalf of ICANN, in certain circumstances is to be capable of separation from ICANN (see generally, articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws). As we review the PTI Operating Plan and Budget we question whether the PTI?s dependence upon ICANN is so extreme that it may better be viewed as a division of ICANN rather than as an affiliate--that is to say, a separate corporation controlled by ICANN, as it is supposed to be. We would encourage more separation between the two entities to bolster public confidence in the integrity of the transition and to improve overall accountability.
> > >
> > > Independence from ICANN and accountability of the PTI. Concerning more specifically the budget, we note that the grand total, including support services, of the PTI operational budget shows that a majority of budgeted items are either shared costs or ICANN support service allocations attributed to the PTI: $5,000,000 of the PTI?s $9,600,000 operational budget consist of costs shared with ICANN or are support services provided to the PTI by ICANN. The $2,800,000 in support services provided to PTI by ICANN is particularly troublesome. We would prefer PTI to develop into an entity capable of providing most of its operational capabilities independently or, at the very least, openly shared with ICANN. The PTI should not be dependent upon staff employed exclusively by ICANN to function.
> > >
> > > As an example, we have become aware of the status of the Ombudsman with PTI. The Ombudsman provides his services on a contractual basis to ICANN; he is not an ICANN employee. Our understanding is that he will be providing his services to PTI as well, when or if needed, through his contract with ICANN. This is wrong. The Ombudsman should be independently and directly contracted by PTI for any services he shall undertake for the company, in order to safeguard its independent role. The same holds true for any other independent contractor, particularly those providing professional services.
> > >
> > > Caretaker Budget. We also express our concern over the establishment of the initial Caretaker Budget by the ICANN Chief Financial Officer for FY18 without prior consultation with the community regarding vision and priorities. While we understand that this budget might largely retrace the proposed budget for the operation of the IANA Services and not much flexibility may be possible here, we would like to observe that the Caretaker Budget comes into use only if the community rejects the proposed budget itself. It makes little sense for the Caretaker IANA Budget to be identical to the budget which has been rejected by the community.
> > >
> > > We recognize that this initial Caretaker Budget proposal may be a result of FY18 being the first full budgetary cycle for the PTI. As such, as a matter of good faith and form, we suggest that the Caretaker Budget proposed for FY18 be submitted to both the GNSO Council and CCNSO Council for feedback and approval. These two groups have enhanced status with regards the PTI (see, for example, section 19.1.b.2 of the ICANN Bylaws), and if the PTI budget were to be rejected by the Empowered Community the legitimacy of the initial Caretaker Budget would be enhanced by prior approval of the GNSO and CCNSO.
> > >
> > > As to the specifics of the proposed Operating Plan and Budget:
> > >
> > > 1.We note that travel and meeting expenses are slated to rise 42.3% from FY17 to FY18  due to money budgeted for three Board meetings per annum as well as ?incremental? community engagement. Given the rather limited remit of the PTI, can we be assured this budgeted amount is not expected to escalate so rapidly in coming years?
> > > 2.Following from the above, we notice that no specific outreach efforts are mentioned in the document and no further indication of their overall purpose, target and content is provided. We wonder what outreach activities are the PTI planning, and what professional figure within PTI will be in charge of planning said activities.
> > > 3.The same goes for the community engagement activities. We wonder whether PTI will have the ability to create its own community engagement strategy, or whether this will be derived from ICANN?s.
> > > 4.Merit awards for existing employees are responsible for an increase of $200,000 in personnel costs in FY18 from the FY17 baseline. With a staff FTE of just 22.6 this seems to be rather generous. Would you please be more specific about the merit rewards program (i.e. basis of rewards, spread amongst x number of employees etc.)?
> > > 5.An additional $70,000 is budgeted for outside legal expenses in FY18. We find that surprising given that FY17 costs incurred for setting up the PTI as a legal entity were presumably one time expenses. Would you please help us understand the basis for this increased budgeted cost, the total amount budgeted for external legal expenses in FY18, the reasons it is anticipated these costs will be incurred? We would also like to know whether PTI automatically contracts with ICANN?s external counsel, or whether it retains the ability to select its own external provider of legal services?
> > >
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Edward Morris
> > > Stefania Milan
> > > GNSO Councillors
> > > Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> > >
> > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> 
> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 | 
> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mariliamaciel  Wed Dec 14 16:42:23 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:42:23 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and
	budget
In-Reply-To: <659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2bjBosQmiFDtFZb=AFga0nhTR++A4NmpFS-TGorSXiDg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

We are presenting our endorsement a posteriori, so, in my view, although we
should manifest as soon as possible, we do not have a hard deadline. I
would not want to preclude discussions, so if Stefania or Ed can jump in
and address your comments and doubts, that would be great. In any case, we
seem to roughly have enough support to add our PC endorsement by tomorrow,
unless there are last minute clear objections.

Thanks,
Marilia

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Speaking for myself, I?ve been having trouble endorsing this comment. I
> don?t know enough to speak against it, but wonder about the practicality of
> separating some of the shared costs between ICANN and PTI. For the time
> being, ICANN is providing the IANA services via PTI. If there is financial
> sense in sharing resources between the two orgs, then I?m not sure we
> should oppose this. There may be good reasons for certain personal not
> being shared, such as the ombudsman, but I?m not sure that this should be a
> general rule.
>
> I?m also not convinced that while PTI is providing the IANA services, that
> sharing these resources negatively impacts possible future separability to
> an extent that warrants increasing operation costs.
>
> But like I said?, I?m no expert on this. I would prefer this comment to be
> discussed on the members? list before the NCSG endorses it, but I am only
> one member of the PC, and cannot (nor would I wish to) veto an endorsement.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Dec 14, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Stefania and Ed, thank you very much for your work on this comment.
> I endorse it as well.
> >
> > With all endorsements expressed before, I believe it is fair to say that
> we have rough consensus on endorsing it on the PC level. Stefania, could
> you communicate it to staff, ccing Matt and myself?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Marilia
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:58:18AM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for doing this guys!  Looks good to me, I endorse.
> > >
> > > Steph
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2016-12-12 08:52, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> > > > Dear PC members
> > > > hope you have all safely returned from Mexico.
> > > > Last Saturday Ed and I managed to submit a public comment to the
> draft PTI FY18 operating plan and budget, which I enclose below.
> > > > Notwithstanding the best intentions, we ended up working on this
> last minute, submitting it right on deadline --which meant no time to run
> it by the PC.
> > > > We do hope however that the PC will decide to support it so that we
> can notify staff accordingly.
> > > > All the best, Stefania and Ed
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > > COMMENT ON DRAFT PTI FY18 OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET
> > > >
> > > > We welcome this opportunity to comment on the FY18 Operating Plan
> and Budget of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). A California public
> benefit corporation (entity number C3933089), the PTI is a corporate
> affiliate of ICANN (California entity number C2121683) whose stated
> function, to provide IANA services on behalf of ICANN, in certain
> circumstances is to be capable of separation from ICANN (see generally,
> articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws). As we review the PTI Operating
> Plan and Budget we question whether the PTI?s dependence upon ICANN is so
> extreme that it may better be viewed as a division of ICANN rather than as
> an affiliate--that is to say, a separate corporation controlled by ICANN,
> as it is supposed to be. We would encourage more separation between the two
> entities to bolster public confidence in the integrity of the transition
> and to improve overall accountability.
> > > >
> > > > Independence from ICANN and accountability of the PTI. Concerning
> more specifically the budget, we note that the grand total, including
> support services, of the PTI operational budget shows that a majority of
> budgeted items are either shared costs or ICANN support service allocations
> attributed to the PTI: $5,000,000 of the PTI?s $9,600,000 operational
> budget consist of costs shared with ICANN or are support services provided
> to the PTI by ICANN. The $2,800,000 in support services provided to PTI by
> ICANN is particularly troublesome. We would prefer PTI to develop into an
> entity capable of providing most of its operational capabilities
> independently or, at the very least, openly shared with ICANN. The PTI
> should not be dependent upon staff employed exclusively by ICANN to
> function.
> > > >
> > > > As an example, we have become aware of the status of the Ombudsman
> with PTI. The Ombudsman provides his services on a contractual basis to
> ICANN; he is not an ICANN employee. Our understanding is that he will be
> providing his services to PTI as well, when or if needed, through his
> contract with ICANN. This is wrong. The Ombudsman should be independently
> and directly contracted by PTI for any services he shall undertake for the
> company, in order to safeguard its independent role. The same holds true
> for any other independent contractor, particularly those providing
> professional services.
> > > >
> > > > Caretaker Budget. We also express our concern over the establishment
> of the initial Caretaker Budget by the ICANN Chief Financial Officer for
> FY18 without prior consultation with the community regarding vision and
> priorities. While we understand that this budget might largely retrace the
> proposed budget for the operation of the IANA Services and not much
> flexibility may be possible here, we would like to observe that the
> Caretaker Budget comes into use only if the community rejects the proposed
> budget itself. It makes little sense for the Caretaker IANA Budget to be
> identical to the budget which has been rejected by the community.
> > > >
> > > > We recognize that this initial Caretaker Budget proposal may be a
> result of FY18 being the first full budgetary cycle for the PTI. As such,
> as a matter of good faith and form, we suggest that the Caretaker Budget
> proposed for FY18 be submitted to both the GNSO Council and CCNSO Council
> for feedback and approval. These two groups have enhanced status with
> regards the PTI (see, for example, section 19.1.b.2 of the ICANN Bylaws),
> and if the PTI budget were to be rejected by the Empowered Community the
> legitimacy of the initial Caretaker Budget would be enhanced by prior
> approval of the GNSO and CCNSO.
> > > >
> > > > As to the specifics of the proposed Operating Plan and Budget:
> > > >
> > > > 1.We note that travel and meeting expenses are slated to rise 42.3%
> from FY17 to FY18  due to money budgeted for three Board meetings per annum
> as well as ?incremental? community engagement. Given the rather limited
> remit of the PTI, can we be assured this budgeted amount is not expected to
> escalate so rapidly in coming years?
> > > > 2.Following from the above, we notice that no specific outreach
> efforts are mentioned in the document and no further indication of their
> overall purpose, target and content is provided. We wonder what outreach
> activities are the PTI planning, and what professional figure within PTI
> will be in charge of planning said activities.
> > > > 3.The same goes for the community engagement activities. We wonder
> whether PTI will have the ability to create its own community engagement
> strategy, or whether this will be derived from ICANN?s.
> > > > 4.Merit awards for existing employees are responsible for an
> increase of $200,000 in personnel costs in FY18 from the FY17 baseline.
> With a staff FTE of just 22.6 this seems to be rather generous. Would you
> please be more specific about the merit rewards program (i.e. basis of
> rewards, spread amongst x number of employees etc.)?
> > > > 5.An additional $70,000 is budgeted for outside legal expenses in
> FY18. We find that surprising given that FY17 costs incurred for setting up
> the PTI as a legal entity were presumably one time expenses. Would you
> please help us understand the basis for this increased budgeted cost, the
> total amount budgeted for external legal expenses in FY18, the reasons it
> is anticipated these costs will be incurred? We would also like to know
> whether PTI automatically contracts with ICANN?s external counsel, or
> whether it retains the ability to select its own external provider of legal
> services?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully,
> > > >
> > > > Edward Morris
> > > > Stefania Milan
> > > > GNSO Councillors
> > > > Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> > > >
> > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in
> reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the
> sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the
> sender and delete the material from any computer.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mar?lia Maciel
> > Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> >
> > WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> > Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 |
> > Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/2e040737/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Dec 14 16:47:48 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:47:48 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and
	budget
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2bjBosQmiFDtFZb=AFga0nhTR++A4NmpFS-TGorSXiDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>
	<CACpVkK2bjBosQmiFDtFZb=AFga0nhTR++A4NmpFS-TGorSXiDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8D496B7B-3B0E-442A-A606-C050CB4D1795@egyptig.org>

Hi,

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr, 
> 
> We are presenting our endorsement a posteriori, so, in my view, although we should manifest as soon as possible, we do not have a hard deadline. I would not want to preclude discussions, so if Stefania or Ed can jump in and address your comments and doubts, that would be great. In any case, we seem to roughly have enough support to add our PC endorsement by tomorrow, unless there are last minute clear objections.

Yes. I agree with this assessment.

Thanks again.

Amr


From mariliamaciel  Wed Dec 14 16:50:59 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:50:59 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>

I also support this comment.

We have PC members who manifested in support and no one against the
proposal to submit this comment as PC. If no one objects, we could consider
it approved by rough consensus and staff will be communicated.

Thank you
Marilia

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> wrote:

> Likewise.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net) wrote:
>
> > I'm in favour of endorsement.
> >
> > David
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello everybody,
> > >
> > >
> > > Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed
> Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt
> Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before
> it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have
> time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so
> now.
> > >
> > > Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff
> report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted
> previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL
> renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business
> Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions
> anyone may have on this comment.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Ed and Stefania
> > >
> > > <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/8e1262a3/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Wed Dec 14 16:52:43 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:43 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Proposed_Consultati?=
 =?utf-8?q?on_Response_-_Proposal_for_Lao_Script_Root_Zone=E2=80=AC_Label_?=
 =?utf-8?q?Generation_Rules_=28LGR=29?=
In-Reply-To: <20161214134751.p4latfkuceey226d@tarvainen.info>
References: <3t5RJY3vKw59HAOBlOrd1jpvfR3TRsQ72JYKmg_J11-VesCGBbDBppk-643cYSHDK76eo6ipC1RVvKRU41Rvxyr3WJFQH_JXiJxAJF1lE38=@ferdeline.com>
	<20161202103033.pkrkarh4ptrif2k2@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<U0p2dkglLa3LGHK3vdxyMh90Jo3OMA7NKsXeljwLtVKFDJt08pK83a4fBxHxYR-9brb5ynYCqLkPDiRMPD2WTSfMRYqL3Aei8SIELcKTeOw=@ferdeline.com>
	<InkZAz3pXaN7R4cYxKq1MQILAbSxDxj6ZkxlpdzakctxTq023zZ3okmbW1fO6Og5MWRc2vF_7PwQRtzqpiZlUdZGCIk2RjpNsmAuab6C8Nw=@ferdeline.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521477938BD53F4885D199BF7860@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<uL7s96CL19pavjwQY2ZTKgoh51uKj6j3qGW1elUN8AJ4ZPZ_tsdAXkajuz4BtEUJpiHWfU6Z06J9MsMOUco_8w7tg6st7IHkDTlddTRDR2o=@ferdeline.com>
	<VupL4Hefy0FxJkHoFM_3TgppTod3CjVQiZ7ajl6mQdf0eixckGae8tH8KTUYNwCsb8QPRLxeB9CWlmJY15cCriK2KOwVhsoZcbZQOnhZg9Q=@ferdeline.com>
	<CAH5sThmE1HC5rDV0RS+rvNOw52d3HFjiokoGjKsp2j2Q9Jr3KQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<20161214134751.p4latfkuceey226d@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5210B35761EBE04869E9B33F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I believe I endorsed it on the NCSG list-- doing it here again. Thanks, S.

----------------------
Stefania Milan, PhD
University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey

fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 14.47.51
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)

+1 for endorsing Ayden's comment.

Tapani

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 04:00:17PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> we got another request for endorsment for public comment. the draft was
> discussed in NCSG list and some edits were done in response.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Date: 2016-12-14 15:52 GMT+09:00
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for
> Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>
>
> I am unable to post to the Policy Committee's list, as I am not a member.
> Could someone who is please ask the Policy Committee if they support the
> ratification of the attached statement? Sorry to be unable to join the PC's
> call last night and to ask myself - the call completely slipped my mind.
> Thank you.
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:27 PM
> UTC Time: 10 December 2016 23:27
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU>
> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Thanks for this feedback, Stefania. It is very useful. Taking into account
> your suggestions I have reworded the consultation response slightly. There
> are now just under 30 minutes until the consultation period ends, and I'm
> about to board a plane, so I'm going to submit this comment with a small
> note that it has not yet been endorsed by the NCSG Policy Committee but has
> been reviewed by three members of the Policy Committee. If the PC is
> comfortable supporting this statement after it is submitted, that is
> brilliant ? if not, it will be my personal remarks. I trust this will be
> okay.
>
> *The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
> pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
> consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
> other scripts such as Thai, and we trust that a comprehensive mitigation
> plan to avoid said confusion will be in place at the time of
> implementation. Thank you again for inviting our input on your work. We are
> grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our views. As you move
> forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your
> progress.*
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> Local Time: 10 December 2016 3:12 PM
> UTC Time: 10 December 2016 21:12
> From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Thanks Ayden for doing this. It is greatly appreciated.
> One minor point: would it be possible to make concrete suggestions towards
> a "comprehensive mitigation plan"? Just asking, I wouldn't have a clue
> myself. I realize that this is last minute, though, and that what I suggest
> might require more work...
> Either way, I personally (also as a member of the NCSG Policy Committee)
> support the submission of this public comment on support of our stakeholder
> group.
> Thanks again!
> Best, Stefania
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> per conto di Ayden
> F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
> Inviato: sabato 10 dicembre 2016 18.50.06
> A: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Oggetto: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
>
> Hi all, please find attached a new draft of this consultation response (the
> text which has changed is in bold for emphasis). Feedback is welcomed:
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
> pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
> consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
> other scripts, however we would encourage the creation of a more
> comprehensive mitigation plan. Thank you again for inviting our input on
> your work. We are grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our
> views. As you move forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG
> updated on your progress.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:38 AM
> UTC Time: 10 December 2016 17:38
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>,
> pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>
> Tapani, hi-
>
> Thanks for this feedback. I am just rushing to board a flight to Dallas, so
> thought I might quickly send through a revised consultation response. The
> only difference here is the addition of the sentence in bold, which I hope
> addresses the legitimate concerns that you raised. Do you think this is
> adequate? Please note that comments on this consultation close in 12 hours
> time, so I am also c/c'ing the Policy Committee into this email in the
> hopes that it may still be possible to lodge this response, provided it is
> suitable and addresses your concerns (and the concerns of others in the
> NCSG).
>
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We offer,
> however, one word of caution: we encourage the creation of a comprehensive
> mitigation plan with measures to avoid consumer confusion where there are
> visually similar marks between the Lao script and other scripts. Thank you
> again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
> this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we
> ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
> Local Time: 2 December 2016 4:30 AM
> UTC Time: 2 December 2016 10:30
> From: ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
> Thanks for picking this up. I'm looking at the proposal waiting
> for next flight towards Mexico, upon very quick reading it seems
> pretty good but a few things caught my eye.
>
> First, the diphthong treatment: it would seem to leave room for
> potential confusion by allowing same word to appear in multiple
> different forms.
>
> Now I've forgotten all of the 20 or so words of Lao I once knew and
> don't really know if that's a real danger (are there any Lao speakers
> among us?), but we might want to flag that in some way.
>
> I was also looking for a mention of Lao numerals, didn't see any,
> not sure if it could be an issue (and too tired to recall or google
> how other variants of Arabic numerals have been treated).
>
> Another thing I found interesting struck is the analysis of
> cross-script variants: I'm not quite sure their conclusion to avoid
> defining any simply because Thai and Lao code points cannot be mixed
> in a label sufficient - again I'd need a Lao or at least Thai speaker
> to confirm my suspicion but I could imagine an acronym that'd be
> confusingly similar with some font.
>
> Lacking real expertise I'm not suggesting explicit criticism of any of
> those points, but perhaps language that flags them and commends the
> Lao GP for considering them and noting that such issues are in general
> important and merit thoroughness might work.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
>
> On Dec 01 08:37, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
>
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > I have drafted a brief consultation response on behalf of the NCSG in
> relation to the [Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules](
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en) (LGR).
> Comments can be submitted until 10 December. I consider the proposal to be
> very reasonable and not controversial, so I was thinking we could submit
> the following message of support:
> >
> >
> > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. Thank you
> again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
> this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we
> ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
> >
> >
> > You can read the consultation documents in full here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en
> >
> > Please feel free to edit my statement, especially if you think I have
> overlooked something. I will forward whatever materials we have to the NCSG
> Policy Committee to consider submitting on behalf of the NCSG on 5
> December, to give them a few days to contemplate submission. Thanks!
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> > Ayden F?rdeline
> > [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
> <http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline%5D(http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)>

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

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.


From Stefania.Milan  Wed Dec 14 16:55:17 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:55:17 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>,
	<CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521A0EC5DE34D3ED9F1A5C9F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

HI Marilia, thanks. I believe we are too late for this specific comment. The staff report is due .. tomorrow (December 15). See https://www.icann.org/public-comments/xxx-amendment-2016-10-12-en
We can try though!
I am in a break from teaching a class, can do it later tonight unfortunately
Will keep you posted, Stefania (on behalf of Ed, too)

----------------------
Stefania Milan, PhD
University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey

fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.50.59
A: Tapani Tarvainen
Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested

I also support this comment.

We have PC members who manifested in support and no one against the proposal to submit this comment as PC. If no one objects, we could consider it approved by rough consensus and staff will be communicated.

Thank you
Marilia

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
Likewise.

Tapani

On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>) wrote:

> I'm in favour of endorsement.
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> >
> > Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so now.
> >
> > Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on this comment.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Ed and Stefania
> >
> > <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>


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



--

Mar?lia Maciel
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632<tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> |
Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter: @MariliaM



The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From Stefania.Milan  Wed Dec 14 16:59:40 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:59:40 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan
	and	budget
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2bjBosQmiFDtFZb=AFga0nhTR++A4NmpFS-TGorSXiDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>,
	<CACpVkK2bjBosQmiFDtFZb=AFga0nhTR++A4NmpFS-TGorSXiDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521ACBA15E8BAEBEB11671DF79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Thanks Amr and Marilia. Absolutely legitimate concerns.
We had hoped for some reaction on the NCSG-discuss list, but except an off-list positive comment by Ayden, the list is silent on that topic.
Unfortunately we were so last minute (despite the best intentions and having talked about taking this home for over ten days) that we could not measure the temperature of the room..
I can try later tonight (teaching till rather late today) to address your concerns, not sure Ed is online. Or shall you simply raise your concerns on the NCSG-list and then someone will hopefully interact too? What do you think?
Thanks, s.


________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.42.23
A: Amr Elsadr
Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and      budget

Hi Amr,

We are presenting our endorsement a posteriori, so, in my view, although we should manifest as soon as possible, we do not have a hard deadline. I would not want to preclude discussions, so if Stefania or Ed can jump in and address your comments and doubts, that would be great. In any case, we seem to roughly have enough support to add our PC endorsement by tomorrow, unless there are last minute clear objections.

Thanks,
Marilia

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
Hi,

Speaking for myself, I?ve been having trouble endorsing this comment. I don?t know enough to speak against it, but wonder about the practicality of separating some of the shared costs between ICANN and PTI. For the time being, ICANN is providing the IANA services via PTI. If there is financial sense in sharing resources between the two orgs, then I?m not sure we should oppose this. There may be good reasons for certain personal not being shared, such as the ombudsman, but I?m not sure that this should be a general rule.

I?m also not convinced that while PTI is providing the IANA services, that sharing these resources negatively impacts possible future separability to an extent that warrants increasing operation costs.

But like I said?, I?m no expert on this. I would prefer this comment to be discussed on the members? list before the NCSG endorses it, but I am only one member of the PC, and cannot (nor would I wish to) veto an endorsement.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM<mailto:mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>
> Dear Stefania and Ed, thank you very much for your work on this comment. I endorse it as well.
>
> With all endorsements expressed before, I believe it is fair to say that we have rough consensus on endorsing it on the PC level. Stefania, could you communicate it to staff, ccing Matt and myself?
>
> Thank you
> Marilia
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:58:18AM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>) wrote:
>
> > Thanks for doing this guys!  Looks good to me, I endorse.
> >
> > Steph
> >
> >
> > On 2016-12-12 08:52, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> > > Dear PC members
> > > hope you have all safely returned from Mexico.
> > > Last Saturday Ed and I managed to submit a public comment to the draft PTI FY18 operating plan and budget, which I enclose below.
> > > Notwithstanding the best intentions, we ended up working on this last minute, submitting it right on deadline --which meant no time to run it by the PC.
> > > We do hope however that the PC will decide to support it so that we can notify staff accordingly.
> > > All the best, Stefania and Ed
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > COMMENT ON DRAFT PTI FY18 OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET
> > >
> > > We welcome this opportunity to comment on the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). A California public benefit corporation (entity number C3933089), the PTI is a corporate affiliate of ICANN (California entity number C2121683) whose stated function, to provide IANA services on behalf of ICANN, in certain circumstances is to be capable of separation from ICANN (see generally, articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws). As we review the PTI Operating Plan and Budget we question whether the PTI?s dependence upon ICANN is so extreme that it may better be viewed as a division of ICANN rather than as an affiliate--that is to say, a separate corporation controlled by ICANN, as it is supposed to be. We would encourage more separation between the two entities to bolster public confidence in the integrity of the transition and to improve overall accountability.
> > >
> > > Independence from ICANN and accountability of the PTI. Concerning more specifically the budget, we note that the grand total, including support services, of the PTI operational budget shows that a majority of budgeted items are either shared costs or ICANN support service allocations attributed to the PTI: $5,000,000 of the PTI?s $9,600,000 operational budget consist of costs shared with ICANN or are support services provided to the PTI by ICANN. The $2,800,000 in support services provided to PTI by ICANN is particularly troublesome. We would prefer PTI to develop into an entity capable of providing most of its operational capabilities independently or, at the very least, openly shared with ICANN. The PTI should not be dependent upon staff employed exclusively by ICANN to function.
> > >
> > > As an example, we have become aware of the status of the Ombudsman with PTI. The Ombudsman provides his services on a contractual basis to ICANN; he is not an ICANN employee. Our understanding is that he will be providing his services to PTI as well, when or if needed, through his contract with ICANN. This is wrong. The Ombudsman should be independently and directly contracted by PTI for any services he shall undertake for the company, in order to safeguard its independent role. The same holds true for any other independent contractor, particularly those providing professional services.
> > >
> > > Caretaker Budget. We also express our concern over the establishment of the initial Caretaker Budget by the ICANN Chief Financial Officer for FY18 without prior consultation with the community regarding vision and priorities. While we understand that this budget might largely retrace the proposed budget for the operation of the IANA Services and not much flexibility may be possible here, we would like to observe that the Caretaker Budget comes into use only if the community rejects the proposed budget itself. It makes little sense for the Caretaker IANA Budget to be identical to the budget which has been rejected by the community.
> > >
> > > We recognize that this initial Caretaker Budget proposal may be a result of FY18 being the first full budgetary cycle for the PTI. As such, as a matter of good faith and form, we suggest that the Caretaker Budget proposed for FY18 be submitted to both the GNSO Council and CCNSO Council for feedback and approval. These two groups have enhanced status with regards the PTI (see, for example, section 19.1.b.2 of the ICANN Bylaws), and if the PTI budget were to be rejected by the Empowered Community the legitimacy of the initial Caretaker Budget would be enhanced by prior approval of the GNSO and CCNSO.
> > >
> > > As to the specifics of the proposed Operating Plan and Budget:
> > >
> > > 1.We note that travel and meeting expenses are slated to rise 42.3% from FY17 to FY18  due to money budgeted for three Board meetings per annum as well as ?incremental? community engagement. Given the rather limited remit of the PTI, can we be assured this budgeted amount is not expected to escalate so rapidly in coming years?
> > > 2.Following from the above, we notice that no specific outreach efforts are mentioned in the document and no further indication of their overall purpose, target and content is provided. We wonder what outreach activities are the PTI planning, and what professional figure within PTI will be in charge of planning said activities.
> > > 3.The same goes for the community engagement activities. We wonder whether PTI will have the ability to create its own community engagement strategy, or whether this will be derived from ICANN?s.
> > > 4.Merit awards for existing employees are responsible for an increase of $200,000 in personnel costs in FY18 from the FY17 baseline. With a staff FTE of just 22.6 this seems to be rather generous. Would you please be more specific about the merit rewards program (i.e. basis of rewards, spread amongst x number of employees etc.)?
> > > 5.An additional $70,000 is budgeted for outside legal expenses in FY18. We find that surprising given that FY17 costs incurred for setting up the PTI as a legal entity were presumably one time expenses. Would you please help us understand the basis for this increased budgeted cost, the total amount budgeted for external legal expenses in FY18, the reasons it is anticipated these costs will be incurred? We would also like to know whether PTI automatically contracts with ICANN?s external counsel, or whether it retains the ability to select its own external provider of legal services?
> > >
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Edward Morris
> > > Stefania Milan
> > > GNSO Councillors
> > > Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> > >
> > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632<tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> |
> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:MariliaM at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter: @MariliaM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




--

Mar?lia Maciel
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632<tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> |
Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter: @MariliaM



The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From Stefania.Milan  Wed Dec 14 17:03:41 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:03:41 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan
	and	budget
In-Reply-To: <8D496B7B-3B0E-442A-A606-C050CB4D1795@egyptig.org>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>
	<CACpVkK2bjBosQmiFDtFZb=AFga0nhTR++A4NmpFS-TGorSXiDg@mail.gmail.com>,
	<8D496B7B-3B0E-442A-A606-C050CB4D1795@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521B9FFB84E06C8A31C4A21F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

ps as i put on the chatroom yesterday at the policy call, the process for the PTI FY18 budget is expected to include "calls with the community" (see below). so it would be good to get some discussion going and come to a joint position for that call, beyond mine and Ed's.

from https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-pti-operating-plan-budget-2016-10-24-en
"Following the end of this public comment proceeding, we will hold calls with the community. These calls are an opportunity for the community to present their written comments on the Draft PTI FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. This process is intended to enhance understanding of the comments and to improve the quality of the response. All calls will be public, focused on the organization that submitted comments, and attended by at least one PTI Board member. Additional PTI and ICANN Board members may attend based on availability."

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.47.48
A: Marilia Maciel
Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and      budget

Hi,

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> We are presenting our endorsement a posteriori, so, in my view, although we should manifest as soon as possible, we do not have a hard deadline. I would not want to preclude discussions, so if Stefania or Ed can jump in and address your comments and doubts, that would be great. In any case, we seem to roughly have enough support to add our PC endorsement by tomorrow, unless there are last minute clear objections.

Yes. I agree with this assessment.

Thanks again.

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

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From ncsg  Wed Dec 14 17:03:35 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:03:35 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521A0EC5DE34D3ED9F1A5C9F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521A0EC5DE34D3ED9F1A5C9F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20161214150335.zwfgmkmmh5vsdjwu@tarvainen.info>

Yes - endorsement will have to be in today to have any chance of making it
(and may well be too late already, but worth a shot).

Tapani

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:55:17PM +0000, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:

> HI Marilia, thanks. I believe we are too late for this specific comment. The staff report is due .. tomorrow (December 15). See https://www.icann.org/public-comments/xxx-amendment-2016-10-12-en
> We can try though!
> I am in a break from teaching a class, can do it later tonight unfortunately
> Will keep you posted, Stefania (on behalf of Ed, too)
> 
> ----------------------
> Stefania Milan, PhD
> University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
> Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
> Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
> mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
> stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
> 
> fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
> 
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.50.59
> A: Tapani Tarvainen
> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
> 
> I also support this comment.
> 
> We have PC members who manifested in support and no one against the proposal to submit this comment as PC. If no one objects, we could consider it approved by rough consensus and staff will be communicated.
> 
> Thank you
> Marilia
> 
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> Likewise.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>) wrote:
> 
> > I'm in favour of endorsement.
> >
> > David
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello everybody,
> > >
> > >
> > > Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so now.
> > >
> > > Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on this comment.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Ed and Stefania
> > >
> > > <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> 
> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632<tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> |
> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter: @MariliaM



From mariliamaciel  Wed Dec 14 17:17:50 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:17:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <20161214150335.zwfgmkmmh5vsdjwu@tarvainen.info>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521A0EC5DE34D3ED9F1A5C9F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<20161214150335.zwfgmkmmh5vsdjwu@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK02oZhYjo6n2CiudGn6HsbZ1yCyVN04u0YfL35x4iBh-g@mail.gmail.com>

If there are no objections by the end of today (UTC), endorsement will be
conveyed to staff.
Thanks
M

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> Yes - endorsement will have to be in today to have any chance of making it
> (and may well be too late already, but worth a shot).
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:55:17PM +0000, Milan, Stefania
> (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>
> > HI Marilia, thanks. I believe we are too late for this specific comment.
> The staff report is due .. tomorrow (December 15). See
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/xxx-amendment-2016-10-12-en
> > We can try though!
> > I am in a break from teaching a class, can do it later tonight
> unfortunately
> > Will keep you posted, Stefania (on behalf of Ed, too)
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Stefania Milan, PhD
> > University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
> > Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
> > Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
> > mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333
> - 2309945 (I)
> > stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
> >
> > fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Marilia Maciel
> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> > Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.50.59
> > A: Tapani Tarvainen
> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> > Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
> >
> > I also support this comment.
> >
> > We have PC members who manifested in support and no one against the
> proposal to submit this comment as PC. If no one objects, we could consider
> it approved by rough consensus and staff will be communicated.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Marilia
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> > Likewise.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>)
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm in favour of endorsement.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the
> 'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to
> Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes
> before it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did
> not have time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission.
> We do so now.
> > > >
> > > > Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff
> report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted
> previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL
> renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business
> Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions
> anyone may have on this comment.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Ed and Stefania
> > > >
> > > > <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mar?lia Maciel
> > Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> >
> > WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> > Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632<tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> |
> > Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter:
> @MariliaM
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/f2ea020f/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Dec 14 17:29:51 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:29:51 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK02oZhYjo6n2CiudGn6HsbZ1yCyVN04u0YfL35x4iBh-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521A0EC5DE34D3ED9F1A5C9F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<20161214150335.zwfgmkmmh5vsdjwu@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK02oZhYjo6n2CiudGn6HsbZ1yCyVN04u0YfL35x4iBh-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <125640E1-C13D-461E-8037-0D53AF3B4EAA@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I have no objection to NCSG endorsing this comment provided that we make clear in our communication to staff that we do not endorse the Business Constituency?s comment.

In the comment submitted by Ed, there is a mention of endorsing some of the BC?s shared views on circumvention of the bottom-up process to create contractual obligations for the .xxx registry, which I agree to. However, there are also comments made by the BC that encourage ICANN to enforce content regulation under the .xxx gTLD via contractual compliance. Given this, I hope we can be clarify our lack of endorsement of the BC comment. This will hopefully also be made clear in the staff report.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If there are no objections by the end of today (UTC), endorsement will be conveyed to staff.
> Thanks
> M
> 
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> Yes - endorsement will have to be in today to have any chance of making it
> (and may well be too late already, but worth a shot).
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:55:17PM +0000, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
> 
> > HI Marilia, thanks. I believe we are too late for this specific comment. The staff report is due .. tomorrow (December 15). See https://www.icann.org/public-comments/xxx-amendment-2016-10-12-en
> > We can try though!
> > I am in a break from teaching a class, can do it later tonight unfortunately
> > Will keep you posted, Stefania (on behalf of Ed, too)
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Stefania Milan, PhD
> > University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
> > Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
> > Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
> > mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
> > stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
> >
> > fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> > Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.50.59
> > A: Tapani Tarvainen
> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> > Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
> >
> > I also support this comment.
> >
> > We have PC members who manifested in support and no one against the proposal to submit this comment as PC. If no one objects, we could consider it approved by rough consensus and staff will be communicated.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Marilia
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> > Likewise.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>) wrote:
> >
> > > I'm in favour of endorsement.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so now.
> > > >
> > > > Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on this comment.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Ed and Stefania
> > > >
> > > > <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mar?lia Maciel
> > Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> >
> > WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> > Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632<tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> |
> > Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter: @MariliaM
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> 
> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 | 
> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mariliamaciel  Wed Dec 14 17:34:06 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:34:06 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <125640E1-C13D-461E-8037-0D53AF3B4EAA@egyptig.org>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521A0EC5DE34D3ED9F1A5C9F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<20161214150335.zwfgmkmmh5vsdjwu@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK02oZhYjo6n2CiudGn6HsbZ1yCyVN04u0YfL35x4iBh-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<125640E1-C13D-461E-8037-0D53AF3B4EAA@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2QBABnHqu=zpbWbqrpX-HXQR4obFKx0CQ3Gh+UvCZ-uA@mail.gmail.com>

Good point, Amr. The clarification will be made if we convey our
endorsement to staff later today.
Thanks
M

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have no objection to NCSG endorsing this comment provided that we make
> clear in our communication to staff that we do not endorse the Business
> Constituency?s comment.
>
> In the comment submitted by Ed, there is a mention of endorsing some of
> the BC?s shared views on circumvention of the bottom-up process to create
> contractual obligations for the .xxx registry, which I agree to. However,
> there are also comments made by the BC that encourage ICANN to enforce
> content regulation under the .xxx gTLD via contractual compliance. Given
> this, I hope we can be clarify our lack of endorsement of the BC comment.
> This will hopefully also be made clear in the staff report.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Dec 14, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > If there are no objections by the end of today (UTC), endorsement will
> be conveyed to staff.
> > Thanks
> > M
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > Yes - endorsement will have to be in today to have any chance of making
> it
> > (and may well be too late already, but worth a shot).
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:55:17PM +0000, Milan, Stefania
> (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
> >
> > > HI Marilia, thanks. I believe we are too late for this specific
> comment. The staff report is due .. tomorrow (December 15). See
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/xxx-amendment-2016-10-12-en
> > > We can try though!
> > > I am in a break from teaching a class, can do it later tonight
> unfortunately
> > > Will keep you posted, Stefania (on behalf of Ed, too)
> > >
> > > ----------------------
> > > Stefania Milan, PhD
> > > University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
> > > Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
> > > Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
> > > mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39]
> 333 - 2309945 (I)
> > > stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
> > >
> > > fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Marilia
> Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> > > Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.50.59
> > > A: Tapani Tarvainen
> > > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> > > Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
> > >
> > > I also support this comment.
> > >
> > > We have PC members who manifested in support and no one against the
> proposal to submit this comment as PC. If no one objects, we could consider
> it approved by rough consensus and staff will be communicated.
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Marilia
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> > > Likewise.
> > >
> > > Tapani
> > >
> > > On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave
> @davecake.net>) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm in favour of endorsement.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello everybody,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the
> 'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to
> Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes
> before it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did
> not have time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission.
> We do so now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the
> staff report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that
> submitted previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and
> .TRAVEL renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the
> Business Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any
> questions anyone may have on this comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed and Stefania
> > > > >
> > > > > <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Mar?lia Maciel
> > > Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> > >
> > > WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> > > Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632<tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> |
> > > Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu> |
> Twitter: @MariliaM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mar?lia Maciel
> > Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> >
> > WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> > Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 |
> > Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/12a6e192/attachment.html>


From mshears  Wed Dec 14 17:43:12 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:43:12 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Proposed_Consultati?=
 =?utf-8?q?on_Response_-_Proposal_for_Lao_Script_Root_Zone=E2=80=AC_Label_?=
 =?utf-8?q?Generation_Rules_=28LGR=29?=
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5210B35761EBE04869E9B33F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <3t5RJY3vKw59HAOBlOrd1jpvfR3TRsQ72JYKmg_J11-VesCGBbDBppk-643cYSHDK76eo6ipC1RVvKRU41Rvxyr3WJFQH_JXiJxAJF1lE38=@ferdeline.com>
	<20161202103033.pkrkarh4ptrif2k2@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<U0p2dkglLa3LGHK3vdxyMh90Jo3OMA7NKsXeljwLtVKFDJt08pK83a4fBxHxYR-9brb5ynYCqLkPDiRMPD2WTSfMRYqL3Aei8SIELcKTeOw=@ferdeline.com>
	<InkZAz3pXaN7R4cYxKq1MQILAbSxDxj6ZkxlpdzakctxTq023zZ3okmbW1fO6Og5MWRc2vF_7PwQRtzqpiZlUdZGCIk2RjpNsmAuab6C8Nw=@ferdeline.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521477938BD53F4885D199BF7860@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<uL7s96CL19pavjwQY2ZTKgoh51uKj6j3qGW1elUN8AJ4ZPZ_tsdAXkajuz4BtEUJpiHWfU6Z06J9MsMOUco_8w7tg6st7IHkDTlddTRDR2o=@ferdeline.com>
	<VupL4Hefy0FxJkHoFM_3TgppTod3CjVQiZ7ajl6mQdf0eixckGae8tH8KTUYNwCsb8QPRLxeB9CWlmJY15cCriK2KOwVhsoZcbZQOnhZg9Q=@ferdeline.com>
	<CAH5sThmE1HC5rDV0RS+rvNOw52d3HFjiokoGjKsp2j2Q9Jr3KQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161214134751.p4latfkuceey226d@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB5210B35761EBE04869E9B33F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <653491b7-8914-d5a8-e983-a6f978799414@cdt.org>

Endorsed - thanks!


On 14/12/2016 09:52, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> I believe I endorsed it on the NCSG list-- doing it here again. Thanks, S.
>
> ----------------------
> Stefania Milan, PhD
> University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
> Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
> Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
> mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
> stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
>
> fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 14.47.51
> A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
>
> +1 for endorsing Ayden's comment.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 04:00:17PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> we got another request for endorsment for public comment. the draft was
>> discussed in NCSG list and some edits were done in response.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> Date: 2016-12-14 15:52 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for
>> Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>
>>
>> I am unable to post to the Policy Committee's list, as I am not a member.
>> Could someone who is please ask the Policy Committee if they support the
>> ratification of the attached statement? Sorry to be unable to join the PC's
>> call last night and to ask myself - the call completely slipped my mind.
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
>> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
>> Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:27 PM
>> UTC Time: 10 December 2016 23:27
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>> To: "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU>
>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Thanks for this feedback, Stefania. It is very useful. Taking into account
>> your suggestions I have reworded the consultation response slightly. There
>> are now just under 30 minutes until the consultation period ends, and I'm
>> about to board a plane, so I'm going to submit this comment with a small
>> note that it has not yet been endorsed by the NCSG Policy Committee but has
>> been reviewed by three members of the Policy Committee. If the PC is
>> comfortable supporting this statement after it is submitted, that is
>> brilliant ? if not, it will be my personal remarks. I trust this will be
>> okay.
>>
>> *The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
>> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
>> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
>> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
>> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
>> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
>> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
>> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
>> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
>> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
>> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
>> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
>> pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
>> consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
>> other scripts such as Thai, and we trust that a comprehensive mitigation
>> plan to avoid said confusion will be in place at the time of
>> implementation. Thank you again for inviting our input on your work. We are
>> grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our views. As you move
>> forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your
>> progress.*
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
>> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
>> Local Time: 10 December 2016 3:12 PM
>> UTC Time: 10 December 2016 21:12
>> From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Thanks Ayden for doing this. It is greatly appreciated.
>> One minor point: would it be possible to make concrete suggestions towards
>> a "comprehensive mitigation plan"? Just asking, I wouldn't have a clue
>> myself. I realize that this is last minute, though, and that what I suggest
>> might require more work...
>> Either way, I personally (also as a member of the NCSG Policy Committee)
>> support the submission of this public comment on support of our stakeholder
>> group.
>> Thanks again!
>> Best, Stefania
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Da: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> per conto di Ayden
>> F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>> Inviato: sabato 10 dicembre 2016 18.50.06
>> A: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Oggetto: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
>> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
>>
>> Hi all, please find attached a new draft of this consultation response (the
>> text which has changed is in bold for emphasis). Feedback is welcomed:
>> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
>> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
>> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
>> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
>> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
>> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
>> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
>> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
>> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
>> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
>> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
>> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We are
>> pleased to see that the GP has given consideration to the potential for
>> consumer confusion between visually similar marks in the Lao script and
>> other scripts, however we would encourage the creation of a more
>> comprehensive mitigation plan. Thank you again for inviting our input on
>> your work. We are grateful to the GP for this opportunity to share our
>> views. As you move forward with your work, we ask that you keep the NCSG
>> updated on your progress.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
>> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
>> Local Time: 10 December 2016 11:38 AM
>> UTC Time: 10 December 2016 17:38
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>,
>> pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>>
>> Tapani, hi-
>>
>> Thanks for this feedback. I am just rushing to board a flight to Dallas, so
>> thought I might quickly send through a revised consultation response. The
>> only difference here is the addition of the sentence in bold, which I hope
>> addresses the legitimate concerns that you raised. Do you think this is
>> adequate? Please note that comments on this consultation close in 12 hours
>> time, so I am also c/c'ing the Policy Committee into this email in the
>> hopes that it may still be possible to lodge this response, provided it is
>> suitable and addresses your concerns (and the concerns of others in the
>> NCSG).
>>
>> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
>> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
>> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
>> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
>> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
>> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
>> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
>> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
>> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
>> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
>> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
>> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. We offer,
>> however, one word of caution: we encourage the creation of a comprehensive
>> mitigation plan with measures to avoid consumer confusion where there are
>> visually similar marks between the Lao script and other scripts. Thank you
>> again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
>> this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we
>> ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Proposed Consultation Response - Proposal for Lao Script Root
>> Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR)
>> Local Time: 2 December 2016 4:30 AM
>> UTC Time: 2 December 2016 10:30
>> From: ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks for picking this up. I'm looking at the proposal waiting
>> for next flight towards Mexico, upon very quick reading it seems
>> pretty good but a few things caught my eye.
>>
>> First, the diphthong treatment: it would seem to leave room for
>> potential confusion by allowing same word to appear in multiple
>> different forms.
>>
>> Now I've forgotten all of the 20 or so words of Lao I once knew and
>> don't really know if that's a real danger (are there any Lao speakers
>> among us?), but we might want to flag that in some way.
>>
>> I was also looking for a mention of Lao numerals, didn't see any,
>> not sure if it could be an issue (and too tired to recall or google
>> how other variants of Arabic numerals have been treated).
>>
>> Another thing I found interesting struck is the analysis of
>> cross-script variants: I'm not quite sure their conclusion to avoid
>> defining any simply because Thai and Lao code points cannot be mixed
>> in a label sufficient - again I'd need a Lao or at least Thai speaker
>> to confirm my suspicion but I could imagine an acronym that'd be
>> confusingly similar with some font.
>>
>> Lacking real expertise I'm not suggesting explicit criticism of any of
>> those points, but perhaps language that flags them and commends the
>> Lao GP for considering them and noting that such issues are in general
>> important and merit thoroughness might work.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>>
>> On Dec 01 08:37, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings all,
>>>
>>> I have drafted a brief consultation response on behalf of the NCSG in
>> relation to the [Proposal for Lao Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules](
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en) (LGR).
>> Comments can be submitted until 10 December. I consider the proposal to be
>> very reasonable and not controversial, so I was thinking we could submit
>> the following message of support:
>>>
>>> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) welcomes the opportunity to
>> comment on the recommendations of the Lao Script Generation Panel (GP)
>> which has developed a Proposal for the Lao Script Root Zone Label
>> Generation Rules. We have carefully considered the proposal and support its
>> integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. We
>> congratulate the GP on its excellent work in developing this proposal, and
>> appreciate the diversity and expertise within the GP, which includes
>> representatives of the Laos government, registry operation specialists, and
>> academics interested in the use of the Lao script in top-level domain
>> names. We support enlargement of the root zone to include more character
>> sets, because the principles of geographic, linguistic, and cultural
>> diversity are both important and relevant to ICANN?s activities. Thank you
>> again for inviting our input on your work. We are grateful to the GP for
>> this opportunity to share our views. As you move forward with your work, we
>> ask that you keep the NCSG updated on your progress.
>>>
>>> You can read the consultation documents in full here:
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lao-lgr-2016-10-24-en
>>> Please feel free to edit my statement, especially if you think I have
>> overlooked something. I will forward whatever materials we have to the NCSG
>> Policy Committee to consider submitting on behalf of the NCSG on 5
>> December, to give them a few days to contemplate submission. Thanks!
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
>> <http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline%5D(http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987


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




From mshears  Wed Dec 14 17:44:34 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:44:34 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <125640E1-C13D-461E-8037-0D53AF3B4EAA@egyptig.org>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521A0EC5DE34D3ED9F1A5C9F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<20161214150335.zwfgmkmmh5vsdjwu@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK02oZhYjo6n2CiudGn6HsbZ1yCyVN04u0YfL35x4iBh-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<125640E1-C13D-461E-8037-0D53AF3B4EAA@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <177a194d-71d2-1855-555d-b1586bb24283@cdt.org>

Thanks Amr.  Agree that this is an important distinction and should be 
made in the comments.

Matthew


On 14/12/2016 10:29, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have no objection to NCSG endorsing this comment provided that we make clear in our communication to staff that we do not endorse the Business Constituency?s comment.
>
> In the comment submitted by Ed, there is a mention of endorsing some of the BC?s shared views on circumvention of the bottom-up process to create contractual obligations for the .xxx registry, which I agree to. However, there are also comments made by the BC that encourage ICANN to enforce content regulation under the .xxx gTLD via contractual compliance. Given this, I hope we can be clarify our lack of endorsement of the BC comment. This will hopefully also be made clear in the staff report.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If there are no objections by the end of today (UTC), endorsement will be conveyed to staff.
>> Thanks
>> M
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>> Yes - endorsement will have to be in today to have any chance of making it
>> (and may well be too late already, but worth a shot).
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:55:17PM +0000, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>
>>> HI Marilia, thanks. I believe we are too late for this specific comment. The staff report is due .. tomorrow (December 15). See https://www.icann.org/public-comments/xxx-amendment-2016-10-12-en
>>> We can try though!
>>> I am in a break from teaching a class, can do it later tonight unfortunately
>>> Will keep you posted, Stefania (on behalf of Ed, too)
>>>
>>> ----------------------
>>> Stefania Milan, PhD
>>> University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
>>> Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
>>> Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
>>> mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
>>> stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
>>>
>>> fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>> Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.50.59
>>> A: Tapani Tarvainen
>>> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
>>>
>>> I also support this comment.
>>>
>>> We have PC members who manifested in support and no one against the proposal to submit this comment as PC. If no one objects, we could consider it approved by rough consensus and staff will be communicated.
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>> Marilia
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>>> Likewise.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net>) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm in favour of endorsement.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello everybody,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on this comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed and Stefania
>>>>>
>>>>> <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Mar?lia Maciel
>>> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>>>
>>> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
>>> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632<tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> |
>>> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter: @MariliaM
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Mar?lia Maciel
>> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>>
>> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
>> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 |
>> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987


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




From stephanie.perrin  Wed Dec 14 18:13:16 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:13:16 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and
 budget
In-Reply-To: <659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <e74d69ed-0a9f-855a-c283-806b6761dfc7@mail.utoronto.ca>

Amr is being sensible, so I withdraw my early endorsement...I read the 
comment carefully, but I had not bothered to read the root documents 
(heavy sigh) and I suspect we need to go over them carefully.

Stephanie


On 2016-12-14 09:16, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Speaking for myself, I?ve been having trouble endorsing this comment. I don?t know enough to speak against it, but wonder about the practicality of separating some of the shared costs between ICANN and PTI. For the time being, ICANN is providing the IANA services via PTI. If there is financial sense in sharing resources between the two orgs, then I?m not sure we should oppose this. There may be good reasons for certain personal not being shared, such as the ombudsman, but I?m not sure that this should be a general rule.
>
> I?m also not convinced that while PTI is providing the IANA services, that sharing these resources negatively impacts possible future separability to an extent that warrants increasing operation costs.
>
> But like I said?, I?m no expert on this. I would prefer this comment to be discussed on the members? list before the NCSG endorses it, but I am only one member of the PC, and cannot (nor would I wish to) veto an endorsement.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Stefania and Ed, thank you very much for your work on this comment. I endorse it as well.
>>
>> With all endorsements expressed before, I believe it is fair to say that we have rough consensus on endorsing it on the PC level. Stefania, could you communicate it to staff, ccing Matt and myself?
>>
>> Thank you
>> Marilia
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:58:18AM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for doing this guys!  Looks good to me, I endorse.
>>>
>>> Steph
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016-12-12 08:52, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>>>> Dear PC members
>>>> hope you have all safely returned from Mexico.
>>>> Last Saturday Ed and I managed to submit a public comment to the draft PTI FY18 operating plan and budget, which I enclose below.
>>>> Notwithstanding the best intentions, we ended up working on this last minute, submitting it right on deadline --which meant no time to run it by the PC.
>>>> We do hope however that the PC will decide to support it so that we can notify staff accordingly.
>>>> All the best, Stefania and Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> COMMENT ON DRAFT PTI FY18 OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET
>>>>
>>>> We welcome this opportunity to comment on the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). A California public benefit corporation (entity number C3933089), the PTI is a corporate affiliate of ICANN (California entity number C2121683) whose stated function, to provide IANA services on behalf of ICANN, in certain circumstances is to be capable of separation from ICANN (see generally, articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws). As we review the PTI Operating Plan and Budget we question whether the PTI?s dependence upon ICANN is so extreme that it may better be viewed as a division of ICANN rather than as an affiliate--that is to say, a separate corporation controlled by ICANN, as it is supposed to be. We would encourage more separation between the two entities to bolster public confidence in the integrity of the transition and to improve overall accountability.
>>>>
>>>> Independence from ICANN and accountability of the PTI. Concerning more specifically the budget, we note that the grand total, including support services, of the PTI operational budget shows that a majority of budgeted items are either shared costs or ICANN support service allocations attributed to the PTI: $5,000,000 of the PTI?s $9,600,000 operational budget consist of costs shared with ICANN or are support services provided to the PTI by ICANN. The $2,800,000 in support services provided to PTI by ICANN is particularly troublesome. We would prefer PTI to develop into an entity capable of providing most of its operational capabilities independently or, at the very least, openly shared with ICANN. The PTI should not be dependent upon staff employed exclusively by ICANN to function.
>>>>
>>>> As an example, we have become aware of the status of the Ombudsman with PTI. The Ombudsman provides his services on a contractual basis to ICANN; he is not an ICANN employee. Our understanding is that he will be providing his services to PTI as well, when or if needed, through his contract with ICANN. This is wrong. The Ombudsman should be independently and directly contracted by PTI for any services he shall undertake for the company, in order to safeguard its independent role. The same holds true for any other independent contractor, particularly those providing professional services.
>>>>
>>>> Caretaker Budget. We also express our concern over the establishment of the initial Caretaker Budget by the ICANN Chief Financial Officer for FY18 without prior consultation with the community regarding vision and priorities. While we understand that this budget might largely retrace the proposed budget for the operation of the IANA Services and not much flexibility may be possible here, we would like to observe that the Caretaker Budget comes into use only if the community rejects the proposed budget itself. It makes little sense for the Caretaker IANA Budget to be identical to the budget which has been rejected by the community.
>>>>
>>>> We recognize that this initial Caretaker Budget proposal may be a result of FY18 being the first full budgetary cycle for the PTI. As such, as a matter of good faith and form, we suggest that the Caretaker Budget proposed for FY18 be submitted to both the GNSO Council and CCNSO Council for feedback and approval. These two groups have enhanced status with regards the PTI (see, for example, section 19.1.b.2 of the ICANN Bylaws), and if the PTI budget were to be rejected by the Empowered Community the legitimacy of the initial Caretaker Budget would be enhanced by prior approval of the GNSO and CCNSO.
>>>>
>>>> As to the specifics of the proposed Operating Plan and Budget:
>>>>
>>>> 1.We note that travel and meeting expenses are slated to rise 42.3% from FY17 to FY18  due to money budgeted for three Board meetings per annum as well as ?incremental? community engagement. Given the rather limited remit of the PTI, can we be assured this budgeted amount is not expected to escalate so rapidly in coming years?
>>>> 2.Following from the above, we notice that no specific outreach efforts are mentioned in the document and no further indication of their overall purpose, target and content is provided. We wonder what outreach activities are the PTI planning, and what professional figure within PTI will be in charge of planning said activities.
>>>> 3.The same goes for the community engagement activities. We wonder whether PTI will have the ability to create its own community engagement strategy, or whether this will be derived from ICANN?s.
>>>> 4.Merit awards for existing employees are responsible for an increase of $200,000 in personnel costs in FY18 from the FY17 baseline. With a staff FTE of just 22.6 this seems to be rather generous. Would you please be more specific about the merit rewards program (i.e. basis of rewards, spread amongst x number of employees etc.)?
>>>> 5.An additional $70,000 is budgeted for outside legal expenses in FY18. We find that surprising given that FY17 costs incurred for setting up the PTI as a legal entity were presumably one time expenses. Would you please help us understand the basis for this increased budgeted cost, the total amount budgeted for external legal expenses in FY18, the reasons it is anticipated these costs will be incurred? We would also like to know whether PTI automatically contracts with ICANN?s external counsel, or whether it retains the ability to select its own external provider of legal services?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>
>>>> Edward Morris
>>>> Stefania Milan
>>>> GNSO Councillors
>>>> Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>
>>>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Mar?lia Maciel
>> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>>
>> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
>> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 |
>> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @MariliaM
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20161214/461697fe/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Dec 14 18:15:37 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:15:37 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f1f9b00d-ca9f-213d-087e-f9e9d33971e3@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think I have already said yes, but just for certainty, I endorse!

stephanie


On 2016-12-14 09:50, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> I also support this comment.
>
> We have PC members who manifested in support and no one against the 
> proposal to submit this comment as PC. If no one objects, we could 
> consider it approved by rough consensus and staff will be communicated.
>
> Thank you
> Marilia
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen 
> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>
>     Likewise.
>
>     Tapani
>
>     On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net
>     <mailto:dave at davecake.net>) wrote:
>
>     > I'm in favour of endorsement.
>     >
>     > David
>     >
>     > Sent from my iPad
>     >
>     > > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > Hello everybody,
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the
>     'Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee
>     Structure and to Adopt Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the
>     comment about 20 minutes before it's submission deadline of
>     midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have time to present it
>     to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so now.
>     > >
>     > > Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the
>     staff report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon
>     that submitted previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the
>     .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration
>     Request with the Business Constituency on the same matter. We'd be
>     happy to answer any questions anyone may have on this comment.
>     > >
>     > > Sincerely,
>     > >
>     > > Ed and Stefania
>     > >
>     > > <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 <tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> *| *
> *Email*: _MariliaM at diplomacy.edu 
> <mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu>____*|*__*Twitter*: __ at MariliaM_
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161214/bb2a007d/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Dec 14 18:16:44 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:16:44 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and
 budget
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521B9FFB84E06C8A31C4A21F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>
	<CACpVkK2bjBosQmiFDtFZb=AFga0nhTR++A4NmpFS-TGorSXiDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D496B7B-3B0E-442A-A606-C050CB4D1795@egyptig.org>
	<DB3PR05MB521B9FFB84E06C8A31C4A21F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <4f95ce46-bdc3-0083-62d8-39daa4c8704e@mail.utoronto.ca>

yes indeed, good idea.

steph


On 2016-12-14 10:03, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> ps as i put on the chatroom yesterday at the policy call, the process for the PTI FY18 budget is expected to include "calls with the community" (see below). so it would be good to get some discussion going and come to a joint position for that call, beyond mine and Ed's.
>
> from https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-pti-operating-plan-budget-2016-10-24-en
> "Following the end of this public comment proceeding, we will hold calls with the community. These calls are an opportunity for the community to present their written comments on the Draft PTI FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. This process is intended to enhance understanding of the comments and to improve the quality of the response. All calls will be public, focused on the organization that submitted comments, and attended by at least one PTI Board member. Additional PTI and ICANN Board members may attend based on availability."
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.47.48
> A: Marilia Maciel
> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and      budget
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>>
>> We are presenting our endorsement a posteriori, so, in my view, although we should manifest as soon as possible, we do not have a hard deadline. I would not want to preclude discussions, so if Stefania or Ed can jump in and address your comments and doubts, that would be great. In any case, we seem to roughly have enough support to add our PC endorsement by tomorrow, unless there are last minute clear objections.
> Yes. I agree with this assessment.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161214/3279db52/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Dec 14 18:23:55 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:23:55 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] Appointments Procedure proposal
In-Reply-To: <0F6C83F8969848659A8DFEDDF18BB1FF@WUKPC>
References: <0F6C83F8969848659A8DFEDDF18BB1FF@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <688884db-ee0a-555e-0188-c6178e197d8f@mail.utoronto.ca>

good questions to ponder....

SP

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [council] Appointments Procedure proposal
Date: 	Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:12:27 +0100
From: 	WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: 	WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>



Thanks very much Susan and Ed for this well structured proposal!

It will need careful deliberation (including some mathematical study with
respect to the "system of rotation") within all SGs/Cs. Therefore I've
circulated immediately within my constituency to kick-off discussion.
First questions:
1. II. (Review Team Appointments) covers Bylaws section 4.6 (Specific
Reviews), correct?
2. Which appointments do you have in mind under III (Other Appointments)?
3. During the council discussion tomorrow I'd like to get a better
understanding of the rotation and how the NCAs nomination fit to it.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
From: Edward Morris
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:17 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Appointments Procedure proposal


Hi everybody,

Attached please find the GNSO Appointments Procedure that Susan and I have
worked together to create. I'm proud of it and think we've come up with
something that respects the diversity of the GNSO and will allow us to
nominate our best candidates for positions within the ICANN community.

You'll note that in section 1(a) we still have one item we'd like the
Council to consider and make a determination on: the composition of the
proposed GNSO Selection Committee.

I'm sure both Susan and myself would be happy to answer any questions you
may have. Suggestions to improve upon our work, of course, are encouraged
and welcome.

On a personal note, I'd like to thank Susan for her exceptionally hard work
in making this policy proposal a reality. It has been nothing less than a
complete delight to work with her on this and I'm very happy I had the
opportunity to do so.

Kind Regards,

Edward Morris









Sent from my iPhone

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/a9c074ee/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Dec 14 18:28:03 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:28:03 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council]
 AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
 Organization for CCWG-IG
In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549F6FBA6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549F6FBA6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <b2b47828-383d-1ab6-6993-f3e61c3be8a5@mail.utoronto.ca>

sorry to spam you all, but another issue we need to discuss....

SP



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - 
Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering 
Organization for CCWG-IG
Date: 	Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:10:39 +0000
From: 	Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
To: 	ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org 
<ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>



Hi all,

Is there a plan to get this process started? Copenhagen will be here 
before we know it.

Regards,

Keith

Keith Drazek

Vice President

Public Policy & Government Relations

Verisign, Inc.

+1-571-377-9182

kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>

*From:*ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org 
[mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik 
Dammak
*Sent:* Monday, November 07, 2016 4:10 AM
*To:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
*Subject:* [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - Motion 
on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization 
for CCWG-IG

Hi everyone,

GNSO council just approved unanimously this motion. It is still 
chartering organization but we got work to do by Copenhagen meeting.

Best,

Rafik
---
 >
 > 2.         MOTION ? Conditional participation of the GNSO as a 
Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss 
Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
 >
 > Made by: Darcy Southwell
 >
 > Seconded by:
 >
 >
 >
 > WHEREAS:
 >
 > a)      The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross Community 
Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting 
ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organization on these 
issues on 15 October 2014, and as such became a Chartering Organization.
 >
 > b)      The Charter foresees that ?At each ICANN Annual General 
Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be 
reviewed by the participating SO?s and AC?s to determine whether the WG 
should continue, or, close and be dissolved. Consistent with ICANN 
community practices, the WG will continue if at least two of the 
participating SO?s or AC?s extend the Charter of the WG and notify the 
other participating SO?s and AC?s accordingly one month after the annual 
review date?.
 >
 > c)      The CWG-IG provided its first written status update on 23 
June 2016 (see 
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf).
 >
 > d)      The GNSO Council recently adopted the ?Uniform Framework of 
Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups? (CWG 
Framework) which details the lifecycle of a CCWG including initiation, 
formation, operation, decision-making, adoption of Final Report by 
Chartering Organizations and closure of CCWG, and post-closure of CCWG.
 >
 > e)      The GNSO Council has observed that the CWG-IG does not follow 
this lifecycle, nor has it established or adopted an initial work plan 
and associated schedule as foreseen in its Charter.
 >
 > f)       The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a continued 
dialogue and discussion in relation to the topic of Internet Governance 
within an ICANN context.
 >
 > g)      The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the ccNSO 
Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the subject of this CWG 
and its future.
 >
 >
 >
 > RESOLVED:
 >
 > a)      The GNSO Council will continue to participate as a Chartering 
Organization for the CWG-IG. However, this participation is conditioned 
upon a comprehensive review of the CWG-IG Charter by the CWG-IG, in 
accordance with the CWG Framework 
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). 
In particular, the GNSO Council expects future work to be subject to a 
clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables.
 >
 > b)      The GNSO Council expects that the CWG-IG will present by 
ICANN58 a report on its findings, which may include a revised charter or 
a recommendation to reconstitute the group under a new structure.
 >
 > c)      Following the submission of the CWG-IG report, the GNSO 
Council will consider the recommendations and decide whether or not it 
will continue as a Chartering Organization.
 >
 > d)      The GNSO Secretariat will communicate this decision to the 
CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering Organizations.
 >
 >

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/4c1799e7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Dec 14 19:24:43 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:24:43 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council]
 AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
 Organization for CCWG-IG
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR17MB1432A73EB4255640DB136E4FD39A0@CY4PR17MB1432.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CY4PR17MB1432A73EB4255640DB136E4FD39A0@CY4PR17MB1432.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <c29d69d2-059f-14b5-5b73-cb896af57d8e@mail.utoronto.ca>


Need an alternative suggestion pretty fast....
SP

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - 
Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering 
Organization for CCWG-IG
Date: 	Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:13:05 +0000
From: 	Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
To: 	Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, farzaneh badii 
<farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
CC: 	ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org 
<ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>



I think we should just do this, and I hope that Olivier and Nigel are 
joining,  as well... but also gathering inputs and participants from all 
of the GNSO constituencies. .


Yes, we need some geo diversity. Perhaps Jimson/BC - Africa ICT 
Alliance, and some others from non WEOG can contribute. Someone from 
ISPs? Someone from each other Constituency?


Are we inviting others from other SGs or ACs, or first drafting as GNSO? 
Sorry to ask but I can also reach out to CCTLDS and GAC if you are 
seeking broader drafting partners in this but I thought it was first GNSO?

M



------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org 
<ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan 
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:53 AM
*To:* farzaneh badii
*Cc:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - 
Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering 
Organization for CCWG-IG
I suggest we assemble a (Re-)Drafting Team and get on with it.

Marilyn has volunteered.
It might be a fair assumption that Keith and Farzi have "volunteered" as 
well, by replying to this email.  (Which probably means I have 
volunteered too).
Whether or not that's a fair assumption, I think we need some non-GNSO 
participation in the drafting team to round things out (Marilyn, Keith, 
Farzi and I are all similarly afflicted, though with different strains 
of the GNSO virus).  A preponderance of GNSO folk is fine (especially 
since the GNSO is the "inspiration" for this project), but we should be 
somewhat more diverse than that....  (Farzi no longer even gives us 
geographic diversity, since she's now a North American Georgia Peach, or 
Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket, or something like that...)

Let's not wait until the meeting next week to get this going.  Wouldn't 
it be nice to have a progress report at next week's meeting instead?

Any other volunteers?

Anyone volunteering to chair?  (Not I, with apologies, I'm chaired-out 
at the moment.)

Greg

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, farzaneh badii 
<farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:

    Thanks Keith for bringing this up again. I think we need to start
    doing something about it and we have to start soon.

    On 14 December 2016 at 11:10, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
    <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:

        Hi all,

        Is there a plan to get this process started? Copenhagen will be
        here before we know it.

        Regards,

        Keith

        Keith Drazek

        Vice President

        Public Policy & Government Relations

        Verisign, Inc.

        +1-571-377-9182 <tel:+1%20571-377-9182>

        kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>

        *From:*ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
        <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>
        [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
        <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf
        Of *Rafik Dammak
        *Sent:* Monday, November 07, 2016 4:10 AM
        *To:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
        <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
        *Subject:* [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT -
        Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
        Organization for CCWG-IG

        Hi everyone,

        GNSO council just approved unanimously this motion. It is still
        chartering organization but we got work to do by Copenhagen meeting.

        Best,

        Rafik
        ---
         >
         > 2.         MOTION ? Conditional participation of the GNSO as
        a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group
        to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
         >
         > Made by: Darcy Southwell
         >
         > Seconded by:
         >
         >
         >
         > WHEREAS:
         >
         > a)      The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross
        Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG)
        issues affecting ICANN and make recommendations to the
        chartering organization on these issues on 15 October 2014, and
        as such became a Chartering Organization.
         >
         > b)      The Charter foresees that ?At each ICANN Annual
        General Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of
        the WG shall be reviewed by the participating SO?s and AC?s to
        determine whether the WG should continue, or, close and be
        dissolved. Consistent with ICANN community practices, the WG
        will continue if at least two of the participating SO?s or AC?s
        extend the Charter of the WG and notify the other participating
        SO?s and AC?s accordingly one month after the annual review date?.
         >
         > c)      The CWG-IG provided its first written status update
        on 23 June 2016 (see
        https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf
        <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf>).
         >
         > d)      The GNSO Council recently adopted the ?Uniform
        Framework of Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community
        Working Groups? (CWG Framework) which details the lifecycle of a
        CCWG including initiation, formation, operation,
        decision-making, adoption of Final Report by Chartering
        Organizations and closure of CCWG, and post-closure of CCWG.
         >
         > e)      The GNSO Council has observed that the CWG-IG does
        not follow this lifecycle, nor has it established or adopted an
        initial work plan and associated schedule as foreseen in its
        Charter.
         >
         > f)       The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a
        continued dialogue and discussion in relation to the topic of
        Internet Governance within an ICANN context.
         >
         > g)      The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the
        ccNSO Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the subject
        of this CWG and its future.
         >
         >
         >
         > RESOLVED:
         >
         > a)      The GNSO Council will continue to participate as a
        Chartering Organization for the CWG-IG. However, this
        participation is conditioned upon a comprehensive review of the
        CWG-IG Charter by the CWG-IG, in accordance with the CWG
        Framework
        (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf
        <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf>).
        In particular, the GNSO Council expects future work to be
        subject to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear
        deliverables.
         >
         > b)      The GNSO Council expects that the CWG-IG will present
        by ICANN58 a report on its findings, which may include a revised
        charter or a recommendation to reconstitute the group under a
        new structure.
         >
         > c)      Following the submission of the CWG-IG report, the
        GNSO Council will consider the recommendations and decide
        whether or not it will continue as a Chartering Organization.
         >
         > d)      The GNSO Secretariat will communicate this decision
        to the CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering Organizations.
         >
         >


        _______________________________________________
        ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
        ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
        <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
        https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
        <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>




    -- 
    Farzaneh

    _______________________________________________
    ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
    ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
    <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
    <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/72356543/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance



From pileleji  Wed Dec 14 19:53:22 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 18:53:22 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council]
 AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
 Organization for CCWG-IG
In-Reply-To: <c29d69d2-059f-14b5-5b73-cb896af57d8e@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CY4PR17MB1432A73EB4255640DB136E4FD39A0@CY4PR17MB1432.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
	<c29d69d2-059f-14b5-5b73-cb896af57d8e@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAEux40u46uf9fu-zuSh6SzH8cLsao8Z7odeyx===3OW_8gQ01g@mail.gmail.com>

Stephanie,

Please you can count on me on this.

Regards

Poncelet

On 14 December 2016 at 18:24, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>
> Need an alternative suggestion pretty fast....
> SP
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - Motion
> on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for
> CCWG-IG
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:13:05 +0000
> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>,
> farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <ccwg-internet-governance@
> icann.org> <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>
> I think we should just do this, and I hope that Olivier and Nigel are
> joining,  as well... but also gathering inputs and participants from all of
> the GNSO constituencies. .
>
>
> Yes, we need some geo diversity. Perhaps Jimson/BC - Africa ICT Alliance,
> and some others from non WEOG can contribute. Someone from ISPs? Someone
> from each other Constituency?
>
>
> Are we inviting others from other SGs or ACs, or first drafting as GNSO?
> Sorry to ask but I can also reach out to CCTLDS and GAC if you are seeking
> broader drafting partners in this but I thought it was first GNSO?
>
> M
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
> <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>
> <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:53 AM
> *To:* farzaneh badii
> *Cc:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT -
> Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
> Organization for CCWG-IG
>
> I suggest we assemble a (Re-)Drafting Team and get on with it.
>
> Marilyn has volunteered.
> It might be a fair assumption that Keith and Farzi have "volunteered" as
> well, by replying to this email.  (Which probably means I have volunteered
> too).
> Whether or not that's a fair assumption, I think we need some non-GNSO
> participation in the drafting team to round things out (Marilyn, Keith,
> Farzi and I are all similarly afflicted, though with different strains of
> the GNSO virus).  A preponderance of GNSO folk is fine (especially since
> the GNSO is the "inspiration" for this project), but we should be somewhat
> more diverse than that....  (Farzi no longer even gives us geographic
> diversity, since she's now a North American Georgia Peach, or Georgia Tech
> Yellow Jacket, or something like that...)
>
> Let's not wait until the meeting next week to get this going.  Wouldn't it
> be nice to have a progress report at next week's meeting instead?
>
> Any other volunteers?
>
> Anyone volunteering to chair?  (Not I, with apologies, I'm chaired-out at
> the moment.)
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Thanks Keith for bringing this up again. I think we need to start doing
>> something about it and we have to start soon.
>>
>> On 14 December 2016 at 11:10, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there a plan to get this process started? Copenhagen will be here
>>> before we know it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keith Drazek
>>>
>>> Vice President
>>>
>>> Public Policy & Government Relations
>>>
>>> Verisign, Inc.
>>>
>>> +1-571-377-9182 <+1%20571-377-9182>
>>>
>>> kdrazek at verisign.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>> ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak
>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 07, 2016 4:10 AM
>>> *To:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - Motion
>>> on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for
>>> CCWG-IG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> GNSO council just approved unanimously this motion. It is still
>>> chartering organization but we got work to do by Copenhagen meeting.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> ---
>>> >
>>> > 2.         MOTION ? Conditional participation of the GNSO as a
>>> Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
>>> >
>>> > Made by: Darcy Southwell
>>> >
>>> > Seconded by:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > WHEREAS:
>>> >
>>> > a)      The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross Community
>>> Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting
>>> ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organization on these
>>> issues on 15 October 2014, and as such became a Chartering Organization.
>>> >
>>> > b)      The Charter foresees that ?At each ICANN Annual General
>>> Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be
>>> reviewed by the participating SO?s and AC?s to determine whether the WG
>>> should continue, or, close and be dissolved. Consistent with ICANN
>>> community practices, the WG will continue if at least two of the
>>> participating SO?s or AC?s extend the Charter of the WG and notify the
>>> other participating SO?s and AC?s accordingly one month after the annual
>>> review date?.
>>> >
>>> > c)      The CWG-IG provided its first written status update on 23 June
>>> 2016 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23
>>> jun16-en.pdf).
>>> >
>>> > d)      The GNSO Council recently adopted the ?Uniform Framework of
>>> Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups? (CWG
>>> Framework) which details the lifecycle of a CCWG including initiation,
>>> formation, operation, decision-making, adoption of Final Report by
>>> Chartering Organizations and closure of CCWG, and post-closure of CCWG.
>>> >
>>> > e)      The GNSO Council has observed that the CWG-IG does not follow
>>> this lifecycle, nor has it established or adopted an initial work plan and
>>> associated schedule as foreseen in its Charter.
>>> >
>>> > f)       The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a continued
>>> dialogue and discussion in relation to the topic of Internet Governance
>>> within an ICANN context.
>>> >
>>> > g)      The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the ccNSO
>>> Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the subject of this CWG and
>>> its future.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > RESOLVED:
>>> >
>>> > a)      The GNSO Council will continue to participate as a Chartering
>>> Organization for the CWG-IG. However, this participation is conditioned
>>> upon a comprehensive review of the CWG-IG Charter by the CWG-IG, in
>>> accordance with the CWG Framework (http://gnso.icann.org/en/draf
>>> ts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In
>>> particular, the GNSO Council expects future work to be subject to a clear
>>> work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables.
>>> >
>>> > b)      The GNSO Council expects that the CWG-IG will present by
>>> ICANN58 a report on its findings, which may include a revised charter or a
>>> recommendation to reconstitute the group under a new structure.
>>> >
>>> > c)      Following the submission of the CWG-IG report, the GNSO
>>> Council will consider the recommendations and decide whether or not it will
>>> continue as a Chartering Organization.
>>> >
>>> > d)      The GNSO Secretariat will communicate this decision to the
>>> CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering Organizations.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/60647624/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Wed Dec 14 20:02:42 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 18:02:42 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council]
 AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
 Organization for CCWG-IG
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40u46uf9fu-zuSh6SzH8cLsao8Z7odeyx===3OW_8gQ01g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CY4PR17MB1432A73EB4255640DB136E4FD39A0@CY4PR17MB1432.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
	<c29d69d2-059f-14b5-5b73-cb896af57d8e@mail.utoronto.ca>,
	<CAEux40u46uf9fu-zuSh6SzH8cLsao8Z7odeyx===3OW_8gQ01g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5A7321E7-09DF-4227-B6E4-758C29E3F377@EUI.eu>

same here. any clue as to how best to proceed?

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 14, 2016, at 18:54, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm<mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:

Stephanie,

Please you can count on me on this.

Regards

Poncelet

On 14 December 2016 at 18:24, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:


Need an alternative suggestion pretty fast....
SP

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for CCWG-IG
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:13:05 +0000
From:   Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com><mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
To:     Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
CC:     ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org> <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org><mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>



I think we should just do this, and I hope that Olivier and Nigel are joining,  as well... but also gathering inputs and participants from all of the GNSO constituencies. .


Yes, we need some geo diversity. Perhaps Jimson/BC - Africa ICT Alliance, and some others from non WEOG can contribute. Someone from ISPs? Someone from each other Constituency?


Are we inviting others from other SGs or ACs, or first drafting as GNSO? Sorry to ask but I can also reach out to CCTLDS and GAC if you are seeking broader drafting partners in this but I thought it was first GNSO?

M


________________________________
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org><mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:53 AM
To: farzaneh badii
Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for CCWG-IG

I suggest we assemble a (Re-)Drafting Team and get on with it.

Marilyn has volunteered.
It might be a fair assumption that Keith and Farzi have "volunteered" as well, by replying to this email.  (Which probably means I have volunteered too).
Whether or not that's a fair assumption, I think we need some non-GNSO participation in the drafting team to round things out (Marilyn, Keith, Farzi and I are all similarly afflicted, though with different strains of the GNSO virus).  A preponderance of GNSO folk is fine (especially since the GNSO is the "inspiration" for this project), but we should be somewhat more diverse than that....  (Farzi no longer even gives us geographic diversity, since she's now a North American Georgia Peach, or Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket, or something like that...)

Let's not wait until the meeting next week to get this going.  Wouldn't it be nice to have a progress report at next week's meeting instead?

Any other volunteers?

Anyone volunteering to chair?  (Not I, with apologies, I'm chaired-out at the moment.)

Greg

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Keith for bringing this up again. I think we need to start doing something about it and we have to start soon.

On 14 December 2016 at 11:10, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:
Hi all,

Is there a plan to get this process started? Copenhagen will be here before we know it.

Regards,
Keith




Keith Drazek
Vice President
Public Policy & Government Relations
Verisign, Inc.
+1-571-377-9182<tel:+1%20571-377-9182>
kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>



From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 4:10 AM
To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for CCWG-IG


Hi everyone,

GNSO council just approved unanimously this motion. It is still chartering organization but we got work to do by Copenhagen meeting.

Best,

Rafik
---
>
> 2.         MOTION - Conditional participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
>
> Made by: Darcy Southwell
>
> Seconded by:
>
>
>
> WHEREAS:
>
> a)      The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues on 15 October 2014, and as such became a Chartering Organization.
>
> b)      The Charter foresees that "At each ICANN Annual General Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be reviewed by the participating SO's and AC's to determine whether the WG should continue, or, close and be dissolved. Consistent with ICANN community practices, the WG will continue if at least two of the participating SO's or AC's extend the Charter of the WG and notify the other participating SO's and AC's accordingly one month after the annual review date".
>
> c)      The CWG-IG provided its first written status update on 23 June 2016 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf).
>
> d)      The GNSO Council recently adopted the "Uniform Framework of Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups" (CWG Framework) which details the lifecycle of a CCWG including initiation, formation, operation, decision-making, adoption of Final Report by Chartering Organizations and closure of CCWG, and post-closure of CCWG.
>
> e)      The GNSO Council has observed that the CWG-IG does not follow this lifecycle, nor has it established or adopted an initial work plan and associated schedule as foreseen in its Charter.
>
> f)       The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a continued dialogue and discussion in relation to the topic of Internet Governance within an ICANN context.
>
> g)      The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the ccNSO Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the subject of this CWG and its future.
>
>
>
> RESOLVED:
>
> a)      The GNSO Council will continue to participate as a Chartering Organization for the CWG-IG. However, this participation is conditioned upon a comprehensive review of the CWG-IG Charter by the CWG-IG, in accordance with the CWG Framework (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In particular, the GNSO Council expects future work to be subject to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables.
>
> b)      The GNSO Council expects that the CWG-IG will present by ICANN58 a report on its findings, which may include a revised charter or a recommendation to reconstitute the group under a new structure.
>
> c)      Following the submission of the CWG-IG report, the GNSO Council will consider the recommendations and decide whether or not it will continue as a Chartering Organization.
>
> d)      The GNSO Secretariat will communicate this decision to the CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering Organizations.
>
>

_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance




--
Farzaneh

_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance



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




--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm>
http://jokkolabs.net/en/
www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org>
www,insistglobal.com<http://www.itag.gm>
www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org>
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>




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

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/454ef7c0/attachment-0001.html>


From pileleji  Wed Dec 14 20:05:22 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:05:22 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council]
 AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
 Organization for CCWG-IG
In-Reply-To: <5A7321E7-09DF-4227-B6E4-758C29E3F377@EUI.eu>
References: <CY4PR17MB1432A73EB4255640DB136E4FD39A0@CY4PR17MB1432.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
	<c29d69d2-059f-14b5-5b73-cb896af57d8e@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAEux40u46uf9fu-zuSh6SzH8cLsao8Z7odeyx===3OW_8gQ01g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5A7321E7-09DF-4227-B6E4-758C29E3F377@EUI.eu>
Message-ID: <CAEux40sQEc02tm7MaDHVQNw8VD7ceUmdzy3_zVo-46yso+RpKQ@mail.gmail.com>

We should have a call as soon as possible, so we get a structured way
forward.

thanks

Poncelet

On 14 December 2016 at 19:02, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu> wrote:

> same here. any clue as to how best to proceed?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 14, 2016, at 18:54, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>
> Stephanie,
>
> Please you can count on me on this.
>
> Regards
>
> Poncelet
>
> On 14 December 2016 at 18:24, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> Need an alternative suggestion pretty fast....
>> SP
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT -
>> Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
>> Organization for CCWG-IG
>> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:13:05 +0000
>> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>,
>> farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <ccwg-internet-governance at ican
>> n.org> <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>>
>> I think we should just do this, and I hope that Olivier and Nigel are
>> joining,  as well... but also gathering inputs and participants from all of
>> the GNSO constituencies. .
>>
>>
>> Yes, we need some geo diversity. Perhaps Jimson/BC - Africa ICT Alliance,
>> and some others from non WEOG can contribute. Someone from ISPs? Someone
>> from each other Constituency?
>>
>>
>> Are we inviting others from other SGs or ACs, or first drafting as GNSO?
>> Sorry to ask but I can also reach out to CCTLDS and GAC if you are seeking
>> broader drafting partners in this but I thought it was first GNSO?
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
>> <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>
>> <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan
>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:53 AM
>> *To:* farzaneh badii
>> *Cc:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT -
>> Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
>> Organization for CCWG-IG
>>
>> I suggest we assemble a (Re-)Drafting Team and get on with it.
>>
>> Marilyn has volunteered.
>> It might be a fair assumption that Keith and Farzi have "volunteered" as
>> well, by replying to this email.  (Which probably means I have volunteered
>> too).
>> Whether or not that's a fair assumption, I think we need some non-GNSO
>> participation in the drafting team to round things out (Marilyn, Keith,
>> Farzi and I are all similarly afflicted, though with different strains of
>> the GNSO virus).  A preponderance of GNSO folk is fine (especially since
>> the GNSO is the "inspiration" for this project), but we should be somewhat
>> more diverse than that....  (Farzi no longer even gives us geographic
>> diversity, since she's now a North American Georgia Peach, or Georgia Tech
>> Yellow Jacket, or something like that...)
>>
>> Let's not wait until the meeting next week to get this going.  Wouldn't
>> it be nice to have a progress report at next week's meeting instead?
>>
>> Any other volunteers?
>>
>> Anyone volunteering to chair?  (Not I, with apologies, I'm chaired-out at
>> the moment.)
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, farzaneh badii <
>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Keith for bringing this up again. I think we need to start doing
>>> something about it and we have to start soon.
>>>
>>> On 14 December 2016 at 11:10, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there a plan to get this process started? Copenhagen will be here
>>>> before we know it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Keith Drazek
>>>>
>>>> Vice President
>>>>
>>>> Public Policy & Government Relations
>>>>
>>>> Verisign, Inc.
>>>>
>>>> +1-571-377-9182 <+1%20571-377-9182>
>>>>
>>>> kdrazek at verisign.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 07, 2016 4:10 AM
>>>> *To:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>>> *Subject:* [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT -
>>>> Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
>>>> Organization for CCWG-IG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> GNSO council just approved unanimously this motion. It is still
>>>> chartering organization but we got work to do by Copenhagen meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>> ---
>>>> >
>>>> > 2.         MOTION ? Conditional participation of the GNSO as a
>>>> Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
>>>> >
>>>> > Made by: Darcy Southwell
>>>> >
>>>> > Seconded by:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > WHEREAS:
>>>> >
>>>> > a)      The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross Community
>>>> Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting
>>>> ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organization on these
>>>> issues on 15 October 2014, and as such became a Chartering Organization.
>>>> >
>>>> > b)      The Charter foresees that ?At each ICANN Annual General
>>>> Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be
>>>> reviewed by the participating SO?s and AC?s to determine whether the WG
>>>> should continue, or, close and be dissolved. Consistent with ICANN
>>>> community practices, the WG will continue if at least two of the
>>>> participating SO?s or AC?s extend the Charter of the WG and notify the
>>>> other participating SO?s and AC?s accordingly one month after the annual
>>>> review date?.
>>>> >
>>>> > c)      The CWG-IG provided its first written status update on 23
>>>> June 2016 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/draf
>>>> ts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf).
>>>> >
>>>> > d)      The GNSO Council recently adopted the ?Uniform Framework of
>>>> Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups? (CWG
>>>> Framework) which details the lifecycle of a CCWG including initiation,
>>>> formation, operation, decision-making, adoption of Final Report by
>>>> Chartering Organizations and closure of CCWG, and post-closure of CCWG.
>>>> >
>>>> > e)      The GNSO Council has observed that the CWG-IG does not follow
>>>> this lifecycle, nor has it established or adopted an initial work plan and
>>>> associated schedule as foreseen in its Charter.
>>>> >
>>>> > f)       The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a continued
>>>> dialogue and discussion in relation to the topic of Internet Governance
>>>> within an ICANN context.
>>>> >
>>>> > g)      The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the ccNSO
>>>> Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the subject of this CWG and
>>>> its future.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > RESOLVED:
>>>> >
>>>> > a)      The GNSO Council will continue to participate as a Chartering
>>>> Organization for the CWG-IG. However, this participation is conditioned
>>>> upon a comprehensive review of the CWG-IG Charter by the CWG-IG, in
>>>> accordance with the CWG Framework (http://gnso.icann.org/en/draf
>>>> ts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In
>>>> particular, the GNSO Council expects future work to be subject to a clear
>>>> work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables.
>>>> >
>>>> > b)      The GNSO Council expects that the CWG-IG will present by
>>>> ICANN58 a report on its findings, which may include a revised charter or a
>>>> recommendation to reconstitute the group under a new structure.
>>>> >
>>>> > c)      Following the submission of the CWG-IG report, the GNSO
>>>> Council will consider the recommendations and decide whether or not it will
>>>> continue as a Chartering Organization.
>>>> >
>>>> > d)      The GNSO Secretariat will communicate this decision to the
>>>> CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering Organizations.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240 <437%200240>
> Fax:(220) 4390793 <439%200793>
> Cell:(220) 9912508 <991%202508>
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm> www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/e15bd8d6/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Thu Dec 15 02:56:19 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:56:19 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council]
 AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
 Organization for CCWG-IG
In-Reply-To: <c29d69d2-059f-14b5-5b73-cb896af57d8e@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CY4PR17MB1432A73EB4255640DB136E4FD39A0@CY4PR17MB1432.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
	<c29d69d2-059f-14b5-5b73-cb896af57d8e@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <6a79de95-4d2e-debd-031c-618f627422b1@cdt.org>

Personally we should not encourage that this be limited.  Anyone should 
drop OCL a note expressing interest.


On 14/12/2016 12:24, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
>
> Need an alternative suggestion pretty fast....
> SP
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - 
> Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering 
> Organization for CCWG-IG
> Date: 	Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:13:05 +0000
> From: 	Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> To: 	Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, farzaneh badii 
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> CC: 	ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org 
> <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>
>
>
> I think we should just do this, and I hope that Olivier and Nigel are 
> joining,  as well... but also gathering inputs and participants from 
> all of the GNSO constituencies. .
>
>
> Yes, we need some geo diversity. Perhaps Jimson/BC - Africa ICT 
> Alliance, and some others from non WEOG can contribute. Someone from 
> ISPs? Someone from each other Constituency?
>
>
> Are we inviting others from other SGs or ACs, or first drafting as 
> GNSO? Sorry to ask but I can also reach out to CCTLDS and GAC if you 
> are seeking broader drafting partners in this but I thought it was 
> first GNSO?
>
> M
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org 
> <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan 
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:53 AM
> *To:* farzaneh badii
> *Cc:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - 
> Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering 
> Organization for CCWG-IG
> I suggest we assemble a (Re-)Drafting Team and get on with it.
>
> Marilyn has volunteered.
> It might be a fair assumption that Keith and Farzi have "volunteered" 
> as well, by replying to this email.  (Which probably means I have 
> volunteered too).
> Whether or not that's a fair assumption, I think we need some non-GNSO 
> participation in the drafting team to round things out (Marilyn, 
> Keith, Farzi and I are all similarly afflicted, though with different 
> strains of the GNSO virus).  A preponderance of GNSO folk is fine 
> (especially since the GNSO is the "inspiration" for this project), but 
> we should be somewhat more diverse than that....  (Farzi no longer 
> even gives us geographic diversity, since she's now a North American 
> Georgia Peach, or Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket, or something like that...)
>
> Let's not wait until the meeting next week to get this going. Wouldn't 
> it be nice to have a progress report at next week's meeting instead?
>
> Any other volunteers?
>
> Anyone volunteering to chair?  (Not I, with apologies, I'm chaired-out 
> at the moment.)
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, farzaneh badii 
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Keith for bringing this up again. I think we need to start
>     doing something about it and we have to start soon.
>
>     On 14 December 2016 at 11:10, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
>     <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi all,
>
>         Is there a plan to get this process started? Copenhagen will
>         be here before we know it.
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Keith
>
>         Keith Drazek
>
>         Vice President
>
>         Public Policy & Government Relations
>
>         Verisign, Inc.
>
>         +1-571-377-9182 <tel:+1%20571-377-9182>
>
>         kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>
>
>         *From:*ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
>         <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>
>         [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
>         <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>] *On
>         Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak
>         *Sent:* Monday, November 07, 2016 4:10 AM
>         *To:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>         <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>         *Subject:* [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT
>         - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a
>         Chartering Organization for CCWG-IG
>
>         Hi everyone,
>
>         GNSO council just approved unanimously this motion. It is
>         still chartering organization but we got work to do by
>         Copenhagen meeting.
>
>         Best,
>
>         Rafik
>         ---
>         >
>         > 2.         MOTION ? Conditional participation of the GNSO as
>         a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working
>         Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting
>         ICANN
>         >
>         > Made by: Darcy Southwell
>         >
>         > Seconded by:
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > WHEREAS:
>         >
>         > a)      The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross
>         Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance
>         (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make recommendations to
>         the chartering organization on these issues on 15 October
>         2014, and as such became a Chartering Organization.
>         >
>         > b)      The Charter foresees that ?At each ICANN Annual
>         General Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables
>         of the WG shall be reviewed by the participating SO?s and AC?s
>         to determine whether the WG should continue, or, close and be
>         dissolved. Consistent with ICANN community practices, the WG
>         will continue if at least two of the participating SO?s or
>         AC?s extend the Charter of the WG and notify the other
>         participating SO?s and AC?s accordingly one month after the
>         annual review date?.
>         >
>         > c)      The CWG-IG provided its first written status update
>         on 23 June 2016 (see
>         https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf
>         <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf>).
>         >
>         > d)      The GNSO Council recently adopted the ?Uniform
>         Framework of Principles and Recommendations for Cross
>         Community Working Groups? (CWG Framework) which details the
>         lifecycle of a CCWG including initiation, formation,
>         operation, decision-making, adoption of Final Report by
>         Chartering Organizations and closure of CCWG, and post-closure
>         of CCWG.
>         >
>         > e)      The GNSO Council has observed that the CWG-IG does
>         not follow this lifecycle, nor has it established or adopted
>         an initial work plan and associated schedule as foreseen in
>         its Charter.
>         >
>         > f)       The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a
>         continued dialogue and discussion in relation to the topic of
>         Internet Governance within an ICANN context.
>         >
>         > g)      The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the
>         ccNSO Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the
>         subject of this CWG and its future.
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > RESOLVED:
>         >
>         > a)      The GNSO Council will continue to participate as a
>         Chartering Organization for the CWG-IG. However, this
>         participation is conditioned upon a comprehensive review of
>         the CWG-IG Charter by the CWG-IG, in accordance with the CWG
>         Framework
>         (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf
>         <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf>).
>         In particular, the GNSO Council expects future work to be
>         subject to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear
>         deliverables.
>         >
>         > b)      The GNSO Council expects that the CWG-IG will
>         present by ICANN58 a report on its findings, which may include
>         a revised charter or a recommendation to reconstitute the
>         group under a new structure.
>         >
>         > c)      Following the submission of the CWG-IG report, the
>         GNSO Council will consider the recommendations and decide
>         whether or not it will continue as a Chartering Organization.
>         >
>         > d)      The GNSO Secretariat will communicate this decision
>         to the CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering
>         Organizations.
>         >
>         >
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>         ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>         <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Farzaneh
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>     ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>     <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161214/85eb988b/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Dec 15 08:55:30 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:55:30 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Endorsement Requested
In-Reply-To: <f1f9b00d-ca9f-213d-087e-f9e9d33971e3@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <99c2f6f25109414b9ab79c48a7c978c1@toast.net>
	<DFF6CFAD-39C3-40B4-8009-652F0983C78B@davecake.net>
	<20161205203445.vg5z24r3bwf6mdbi@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK0TeQTg0yjk6WNUwzenQk3Dtw9REkprWMKgks_rjJKSBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<f1f9b00d-ca9f-213d-087e-f9e9d33971e3@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0tfV0wxEi0RDef0EHgV9AHTSK7Y63HEF3Md+4j2w-0Ow@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

This is to confirm that the PC endorsement has been sent to the public
comment forum (with language that tried to capture the point raised by Amr)
and should be visible soon.

Thank you very much
Marilia

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I think I have already said yes, but just for certainty, I endorse!
>
> stephanie
>
> On 2016-12-14 09:50, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> I also support this comment.
>
> We have PC members who manifested in support and no one against the
> proposal to submit this comment as PC. If no one objects, we could consider
> it approved by rough consensus and staff will be communicated.
>
> Thank you
> Marilia
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
>> Likewise.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Dec 06 03:04, David Cake (dave at davecake.net) wrote:
>>
>> > I'm in favour of endorsement.
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> > > On 5 Dec. 2016, at 9:39 am, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hello everybody,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Attached please find a comment we submitted to ICANN on the 'Proposed
>> Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement to New Fee Structure and to Adopt
>> Additional Safeguards'. As we completed the comment about 20 minutes before
>> it's submission deadline of midnight UTC this past Thursday we did not have
>> time to present it to the PC for endorsement prior to submission. We do so
>> now.
>> > >
>> > > Any endorsement notified to staff would be acknowledged in the staff
>> report, which is due on 15 December. Our comment builds upon that submitted
>> previously to ICANN by the NCSG  concerning the .PRO, .CAT and .TRAVEL
>> renewals and upon our joint Reconsideration Request with the Business
>> Constituency on the same matter. We'd be happy to answer any questions
>> anyone may have on this comment.
>> > >
>> > > Sincerely,
>> > >
>> > > Ed and Stefania
>> > >
>> > > <Comment to ?Proposed Amendment to.pdf>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 <%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> *| *
> *Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
> *@MariliaM*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161215/20284b0d/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Dec 15 08:58:27 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:58:27 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and
	budget
In-Reply-To: <4f95ce46-bdc3-0083-62d8-39daa4c8704e@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <DB3PR05MB5211971333D6542B88939F5F7980@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<031e2a25-43a7-8fad-5c52-e2114955f97a@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161212152714.b3bs5oj5u57i7bvf@tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK3js3KRF6CwnL6SnUcRpwpD20Kus1yXCbQFUYtNyQYQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<659459A5-BCCE-42CC-B6B0-CC6B1E1CC238@egyptig.org>
	<CACpVkK2bjBosQmiFDtFZb=AFga0nhTR++A4NmpFS-TGorSXiDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D496B7B-3B0E-442A-A606-C050CB4D1795@egyptig.org>
	<DB3PR05MB521B9FFB84E06C8A31C4A21F79A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<4f95ce46-bdc3-0083-62d8-39daa4c8704e@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3y0Ts7x5P6_06+Ked_AZQj2PM9=SeW_cOdPkzYv3yJyA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Since there are still doubts pending on some points of this particular
comment I would like to ask us to discuss this further before we present PC
endorsement to the comment drafted by Stefania and Ed. We do have a little
time (staff report is due on jan 23) but not much.

All the best,
Marilia

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> yes indeed, good idea.
>
> steph
>
> On 2016-12-14 10:03, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>
> ps as i put on the chatroom yesterday at the policy call, the process for the PTI FY18 budget is expected to include "calls with the community" (see below). so it would be good to get some discussion going and come to a joint position for that call, beyond mine and Ed's.
>
> from https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-pti-operating-plan-budget-2016-10-24-en
> "Following the end of this public comment proceeding, we will hold calls with the community. These calls are an opportunity for the community to present their written comments on the Draft PTI FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. This process is intended to enhance understanding of the comments and to improve the quality of the response. All calls will be public, focused on the organization that submitted comments, and attended by at least one PTI Board member. Additional PTI and ICANN Board members may attend based on availability."
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Inviato: mercoled? 14 dicembre 2016 15.47.48
> A: Marilia Maciel
> Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] public comment to draft PTI FY18 operating plan and      budget
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> We are presenting our endorsement a posteriori, so, in my view, although we should manifest as soon as possible, we do not have a hard deadline. I would not want to preclude discussions, so if Stefania or Ed can jump in and address your comments and doubts, that would be great. In any case, we seem to roughly have enough support to add our PC endorsement by tomorrow, unless there are last minute clear objections.
>
> Yes. I agree with this assessment.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161215/4323e96d/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Fri Dec 16 00:30:24 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:30:24 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] template for reporting frm GNSO Council meetings
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521D98D82BF9135A79D1C64F79D0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear all


you might remember that at some point over the summer (was it Helsinki? can't recollect) Marilia had asked us Councilors to compile summaries of each council meeting. I am preparing my summary of today's call (I had been assigned December), and I have created a template on a Google<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ED7hySZlJ3PWDp96dBBmm4sxwObwOU4XMm_Txhkxbmo/edit?usp=sharing> doc that we can use for our reporting. It is very basic!, feel free to amend it. A NCSG member had asked us to make the document available in html or google docs, instead of pdf, which would make the text easier to navigate (and access the links).

i am not a big fan of Google docs, but maybe we have other ideas? It could also end up on a website (NCSG would be more logical)... what do you think?

Best, Stefania


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161215/b2cb8a77/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Sat Dec 17 17:29:30 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 17:29:30 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS
	Implementation Review Team (IRT)
References: <465E068D-5CF2-4B32-8B7A-11FC48BBC44F@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <98331B38-DC59-4282-B1A5-29FA3E30D132@egyptig.org>

Hi,

In my capacity as the Council liaison the ?thick? WHOIS IRT, I just sent this letter from the IRT to the GNSO Council on the IRT's follow up of emerging privacy issues that may complicate the transition from ?thin? to ?thick? WHOIS.

I keep sending these updated here to this list, particularly where conflict of whois policies with privacy laws are concerned. Would be happy to respond to questions, thoughts, concerns, etc.

Thanks.

Amr

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Subject: [council] Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT)
> Date: December 17, 2016 at 5:13:23 PM GMT+2
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang at icann.org>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The ?thick? WHOIS IRT has asked me to forward a letter (attached) sent on its behalf to the GNSO Council. If folks recall, the ?thick? WHOIS Consensus Policy recommendations included this:
> 
>> "As part of the implementation process a legal review of law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model that has not already been considered in the EWG memo is undertaken and due consideration is given to potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the transition from thin to thick Whois, including, for example, guidance on how the long-standing contractual requirement that registrars give notice to, and obtain consent, from each registrant for uses of any personally identifiable data submitted by the registrant should apply to registrations involved in the transition. Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken.?
> 
> In June, 2015, ICANN?s Legal Dept. submitted a memo in follow up of the above recommendation, which can be found on this page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-27-en.
> 
> The IRT believes that the privacy/data protection law environment has changed since the production of the legal memo by ICANN Legal. Although the IRT has not reached any consensus on recommending further policy work as a result of its findings, there is agreement that the shifting privacy/data protection environment may complicate the transition from ?thin? to ?thick? WHOIS for some contracted parties. This letter is meant to brief the Council on the IRT?s work in that regard.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IRT to GNSO Council on Privacy 20161215.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24925 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161217/93d532d3/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
> 



From stephanie.perrin  Tue Dec 27 21:49:49 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:49:49 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Appointments to the New Cross Community Working
 Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds
In-Reply-To: <D4829C30.F3066%nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>
References: <D4829C30.F3066%nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>
Message-ID: <6a5d3dc2-e64c-4395-d6c3-8de602df8adf@mail.utoronto.ca>


and the fun begins....
Steph
PS Happy Holidays everybody!

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	GNSO Appointments to the New Cross Community Working Group on 
New gTLD Auction Proceeds
Date: 	Fri, 23 Dec 2016 08:27:55 +0000
From: 	Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
To: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Anthony 
Harris <anthonyrharris at gmail.com>, Jon Nevett <jon at nevett.net>, 
enoss at tucows.com <enoss at tucows.com>, Jonathan Robinson 
<jrobinson at afilias.info>
CC: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear all,

On behalf of the GNSO Council, please find attached the confirmation of 
GNSO appointments to the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD 
Auction Proceeds.

Kind regards,

Nathalie

-- 

Nathalie Peregrine
Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org%20>
Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 
<learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages 
<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161227/97e29243/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Notification of GNSO Members to CCWG-Auction Proceeds.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 963132 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161227/97e29243/attachment-0001.docx>