From aelsadr  Tue Feb  2 17:17:09 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:17:09 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
	work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:

First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf. Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.

Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.

I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
> 
> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
> 
> Best,
> Kathy
> 
> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi Kathy,
>> 
>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>> 
>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agreeing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>> 
>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>> 
>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>> 
>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>> 
>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>> 
>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>> 
>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>> 
>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>> 
>>> Kathy
>>> 
>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>> 
>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>> 
>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Kathy
> 
> 




From aelsadr  Wed Feb  3 21:30:54 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 21:30:54 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
	work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
> 
> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf. Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
> 
> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
> 
> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>> 
>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>> 
>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>> 
>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi Kathy,
>>> 
>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>> 
>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agreeing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>> 
>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>> 
>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>> 
>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>> 
>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>> 
>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>> 
>>>> Kathy
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Kathy
>> 
>> 
> 




From kathy  Sat Feb  6 17:46:46 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 10:46:46 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
 work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>

Amr,
First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I 
would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report 
and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But 
third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG 
concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- 
"kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced 
to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG 
virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core 
issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.

This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse 
the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the 
"procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO 
OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who 
chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in 
our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of 
expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.

In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only 
dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only 
listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?

Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but 
that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH 
first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes 
to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, 
no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it 
so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time 
for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is 
"transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no 
fairness and no due process.

The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to 
assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS 
(which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the 
upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you 
have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.

I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, 
support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.

I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies 
all we care about....
Best and huge tx,
Kathy


On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>
>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf. Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>
>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>
>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>
>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Kathy
>>>
>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>
>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agreeing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>
>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Kathy
>>>





From lanfran  Mon Feb  8 19:58:09 2016
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:58:09 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG-Accountability recommendations #1-#11
Message-ID: <56B8D731.1020202@yorku.ca>

As part of NPOC?s participation in the final stages of the review of 
ccWG-Accountability recommendations #1-#11
the NPOC Executive Committee has just supported the current/final 
revised wording of recommendations #1 and #11.

Kind of where things stand now: 
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-ccwg-accountability-co-chairs

Sam Lanfranco, Chair
NPOC Policy Committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160208/fb2a8e91/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Feb  9 15:48:14 2016
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 05:48:14 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG-Accountability recommendations #1-#11
In-Reply-To: <56B8D731.1020202@yorku.ca>
References: <56B8D731.1020202@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <56B9EE1E.7010505@acm.org>

Hi,

Thanks Sam.  Good to know.

avri


On 08-Feb-16 09:58, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> As part of NPOC?s participation in the final stages of the review of
> ccWG-Accountability recommendations #1-#11
> the NPOC Executive Committee has just supported the current/final
> revised wording of recommendations #1 and #11.
>
> Kind of where things stand now: 
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-ccwg-accountability-co-chairs
>
> Sam Lanfranco, Chair
> NPOC Policy Committee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From aelsadr  Tue Feb  9 17:24:16 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:24:16 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG-Accountability recommendations #1-#11
In-Reply-To: <56B9EE1E.7010505@acm.org>
References: <56B8D731.1020202@yorku.ca> <56B9EE1E.7010505@acm.org>
Message-ID: <FEC3B6D4-C75D-4232-A77C-C1EC65494604@egyptig.org>

+1. Thanks for that Sam.

Amr

> On Feb 9, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks Sam.  Good to know.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 08-Feb-16 09:58, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>> As part of NPOC?s participation in the final stages of the review of
>> ccWG-Accountability recommendations #1-#11
>> the NPOC Executive Committee has just supported the current/final
>> revised wording of recommendations #1 and #11.
>> 
>> Kind of where things stand now: 
>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-ccwg-accountability-co-chairs
>> 
>> Sam Lanfranco, Chair
>> NPOC Policy Committee
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Tue Feb  9 17:58:21 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:58:21 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
	work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>

Hi Kathy,

Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.

Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.

2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be formally adopted.

Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html.

Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> Amr,
> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
> 
> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
> 
> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
> 
> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
> 
> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
> 
> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
> 
> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
> Best and huge tx,
> Kathy
> 
> 
> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>> 
>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf. Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>> 
>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>> 
>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>> 
>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Kathy
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agreeing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>> 
> 
> 




From aelsadr  Tue Feb  9 18:01:44 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:01:44 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
	work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
	<D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

I realised after sending this email that I didn?t attach the draft charter, so I?ve attached it to this email.

I also noticed that I addressed the last email to Kathy (really grateful for all the work you put into this for us all Kathy), but the majority of the message below was of course directed to the entire PC.

Apologies folks. :)

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 169718 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160209/1eab5ecb/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kathy,
> 
> Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.
> 
> Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
> 
> 1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.
> 
> 2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be formally adopted.
> 
> Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html.
> 
> Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>> 
>> Amr,
>> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
>> 
>> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
>> 
>> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
>> 
>> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
>> 
>> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
>> 
>> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
>> 
>> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
>> Best and huge tx,
>> Kathy
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>>> 
>>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf. Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>>> 
>>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>>> 
>>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>>> 
>>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agreeing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



From egmorris1  Tue Feb  9 21:53:39 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:53:39 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [reconsideration request] Reconsideration Request
	from Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
References: <D2DF7E5D.DB36%reconsideration@icann.org>
Message-ID: <9664F755-F594-4A68-AC4A-4684AFCE878E@toast.net>

The Board approved the BGC rejection of the joint reconsideration motion we did with the BC. No surprise. Sadly.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "reconsideration at icann.org" <reconsideration at icann.org>
> Date: 9 February 2016 at 19:34:10 GMT
> To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> Cc: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Subject: Re: [reconsideration request] Reconsideration Request from Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Please be advised that the ICANN Board's resolution on Reconsideration Request 15-19, passed on 3 February 2016, has been posted and is available at https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-02-03-en#2.b. The action of Board is also reflected on the Reconsideration Page under Request 15-19, at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-19-bc-ncsg-2015-10-13-en.   
> 
> Best regards, 
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA  90094
> 
> From: "reconsideration at icann.org" <reconsideration at icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:52 PM
> To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> Cc: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Subject: Re: [reconsideration request] Reconsideration Request from Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> Greetings, 
>  
> Please be advised that the Board Governance Committee's Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 15-19, issued on 13 January 2016, has been posted and is available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-19-bc-ncsg-2015-10-13-en.
> 
> Best regards, 
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA  9009
> 
> From: "reconsideration at icann.org" <reconsideration at icann.org>
> Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:00 PM
> To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> Cc: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Subject: Re: [reconsideration request] Reconsideration Request from Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> This will acknowledge our receipt of Reconsideration Request 15-19, filed on behalf of The ICANN Business Constituency & The ICANN Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG).  Please note that Request 15-19 is now posted on ICANN's Reconsideration page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-19-icann-business-constituency-ncsg-2015-10-13-en.  The documentation will be provided to the Board Governance Committee for consideration.  In the event that ICANN receives additional items that relate to Request 15-19, those items will be posted on the Reconsideration page as well, and we encourage you to check back regularly for updates.  You may also wish to sign up for an account at MyICANN.org, through which you can receive daily updates regarding postings to the portions of ICANN's website that are of interest, including the Reconsideration page.
> 
> ICANN will also be sending you notifications when there are updates regarding Request 15-19.  We typically provide notice if there are documents (other than those submitted by the requester) that are added to the page, and we will also provide you with notice when there is any Board Governance Committee determination or recommendation posted, or if applicable, ICANN Board or New gTLD Program Committee action regarding the Request.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300
> Los Angeles, California 90094
> 
> From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:15 PM
> To: "reconsideration at icann.org" <reconsideration at icann.org>
> Cc: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Subject: [reconsideration request] Reconsideration Request from Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> Attached please find a joint Reconsideration Request on behalf of two ICANN constituency/stakeholder groups:
> 
> The Business Constituency (BC); and
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
> 
> This request concerns 3 resolutions approved as part of the Consent Agenda at the Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board held on September 28, 2015:
> Resolution 2015.09.28.04 (Renewal of .Cat Registry Agreement); 
> Resolution 2015.09.28.05 (Renewal of .Travel Registry Agreement); and 
> Resolution 2015.09.28.06 (Renewal of .Pro Registry Agreement) 
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Steve DelBianco
> Vice Chair for Policy Coordination
> ICANN Business Constituency (BC)
> 
> Rafik Dammak
> Chair
> Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160209/fc779b1d/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Feb 10 16:47:43 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:47:43 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update in NCSG Policy Committee Membership
Message-ID: <0F587E85-ACAB-45F1-83A1-FB011D0810BA@egyptig.org>

Hi,

In case you missed it on NCUC-DISCUSS, Matthew Shears has been appointed for a second term as an NCUC representative on the NCSG PC. Joy Liddicoat is being replaced as the second rep by Tatiana Tropina, who should already be subscribed to this list.

So thanks to Joy for her time and effort on the PC, thanks to Matt for his continued participation, and a final thank you and welcome to Tatiana for her willingness to work with the rest of us.

Finally, now that we have confirmed all the PC members for this year, we do need to hold the already late elections for the job of NCSG PC Chair. I will coordinate this with Tapani and Maryam, and one of us should get back to you all very soon with a schedule to get this done.

I should also mention that I am not planning on being nominated to fill this position for a second year, so I ask that you all begin to consider who you would like to see take over. More on this later.

Thanks.

Amr


From t.tropina  Wed Feb 10 19:19:05 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:19:05 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update in NCSG Policy Committee Membership
In-Reply-To: <0F587E85-ACAB-45F1-83A1-FB011D0810BA@egyptig.org>
References: <0F587E85-ACAB-45F1-83A1-FB011D0810BA@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56BB7109.4010501@mpicc.de>

Dear Amr,

thanks a lot for the introduction and welcoming words!

Dear all, I am happy to join the PC - looking forward to working with
you. Hope it will be a productive term. Ready to contribute as much as I
can.

Warm regards
Tanya

On 10/02/16 15:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In case you missed it on NCUC-DISCUSS, Matthew Shears has been appointed for a second term as an NCUC representative on the NCSG PC. Joy Liddicoat is being replaced as the second rep by Tatiana Tropina, who should already be subscribed to this list.
>
> So thanks to Joy for her time and effort on the PC, thanks to Matt for his continued participation, and a final thank you and welcome to Tatiana for her willingness to work with the rest of us.
>
> Finally, now that we have confirmed all the PC members for this year, we do need to hold the already late elections for the job of NCSG PC Chair. I will coordinate this with Tapani and Maryam, and one of us should get back to you all very soon with a schedule to get this done.
>
> I should also mention that I am not planning on being nominated to fill this position for a second year, so I ask that you all begin to consider who you would like to see take over. More on this later.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From Stefania.Milan  Wed Feb 10 19:44:13 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:44:13 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update in NCSG Policy Committee Membership
In-Reply-To: <56BB7109.4010501@mpicc.de>
References: <0F587E85-ACAB-45F1-83A1-FB011D0810BA@egyptig.org>,
	<56BB7109.4010501@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <DB4PR05MB52570C48635AB4BC9C98D4FF7D70@DB4PR05MB525.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

very cool to have you on board Tatiana!
And congrats to Matt for the great work so far. This is gonna be fun (sic)
stefania

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
Inviato: mercoled? 10 febbraio 2016 18.19
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Update in NCSG Policy Committee Membership

Dear Amr,

thanks a lot for the introduction and welcoming words!

Dear all, I am happy to join the PC - looking forward to working with
you. Hope it will be a productive term. Ready to contribute as much as I
can.

Warm regards
Tanya

On 10/02/16 15:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In case you missed it on NCUC-DISCUSS, Matthew Shears has been appointed for a second term as an NCUC representative on the NCSG PC. Joy Liddicoat is being replaced as the second rep by Tatiana Tropina, who should already be subscribed to this list.
>
> So thanks to Joy for her time and effort on the PC, thanks to Matt for his continued participation, and a final thank you and welcome to Tatiana for her willingness to work with the rest of us.
>
> Finally, now that we have confirmed all the PC members for this year, we do need to hold the already late elections for the job of NCSG PC Chair. I will coordinate this with Tapani and Maryam, and one of us should get back to you all very soon with a schedule to get this done.
>
> I should also mention that I am not planning on being nominated to fill this position for a second year, so I ask that you all begin to consider who you would like to see take over. More on this later.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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

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



From rafik.dammak  Fri Feb 12 03:27:19 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:27:19 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NC-Intersessional] Fwd: Proposal for public comments
 process improvement
In-Reply-To: <33f125cfd618462093c57b77f7e6960b@toast.net>
References: <33f125cfd618462093c57b77f7e6960b@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmxUObBKOwzUJSgaFc-0Gv5iu+RNjmFBwi=bEGpdhQB1Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,


(putting PC list in cc since that should be discussed there)
2016-02-09 21:20 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for this attempt to bring life to our PC.
>
> I have two comments:
>
> 1. The timeline would seem applicable to major public comments. Most
> public comments are on somewhat minor issues. We often don't comment on
> these but should. Perhaps a slimmed down version for the PC to follow could
> be used in such cases.
>

I used 40 days because it sounds the commonly used period (for example the
CCWG was 21 days which is unusual). there are other periods depending if is
staff, board or gnso initiated calls. it is just template and can be
adjusted for those cases. the milestones are there to give guidance and
allow some checking  . the dates X or Y can be V or W. it is up to us to
adapt them.

>
> 2. Councillors are already overburdened. I beg the Constituencies to
> select  as the additional four PC members individuals willing and able to
> take the lead on public comments. Being on the PC should not just entail
> voting. It should include a commitment to work.
>

I suggested to have different lead per area for expertise and it was not
exclusive to councillors. each councillor may have a specific interest on
some topic or policy issue , in addition to the time commitment and
workload. we are trying to fix a scaling problem here and since that needs
human resources , it would take more time (And it won't be fixed by
technological solution). we know some experts from within but definitely we
need more.

the purpose of the proposal is to fix some problem : how to allow some
planning for public comments, prioritizing it, assign a lead volunteers and
ensure that we get things done in time. the proposal is not aimed to fix
all perceived issues within PC. having it would help to get some clarity
about the ongoing PDPs, actions to be taken and planning. Public comments
are just part of the whole picture. for example, we are getting more
general discussion like Public interest and we need to find effective ways
to approach them.


Best,

Rafik


>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Rafik Dammak via NC-Intersessional" <nc-intersessional at icann.org>
> *Sent*: 09 February 2016 08:24
> *To*: "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> *Cc*: "nc-intersessional" <nc-intersessional at icann.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [NC-Intersessional] Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public
> comments process improvement
>
> Thanks Tapani, it will be nice if people comment it.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2016-02-04 3:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen via NC-Intersessional <
> nc-intersessional at icann.org>:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Rafik's message below never got the attention it deserves,
>> due to vacation times and what not, but it'd be worth
>> talking about during the intersessional, so please take
>> the time to read it.
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> -----
>>
>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposal for public comments process improvement
>> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:19:21 +0900
>> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>
>> hi everyone,
>>
>>
>> I was thinking since a while that NCSG should have more clarity about the
>> process to manage, plan and build responses to public comments. we had so
>> many public comments lately, and in several occasions many in same time
>> period. we cannot respond to everything but we can try to be more
>> efficient
>> and avoid (or lessen at least) the pressure.
>>
>> I am proposing a kind of straw-man to kick-off  the discussion here .
>> While
>> I want to focus on the public comments process, I am also making some
>> suggestion about the NCSG PC work. so it is a mix.
>>
>>
>> 1- NCSG PC should follow a timeline template for any public comment it
>> wants to respond: except the CCWG report, the usual duration for public
>> comment is 41 days, so we can use that as frame
>>
>> a timeline will include some milestones where NCSG PC has to act and/or
>> make decision. we will track that with some tools (see below) showing each
>> step. it will help us to move more or less from the ad-hoc approach .
>>
>> to do some project management, tracking deadlines and volunteers, we can
>> use this board
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2015
>> and this one
>> https://trello.com/b/m2ec54mI/ncsg-policy-discussions-tracker
>>  (we can add here the different milestones or steps and having the status)
>>
>> As timeline for example:
>>
>>    - Day 1-3 : NCSG PC either initiate a discussion or receive a request
>>    from NCSG member to cover a public comment here
>>    https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public (there are other
>>    request such as WG sending request for feedback, GNSO council etc for
>> those
>>    we can adapt the process). Adding the public comment as task into our
>>    tracking tool.
>>
>>
>>    - Day 4 : when a public comment is considered as priority for NCSG, the
>>    PC should make call for volunteers explaining why the comment is
>> critical
>>    and giving some context ( those active in WG and/or gNSO council can
>> help
>>    here by providing a brief), create a google doc, etherpad or any other
>> tool
>>    adapted to drafting and co-authoring. the document/link should be
>> shared in
>>    NCSG-DISCUSS list with the announcement.
>>
>> we should get lead pen holder(s) who can make a first straw-man to get
>> people to give input and outline/highlights the areas of concerns or
>> interests for NCSG
>>
>>    - Day 7 organizing a webinar if needed or add the public comment
>> initial
>>    discussion to NCSG policy call (if it is not late), or at least
>> initiate
>>    the discussion in the mailing list
>>    - Day 21: getting a first draft, asking NCSG members and NCSG PC
>> members
>>    for comments to make the edits and resolve any concerns.
>>
>>
>>    - Day 28 a second draft is available , another optional webinar can be
>>    suggested
>>    - Day 30 call for consensus within NCSG list to be initiated by NCSG or
>>    PC chair(s)
>>    - Day 37 NCSG PC to evaluate the consensus, solve any remaining
>> concerns
>>    - Day 40 submission of there is rough consensus. allowing the addition
>>    of minority statement (we should work to resolve any concerns from the
>>    beginning and reaching consensus). submission to be done by NCSG or PC
>>    chair(s) .
>>
>>
>> The timeline can be tweaked of course and other milestones added or
>> removed
>> here. looking for your suggestions.
>> regarding the drafting and resolving concerns, we may need to discuss
>> about
>> some guidelines here e.g. giving rationale for edits, doing some polling
>> in
>> some cases etc
>>
>> 2- for other possible statement they are not public comments per se. we
>> can
>> shorten the timeline and consider a "fast-track" here
>> the main milestones should be identifying a lead, consult NCSG list and
>> having a deadline to evaluate the consensus.
>> example:
>>
>>    - Day 1 receiving request for feedback form WG A
>>    - Day 2 NCSG PC ask for volunteer to work on response (better to get
>>    someone involved in the WG already)
>>    - Day Deadline-7 days  call for consensus in NCSG and PC list
>>    - Deadline sending the response
>>
>> we can follow the same template for call for volunteers for appointments
>> to
>> cross-community working group or drafting team
>> we can add other cases where PC should act such endorsement to review
>> teams
>>
>> 3- regarding PC work: I have concern that we tend to count on chairs only
>> to handle the work. I do think that the whole PC should be proactive.
>>
>> one suggestion would to get  PC member (or expert member) to take the lead
>> of one policy area (areas to be identified) that will be ongoing in coming
>> months : new gTLD, Right protection mechanisms review (e.g. UDRP),
>> whois/RDS,  ICANN accountability, GNSO procedures or SCI  (we can find
>> more
>> in the GNSO project list).
>>
>> he/she will follow closely the progress in that area, alert if there is
>> anything coming for PC to consider, giving short briefing and update,
>> optionally coordinate with other members active or expert  in the PDP e.g.
>> members in the WG
>> We should also ensure that we are getting updates from those involved in
>> the different working groups and also our representatives. same for NCSG
>> GNSO councillors
>>
>> we also tend to discuss mostly in NCSG confcall, maybe we need to explore
>> if there are other ways to discuss and do planning more regularly e.g.
>> doing some planning every Monday for example via mail thread to check the
>> status of comments drafting, any new public comment to consider etc.
>> planning should be a continuous activity here, to be lead by the PC chair.
>>
>> we don't need some heaving planning or project management here but
>> ensuring
>> that we get a process and enough people to do so. of course, all these
>> should be documented in our wiki space.
>> if people are ok to start the discussion, I will be happy to copy the
>> straw-man to google doc to make it more easier to capture comments. Maryam
>> or me can add you to trello.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> NC-Intersessional mailing list
>> NC-Intersessional at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-intersessional
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160212/d335f1b2/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sat Feb 13 12:17:38 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 19:17:38 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH
	Independent Review team
In-Reply-To: <69c3b0e6181049eabe12e613b6b46bb4@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <69c3b0e6181049eabe12e613b6b46bb4@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm67QMOM8J=S3hXz3hnz90065-kWBw_b-cEVs89Ww1NUg@mail.gmail.com>

hi,.

I guess that will interest some among us , like Robin and Kathy.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2016-02-13 7:34 GMT+09:00
Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH Independent Review
team
To: "Soac-infoalert at icann.org" <Soac-infoalert at icann.org>
Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>




Dear SO/AC leaders,



As you may be aware, ICANN is conducting an independent review of the
Trademark Clearinghouse, which was recommended by the GAC in 2011 (see
https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf).


The GAC advised that the following specific topics should be included in
the review?s terms of reference:  (1) handling of non-exact matches to
trademarks, (2) extension of the Trademark Claims notifications, and (3)
impacts of the Claims services on the commercial watch services market.



ICANN has engaged Analysis Group (http://www.analysisgroup.com/home/) to
perform this review.  Team members who will be performing this review will
be in attendance at ICANN55, and are available to meet with SO/AC groups as
interested.  While there is a general session planned on this topic, it may
be helpful for interested stakeholder groups to schedule some time in a
smaller setting to provide input and ask any questions on the review.  If
you are interested in scheduling such a slot with your group during
ICANN55, please contact Antonietta Mangiacotti, (
antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org) who will coordinate.



Best regards,



*Karen Lentz*

Director, Operations & Policy Research

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)



Direct Line: +1 310 301 5836

Mobile: +1 310 895 3637

Email: karen.lentz at icann.org

www.icann.org



_______________________________________________
soac-infoalert mailing list
soac-infoalert at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160213/434ab5b1/attachment.html>


From kathy  Sat Feb 13 15:01:03 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 08:01:03 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH
 Independent Review team
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm67QMOM8J=S3hXz3hnz90065-kWBw_b-cEVs89Ww1NUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <69c3b0e6181049eabe12e613b6b46bb4@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThm67QMOM8J=S3hXz3hnz90065-kWBw_b-cEVs89Ww1NUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56BF290F.3070802@kathykleiman.com>

Tx you for posting this, Rafik. It looks like the GAC is seeking to 
overturn consensus policy and ICANN has just hired the staff to do so. 
Would anyone else like to join us in contesting this?
Best,
Kathy

On 2/13/2016 5:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> hi,.
>
> I guess that will interest some among us , like Robin and Kathy.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> Date: 2016-02-13 7:34 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH Independent 
> Review team
> To: "Soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:Soac-infoalert at icann.org>" 
> <Soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:Soac-infoalert at icann.org>>
> Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org <mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>>
>
>
> Dear SO/AC leaders,
>
> As you may be aware, ICANN is conducting an independent review of the 
> Trademark Clearinghouse, which was recommended by the GAC in 2011 (see 
> https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf). 
>
>
> The GAC advised that the following specific topics should be included 
> in the review?s terms of reference:  (1) handling of non-exact matches 
> to trademarks, (2) extension of the Trademark Claims notifications, 
> and (3) impacts of the Claims services on the commercial watch 
> services market.
>
> ICANN has engaged Analysis Group (http://www.analysisgroup.com/home/) 
> to perform this review.  Team members who will be performing this 
> review will be in attendance at ICANN55, and are available to meet 
> with SO/AC groups as interested.  While there is a general session 
> planned on this topic, it may be helpful for interested stakeholder 
> groups to schedule some time in a smaller setting to provide input and 
> ask any questions on the review.  If you are interested in scheduling 
> such a slot with your group during ICANN55, please contact Antonietta 
> Mangiacotti, (antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org 
> <mailto:antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org>) who will coordinate.
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Karen Lentz*
>
> Director, Operations & Policy Research
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Direct Line: +1 310 301 5836 <tel:%2B1%20310%20301%205836>
>
> Mobile: +1 310 895 3637 <tel:%2B1%20310%20895%203637>
>
> Email: karen.lentz at icann.org <mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>
>
> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> soac-infoalert mailing list
> soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:soac-infoalert at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160213/c2239f7e/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Sat Feb 13 15:25:26 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 08:25:26 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH
	Independent Review team
In-Reply-To: <56BF290F.3070802@kathykleiman.com>
References: <69c3b0e6181049eabe12e613b6b46bb4@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThm67QMOM8J=S3hXz3hnz90065-kWBw_b-cEVs89Ww1NUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56BF290F.3070802@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <d1eec7841f7943509a4c0408fb66534f@toast.net>

HI Kathy,
  
 To the extent I can find some time I'm in with you on this.
  
 I would love to know about the tender process that resulted in the selection of The Analysis Group. The company is located in the same Boston building as Arby Partners, the media investment firm Fadi is joining following his tenure at ICANN. Is it not amazing that in this entire huge universe the firm deemed best  to change and cement, or should I say review,  the already offensiveTMCH policy is one whose personnel will be taking elevator rides with Fadi starting April 1st? What an amazing building 111 Huntington Avenue really must be! Almost as amazing as the fact that the ICANN Ombudsman and Westlake Governance are located with a 4 minute walk of each other in the sprawling metropolis of Wellington, New Zealand. In all the world the firm best suited to do a governance review shares a bus route with our Ombudsman. At least Fadi and TAG don't have to brave the elements to see each other. In the world of ICANN there are many amazing things.
  
 I'll try to get a DIDP out on the tender and contract within the next week. I had some success getting Westlake contractual information via DIDP and I see no reason we shouldn't be able to get the same here. If we know what's in the contract we'll be better placed to talk to TAG.
  
 Should we schedule a meeting with these fine people? I'm happy to but I presume it should be one of our Chairs. Raffik? Taipani?
  
 Best,
  
 Ed
  
  
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 1:01 PM
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH Independent Review team   
Tx you for posting this, Rafik. It looks like the GAC is seeking to overturn consensus policy and ICANN has just hired the staff to do so. Would anyone else like to join us in contesting this?
Best,
Kathy
  On 2/13/2016 5:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
  hi,.  
 I guess that will interest some among us , like Robin and Kathy.
  
 Best,
  
 Rafik
  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2016-02-13 7:34 GMT+09:00
Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH Independent Review team
To: "Soac-infoalert at icann.org" <Soac-infoalert at icann.org>
Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>

    

   

Dear SO/AC leaders,  

   

As you may be aware, ICANN is conducting an independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was recommended by the GAC in 2011 (see  https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf).    

The GAC advised that the following specific topics should be included in the review's terms of reference:  (1) handling of non-exact matches to trademarks, (2) extension of the Trademark Claims notifications, and (3) impacts of the Claims services on the commercial watch services market.  

   

ICANN has engaged Analysis Group (http://www.analysisgroup.com/home/) to perform this review.  Team members who will be performing this review will be in attendance at ICANN55, and are available to meet with SO/AC groups as interested.  While there is a general session planned on this topic, it may be helpful for interested stakeholder groups to schedule some time in a smaller setting to provide input and ask any questions on the review.  If you are interested in scheduling such a slot with your group during ICANN55, please contact Antonietta Mangiacotti, (antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org) who will coordinate.  

   

Best regards,  

   

Karen Lentz  

Director, Operations & Policy Research  

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)  

   

Direct Line: +1 310 301 5836   

Mobile: +1 310 895 3637  

Email: karen.lentz at icann.org  

www.icann.org  

  

_______________________________________________
soac-infoalert mailing list
soac-infoalert at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
 

        

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160213/5d2c6335/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sat Feb 13 22:42:17 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:42:17 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH
 Independent Review team
In-Reply-To: <56BF290F.3070802@kathykleiman.com>
References: <69c3b0e6181049eabe12e613b6b46bb4@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThm67QMOM8J=S3hXz3hnz90065-kWBw_b-cEVs89Ww1NUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56BF290F.3070802@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <56BF9529.60409@mail.utoronto.ca>

Do you mean within NCSG, or do you mean reaching out to other SGs Kathy?
cheers stephanie

On 16-02-13 8:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Tx you for posting this, Rafik. It looks like the GAC is seeking to 
> overturn consensus policy and ICANN has just hired the staff to do so. 
> Would anyone else like to join us in contesting this?
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> On 2/13/2016 5:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> hi,.
>>
>> I guess that will interest some among us , like Robin and Kathy.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>> Date: 2016-02-13 7:34 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH Independent 
>> Review team
>> To: "Soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:Soac-infoalert at icann.org>" 
>> <Soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:Soac-infoalert at icann.org>>
>> Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org <mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>>
>>
>>
>> Dear SO/AC leaders,
>>
>> As you may be aware, ICANN is conducting an independent review of the 
>> Trademark Clearinghouse, which was recommended by the GAC in 2011 
>> (see 
>> https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf). 
>>
>>
>> The GAC advised that the following specific topics should be included 
>> in the review?s terms of reference:  (1) handling of non-exact 
>> matches to trademarks, (2) extension of the Trademark Claims 
>> notifications, and (3) impacts of the Claims services on the 
>> commercial watch services market.
>>
>> ICANN has engaged Analysis Group (http://www.analysisgroup.com/home/) 
>> to perform this review.  Team members who will be performing this 
>> review will be in attendance at ICANN55, and are available to meet 
>> with SO/AC groups as interested.  While there is a general session 
>> planned on this topic, it may be helpful for interested stakeholder 
>> groups to schedule some time in a smaller setting to provide input 
>> and ask any questions on the review.  If you are interested in 
>> scheduling such a slot with your group during ICANN55, please contact 
>> Antonietta Mangiacotti, (antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org) who will 
>> coordinate.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> *Karen Lentz*
>>
>> Director, Operations & Policy Research
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Direct Line: +1 310 301 5836 <tel:%2B1%20310%20301%205836>
>>
>> Mobile: +1 310 895 3637 <tel:%2B1%20310%20895%203637>
>>
>> Email: karen.lentz at icann.org <mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>
>>
>> <http://www.icann.org>www.icann.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> soac-infoalert mailing list
>> soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:soac-infoalert at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160213/5e1e07d3/attachment.html>


From kathy  Sat Feb 13 22:59:13 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH
 Independent Review team
In-Reply-To: <56BF9529.60409@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <69c3b0e6181049eabe12e613b6b46bb4@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThm67QMOM8J=S3hXz3hnz90065-kWBw_b-cEVs89Ww1NUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56BF290F.3070802@kathykleiman.com> <56BF9529.60409@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <56BF9921.1070001@kathykleiman.com>

I was thinking NCSG -- CSG loves it and Rr/RySGs are reconciled to it.
Tx for asking. Best, K

On 2/13/2016 3:42 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Do you mean within NCSG, or do you mean reaching out to other SGs Kathy?
> cheers stephanie
>
> On 16-02-13 8:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> Tx you for posting this, Rafik. It looks like the GAC is seeking to 
>> overturn consensus policy and ICANN has just hired the staff to do 
>> so. Would anyone else like to join us in contesting this?
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>>
>> On 2/13/2016 5:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> hi,.
>>>
>>> I guess that will interest some among us , like Robin and Kathy.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>>> Date: 2016-02-13 7:34 GMT+09:00
>>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH Independent 
>>> Review team
>>> To: "Soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:Soac-infoalert at icann.org>" 
>>> <Soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:Soac-infoalert at icann.org>>
>>> Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org <mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear SO/AC leaders,
>>>
>>> As you may be aware, ICANN is conducting an independent review of 
>>> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was recommended by the GAC in 
>>> 2011 (see 
>>> <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf>https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf). 
>>>
>>>
>>> The GAC advised that the following specific topics should be 
>>> included in the review?s terms of reference:  (1) handling of 
>>> non-exact matches to trademarks, (2) extension of the Trademark 
>>> Claims notifications, and (3) impacts of the Claims services on the 
>>> commercial watch services market.
>>>
>>> ICANN has engaged Analysis Group 
>>> (http://www.analysisgroup.com/home/) to perform this review.  Team 
>>> members who will be performing this review will be in attendance at 
>>> ICANN55, and are available to meet with SO/AC groups as interested.  
>>> While there is a general session planned on this topic, it may be 
>>> helpful for interested stakeholder groups to schedule some time in a 
>>> smaller setting to provide input and ask any questions on the 
>>> review.  If you are interested in scheduling such a slot with your 
>>> group during ICANN55, please contact Antonietta Mangiacotti, 
>>> (antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org) who will coordinate.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> *Karen Lentz*
>>>
>>> Director, Operations & Policy Research
>>>
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>
>>> Direct Line: +1 310 301 5836 <tel:%2B1%20310%20301%205836>
>>>
>>> Mobile: +1 310 895 3637 <tel:%2B1%20310%20895%203637>
>>>
>>> Email: <mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>karen.lentz at icann.org
>>>
>>> <http://www.icann.org>www.icann.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> soac-infoalert mailing list
>>> soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:soac-infoalert at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160213/43e55076/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sat Feb 13 23:09:54 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 16:09:54 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH
 Independent Review team
In-Reply-To: <56BF9921.1070001@kathykleiman.com>
References: <69c3b0e6181049eabe12e613b6b46bb4@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThm67QMOM8J=S3hXz3hnz90065-kWBw_b-cEVs89Ww1NUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56BF290F.3070802@kathykleiman.com> <56BF9529.60409@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<56BF9921.1070001@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <56BF9BA2.7020601@mail.utoronto.ca>

We might get some support on ALAC.....worth a try anyway.
cheers steph

On 16-02-13 3:59 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> I was thinking NCSG -- CSG loves it and Rr/RySGs are reconciled to it.
> Tx for asking. Best, K
>
> On 2/13/2016 3:42 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Do you mean within NCSG, or do you mean reaching out to other SGs Kathy?
>> cheers stephanie
>>
>> On 16-02-13 8:01 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>> Tx you for posting this, Rafik. It looks like the GAC is seeking to 
>>> overturn consensus policy and ICANN has just hired the staff to do 
>>> so. Would anyone else like to join us in contesting this?
>>> Best,
>>> Kathy
>>>
>>> On 2/13/2016 5:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> hi,.
>>>>
>>>> I guess that will interest some among us , like Robin and Kathy.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>>>> Date: 2016-02-13 7:34 GMT+09:00
>>>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Invitation to meet with TMCH Independent 
>>>> Review team
>>>> To: "Soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:Soac-infoalert at icann.org>" 
>>>> <Soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:Soac-infoalert at icann.org>>
>>>> Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org <mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear SO/AC leaders,
>>>>
>>>> As you may be aware, ICANN is conducting an independent review of 
>>>> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was recommended by the GAC in 
>>>> 2011 (see 
>>>> <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf>https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf). 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The GAC advised that the following specific topics should be 
>>>> included in the review?s terms of reference:  (1) handling of 
>>>> non-exact matches to trademarks, (2) extension of the Trademark 
>>>> Claims notifications, and (3) impacts of the Claims services on the 
>>>> commercial watch services market.
>>>>
>>>> ICANN has engaged Analysis Group 
>>>> (http://www.analysisgroup.com/home/) to perform this review.  Team 
>>>> members who will be performing this review will be in attendance at 
>>>> ICANN55, and are available to meet with SO/AC groups as 
>>>> interested.  While there is a general session planned on this 
>>>> topic, it may be helpful for interested stakeholder groups to 
>>>> schedule some time in a smaller setting to provide input and ask 
>>>> any questions on the review.  If you are interested in scheduling 
>>>> such a slot with your group during ICANN55, please contact 
>>>> Antonietta Mangiacotti, (antonietta.mangiacotti at icann.org) who will 
>>>> coordinate.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> *Karen Lentz*
>>>>
>>>> Director, Operations & Policy Research
>>>>
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
>>>> Direct Line: +1 310 301 5836 <tel:%2B1%20310%20301%205836>
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: +1 310 895 3637 <tel:%2B1%20310%20895%203637>
>>>>
>>>> Email: <mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>karen.lentz at icann.org
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.icann.org>www.icann.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> soac-infoalert mailing list
>>>> soac-infoalert at icann.org <mailto:soac-infoalert at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160213/001fa99b/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Feb 15 16:43:47 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:43:47 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
Message-ID: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>

Hi,

As you all know, we?re quite overdue for the PC Chair elections. I?ve consulted with Tapani and Maryam, and we?ve come up with a quick elections schedule, beginning tomorrow.

Nomination Period opens February 16th at UTC 00:00 ?> Closes February 22nd at UTC 23:59.

Ballots should be ready for distribution on February 23rd, and the voting period will continue until February 29th at UTC 23:59.

This election is for the position of the NCSG Policy Committee Chair, which is a charter requirement. It does not include an election or appointment of any vice chairs. This can be addressed once we have an outcome to the Chair election.

As I have previously mentioned, I will not be running for a second year, so I hope that some of you have already considered volunteering to do this job. Considering that the new PC Chair will not have very much time to prep for Marrakech, I will be happy to help in working out the agenda for the PC meeting that will be held on Sunday, March at 17:00 local time (https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/sun-ncsg-policy).

Let me know if you have any questions about this year?s elections.

Thanks.

Amr


From avri  Tue Feb 16 08:09:11 2016
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:09:11 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG & Minority Statements
Message-ID: <56C2BD07.2010901@acm.org>

Hi,

Just confirming,

Since 17 Feb is the last date for minority statements on the CCWG
report, I assuming that while there may be personal minority statements,
there will be not be a NCSG minority statement since neither NCSG
Discuss nor the PC has  such a statement under review.

avri

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




From avri  Tue Feb 16 08:11:25 2016
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:11:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG & Minority Statements
In-Reply-To: <56C2BD07.2010901@acm.org>
References: <56C2BD07.2010901@acm.org>
Message-ID: <56C2BD8D.9070400@acm.org>


Correction there will be no personal minority statements.

So I am assuming we have none from NCSG.

avri



On 16-Feb-16 08:09, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just confirming,
>
> Since 17 Feb is the last date for minority statements on the CCWG
> report, I assuming that while there may be personal minority statements,
> there will be not be a NCSG minority statement since neither NCSG
> Discuss nor the PC has  such a statement under review.
>
> avri


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




From robin  Thu Feb 18 04:47:15 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:47:15 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] individual stmt on WS1 proposal - feedback encouraged
Message-ID: <BCD40220-1A3B-4BA2-A02C-50C03BE689C9@ipjustice.org>

Friends,

Attached is a draft of my individual dissenting opinion on the issue of GAC over-empowerment in the CCWG report, as discussed in this week?s NCSG monthly call.  

Please note: this is NOT an NCSG statement, so I?m not seeking endorsement from the PC for its submission.  Rather, I am asking for feedback for improvements to the draft before its submission tomorrow to the CCWG to be buried in an appendix.  

I should also note that the NCSG is to make its collective decision regarding this final proposal for WS1 in the up-coming vote on the GNSO Council after having reviewed the final proposal and the various minority statements to it, including this one.

Thank you!
Robin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v2_Dissenting Opinion of Individual Member Robin Gross on the Issue of GAC Over.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 178373 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160217/d32467fd/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------





From egmorris1  Thu Feb 18 07:05:51 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 05:05:51 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] individual stmt on WS1 proposal - feedback encouraged
In-Reply-To: <BCD40220-1A3B-4BA2-A02C-50C03BE689C9@ipjustice.org>
References: <BCD40220-1A3B-4BA2-A02C-50C03BE689C9@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <706437EB-6C72-4E60-A6AF-CCC260C577BD@toast.net>

Robin,

This is an exceptional work that acknowledges the tremendous strides the CCWG has made in many areas but focuses on its biggest flaw: the unwarranted use of the transition process to further empower the opaque GAC at the expense of, amongst others, the GNSO.

We've recently seen the problems of the lack of transparency within the GAC on the CCWG when after weeks of arguing about issues such as the GAC carve out it wound only being a few countries, 8 of the 150+ GAC members, whose concerns were deep enough that they signed the GAC minority statement in opposition to our proposal. How much time could have been saved had we known so few objected to what we were doing.

This is an excellent minority statement. Although you haven't asked for endorsement, and perhaps don't want it, this statement certainly reflects my views and I expect those of many of us in the GNSO. Thank you for this and for your incredible and tireless work all year on our behalf as our member on the CCWG.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 18 Feb 2016, at 04:34, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
> Friends,
> 
> Attached is a draft of my individual dissenting opinion on the issue of GAC over-empowerment in the CCWG report, as discussed in this week?s NCSG monthly call.  
> 
> Please note: this is NOT an NCSG statement, so I?m not seeking endorsement from the PC for its submission.  Rather, I am asking for feedback for improvements to the draft before its submission tomorrow to the CCWG to be buried in an appendix.  
> 
> I should also note that the NCSG is to make its collective decision regarding this final proposal for WS1 in the up-coming vote on the GNSO Council after having reviewed the final proposal and the various minority statements to it, including this one.
> 
> Thank you!
> Robin
> <v2_Dissenting Opinion of Individual Member Robin Gross on the Issue of GAC Over.docx>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


From maryam.bakoshi  Thu Feb 18 13:56:28 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:56:28 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March
 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET)
Message-ID: <a97edc03dfa3401797e08b4a5a9e6e56@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting on Sunday 06 March 2016 at 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET)


Adobe Connect: TBC


Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/zuu4e8d


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Monday, 7 March 2016, 04:00
Tokyo: Monday, 7 March 2016, 02:00
Beijing: Monday, 7 March 2016, 01:00
Moscow: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 20:00
New Delhi: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 22:30
Paris: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 18:00
Buenos Aires: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 14:00
New York: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 12:00
Los Angeles: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 09:00


Agenda: TBC


Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: TBD

For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.

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


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


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


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


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160218/eed5f37e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6059 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160218/eed5f37e/attachment-0001.ics>


From robin  Thu Feb 18 18:44:11 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:44:11 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] individual stmt on WS1 proposal - feedback encouraged
In-Reply-To: <9DBCF63C-25D7-43F1-ADB0-7DBDEB418288@gatech.edu>
References: <BCD40220-1A3B-4BA2-A02C-50C03BE689C9@ipjustice.org>
	<706437EB-6C72-4E60-A6AF-CCC260C577BD@toast.net>
	<9DBCF63C-25D7-43F1-ADB0-7DBDEB418288@gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <7737BB74-7FD3-43BB-A112-71C99E7EF9D6@ipjustice.org>

Thanks for all of the very helpful feedback on the draft!!  Here is the final version, which I just submitted to CCWG.

Thanks again,
Robin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Robin_Gross_Minority_Smt_CCWG.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42423 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160218/d4d40507/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------


> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> I agree with the statement also. 
> 
> Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 00:06, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Robin,
>> 
>> This is an exceptional work that acknowledges the tremendous strides the CCWG has made in many areas but focuses on its biggest flaw: the unwarranted use of the transition process to further empower the opaque GAC at the expense of, amongst others, the GNSO.
>> 
>> We've recently seen the problems of the lack of transparency within the GAC on the CCWG when after weeks of arguing about issues such as the GAC carve out it wound only being a few countries, 8 of the 150+ GAC members, whose concerns were deep enough that they signed the GAC minority statement in opposition to our proposal. How much time could have been saved had we known so few objected to what we were doing.
>> 
>> This is an excellent minority statement. Although you haven't asked for endorsement, and perhaps don't want it, this statement certainly reflects my views and I expect those of many of us in the GNSO. Thank you for this and for your incredible and tireless work all year on our behalf as our member on the CCWG.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 18 Feb 2016, at 04:34, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Friends,
>>> 
>>> Attached is a draft of my individual dissenting opinion on the issue of GAC over-empowerment in the CCWG report, as discussed in this week?s NCSG monthly call.  
>>> 
>>> Please note: this is NOT an NCSG statement, so I?m not seeking endorsement from the PC for its submission.  Rather, I am asking for feedback for improvements to the draft before its submission tomorrow to the CCWG to be buried in an appendix.  
>>> 
>>> I should also note that the NCSG is to make its collective decision regarding this final proposal for WS1 in the up-coming vote on the GNSO Council after having reviewed the final proposal and the various minority statements to it, including this one.
>>> 
>>> Thank you!
>>> Robin
>>> <v2_Dissenting Opinion of Individual Member Robin Gross on the Issue of GAC Over.docx>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 



From egmorris1  Thu Feb 18 22:25:02 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:25:02 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appoint Participants
Message-ID: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>

Hi everyone,
  
 The Council decided on its call today to hold a special meeting on February 29th to talk about the CCWG report. Thanks to the great effort of my fellow Councillors no vote will be taken during this meeting, giving us maximum leverage during the March 4th CCWG meeting.
  
 As noted below,  5-7 CCWG participants from the NCPH will be asked top join the call. I'm not sure how the NCPH will select the participants, I'm hoping Tapani or Amr can work that out, but I would ask that fuel consideration be given to the following CCWG participants should they wish to join the call:
  
 Avri Doria
 Farzi Badii
 Matt Shears
 Brett Schaefer
  
 Avri has been the ATRT rep to the CCWG and her 92.9% attendance record far surpasses any of our (non appointed Member) participants. Farzi is our expert on recommendation 10, perhaps the recommendation we are now most opposed to, and her attendance record of 68.9% is second of our participants who have been eligible to attend at least 2/3 of the meetings. Brett and Matt both have excellent attendance records, both have testified on the transition before Congress, and are our resident experts on the proposed structure of the new ICANN. I'll note that Robin Gross will be invited to the call as our CCWG Member, as will our six Councillors.
  
 I may have missed other participants of note; if so, hopefully someone will bring them to our attention.
  
 I'll leave this to Tapani or Amr ( our PC Chair for life? :) ) to sort. I just wanted to start the process to get our folks on the call.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Ed
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:51 PM
To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Special Session - 29 FEB   
 Councilors -
  
 Thanks for your effort, dedication and patience as we work through all of the issues currently on our agenda, while in parallel delivering on our responsibilities as a Chartering Organization for the CCWG-Accountablity.
  
 As discussed on today's call, we will go forward with the proposed Special Session on 29 FEB to consider and discuss the Supplemental Report from the CCWG-ACCT (expected publication: tomorrow).  On this call, we will not vote on any of the Recommendations, or the report itself.  There is no associated motion on the table.
  
 Instead, we will use this opportunity to exchange views on the Report, update the Council on the ongoing work within the various SGs/Cs in preparation for Marrakesh, and highlight any problem areas or "red flags" that have been identified in our discussions.
  
 Additionally, we will invite the Appointed Members and several key Participants from the CCWG-ACCT to join our discussions.  These will include:  Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and Thomas Rickert.  I would ask that each House send along a list of 5-7 other key participants who should be invited to attend as well, with the goal of incorporating the diverse spectrum of GNSO positions, but not overloading our call.
  
 Finally, we agreed to re-purpose some of our time on Saturday in Marrakesh as a Public Session of the Council.  I'll work with the Vice Chairs and Staff to adjust our published agenda to reflect this.
  
 Thanks again-
  
 J.
  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160218/04cf30b3/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Feb 18 22:41:07 2016
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:41:07 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] individual stmt on WS1 proposal - feedback encouraged
In-Reply-To: <7737BB74-7FD3-43BB-A112-71C99E7EF9D6@ipjustice.org>
References: <BCD40220-1A3B-4BA2-A02C-50C03BE689C9@ipjustice.org>
	<706437EB-6C72-4E60-A6AF-CCC260C577BD@toast.net>
	<9DBCF63C-25D7-43F1-ADB0-7DBDEB418288@gatech.edu>
	<7737BB74-7FD3-43BB-A112-71C99E7EF9D6@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <56C62C63.9080006@acm.org>

Hi,

While I do not agree with all of it, I think it is a very good statement
and am happy you made your case.  I think it makes an good offset to
Olga's statement and insures that the full range of the discussion is
recorded.  I think it was an important contribution.

Thanks for doing it as a personal member's statement.

avri


On 18-Feb-16 18:44, Robin Gross wrote:
> Thanks for all of the very helpful feedback on the draft!!  Here is the final version, which I just submitted to CCWG.
>
> Thanks again,
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with the statement also. 
>>
>> Milton L Mueller
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 00:06, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Robin,
>>>
>>> This is an exceptional work that acknowledges the tremendous strides the CCWG has made in many areas but focuses on its biggest flaw: the unwarranted use of the transition process to further empower the opaque GAC at the expense of, amongst others, the GNSO.
>>>
>>> We've recently seen the problems of the lack of transparency within the GAC on the CCWG when after weeks of arguing about issues such as the GAC carve out it wound only being a few countries, 8 of the 150+ GAC members, whose concerns were deep enough that they signed the GAC minority statement in opposition to our proposal. How much time could have been saved had we known so few objected to what we were doing.
>>>
>>> This is an excellent minority statement. Although you haven't asked for endorsement, and perhaps don't want it, this statement certainly reflects my views and I expect those of many of us in the GNSO. Thank you for this and for your incredible and tireless work all year on our behalf as our member on the CCWG.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On 18 Feb 2016, at 04:34, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Friends,
>>>>
>>>> Attached is a draft of my individual dissenting opinion on the issue of GAC over-empowerment in the CCWG report, as discussed in this week?s NCSG monthly call.  
>>>>
>>>> Please note: this is NOT an NCSG statement, so I?m not seeking endorsement from the PC for its submission.  Rather, I am asking for feedback for improvements to the draft before its submission tomorrow to the CCWG to be buried in an appendix.  
>>>>
>>>> I should also note that the NCSG is to make its collective decision regarding this final proposal for WS1 in the up-coming vote on the GNSO Council after having reviewed the final proposal and the various minority statements to it, including this one.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>> Robin
>>>> <v2_Dissenting Opinion of Individual Member Robin Gross on the Issue of GAC Over.docx>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From mshears  Thu Feb 18 22:54:43 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:54:43 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] individual stmt on WS1 proposal - feedback encouraged
In-Reply-To: <56C62C63.9080006@acm.org>
References: <BCD40220-1A3B-4BA2-A02C-50C03BE689C9@ipjustice.org>
	<706437EB-6C72-4E60-A6AF-CCC260C577BD@toast.net>
	<9DBCF63C-25D7-43F1-ADB0-7DBDEB418288@gatech.edu>
	<7737BB74-7FD3-43BB-A112-71C99E7EF9D6@ipjustice.org>
	<56C62C63.9080006@acm.org>
Message-ID: <56C62F93.20802@cdt.org>

I agree with Avri's comment.  Thanks Robin.

On 2/18/2016 8:41 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While I do not agree with all of it, I think it is a very good statement
> and am happy you made your case.  I think it makes an good offset to
> Olga's statement and insures that the full range of the discussion is
> recorded.  I think it was an important contribution.
>
> Thanks for doing it as a personal member's statement.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 18-Feb-16 18:44, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Thanks for all of the very helpful feedback on the draft!!  Here is the final version, which I just submitted to CCWG.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with the statement also.
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller
>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 00:06, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robin,
>>>>
>>>> This is an exceptional work that acknowledges the tremendous strides the CCWG has made in many areas but focuses on its biggest flaw: the unwarranted use of the transition process to further empower the opaque GAC at the expense of, amongst others, the GNSO.
>>>>
>>>> We've recently seen the problems of the lack of transparency within the GAC on the CCWG when after weeks of arguing about issues such as the GAC carve out it wound only being a few countries, 8 of the 150+ GAC members, whose concerns were deep enough that they signed the GAC minority statement in opposition to our proposal. How much time could have been saved had we known so few objected to what we were doing.
>>>>
>>>> This is an excellent minority statement. Although you haven't asked for endorsement, and perhaps don't want it, this statement certainly reflects my views and I expect those of many of us in the GNSO. Thank you for this and for your incredible and tireless work all year on our behalf as our member on the CCWG.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Feb 2016, at 04:34, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Friends,
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached is a draft of my individual dissenting opinion on the issue of GAC over-empowerment in the CCWG report, as discussed in this week?s NCSG monthly call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note: this is NOT an NCSG statement, so I?m not seeking endorsement from the PC for its submission.  Rather, I am asking for feedback for improvements to the draft before its submission tomorrow to the CCWG to be buried in an appendix.
>>>>>
>>>>> I should also note that the NCSG is to make its collective decision regarding this final proposal for WS1 in the up-coming vote on the GNSO Council after having reviewed the final proposal and the various minority statements to it, including this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> <v2_Dissenting Opinion of Individual Member Robin Gross on the Issue of GAC Over.docx>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.


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




From mshears  Thu Feb 18 23:00:55 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 21:00:55 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appoint Participants
In-Reply-To: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
References: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
Message-ID: <56C63107.8050600@cdt.org>

I am very happy to participate.  What time is the call though?

On 2/18/2016 8:25 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> The Council decided on its call today to hold a special meeting on 
> February 29th to talk about the CCWG report. Thanks to the great 
> effort of my fellow Councillors no vote will be taken during this 
> meeting, giving us maximum leverage during the March 4th CCWG meeting.
> As noted below,  5-7 CCWG participants from the NCPH will be asked top 
> join the call. I'm not sure how the NCPH will select the participants, 
> I'm hoping Tapani or Amr can work that out, but I would ask that fuel 
> consideration be given to the following CCWG participants should they 
> wish to join the call:
> Avri Doria
> Farzi Badii
> Matt Shears
> Brett Schaefer
> Avri has been the ATRT rep to the CCWG and her 92.9% attendance record 
> far surpasses any of our (non appointed Member) participants. Farzi is 
> our expert on recommendation 10, perhaps the recommendation we are now 
> most opposed to, and her attendance record of 68.9% is second of our 
> participants who have been eligible to attend at least 2/3 of the 
> meetings. Brett and Matt both have excellent attendance records, both 
> have testified on the transition before Congress, and are our resident 
> experts on the proposed structure of the new ICANN. I'll note that 
> Robin Gross will be invited to the call as our CCWG Member, as will 
> our six Councillors.
> I may have missed other participants of note; if so, hopefully someone 
> will bring them to our attention.
> I'll leave this to Tapani or Amr ( our PC Chair for life? :) ) to 
> sort. I just wanted to start the process to get our folks on the call.
> Thanks,
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Sent*: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:51 PM
> *To*: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject*: [council] Special Session - 29 FEB
> Councilors -
> Thanks for your effort, dedication and patience as we work through all 
> of the issues currently on our agenda, while in parallel delivering on 
> our responsibilities as a Chartering Organization for the 
> CCWG-Accountablity.
> As discussed on today?s call, we will go forward with the proposed 
> Special Session on 29 FEB to consider and discuss the Supplemental 
> Report from the CCWG-ACCT (expected publication: tomorrow).  On this 
> call, we will *_not_ *vote on any of the Recommendations, or the 
> report itself.  There is no associated motion on the table.
> Instead, we will use this opportunity to exchange views on the Report, 
> update the Council on the ongoing work within the various SGs/Cs in 
> preparation for Marrakesh, and highlight any problem areas or ?red 
> flags? that have been identified in our discussions.
> Additionally, we will invite the Appointed Members and several key 
> Participants from the CCWG-ACCT to join our discussions.  These will 
> include:  Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and Thomas 
> Rickert.  I would ask that each House send along a list of 5-7 other 
> key participants who should be invited to attend as well, with the 
> goal of incorporating the diverse spectrum of GNSO positions, but not 
> overloading our call.
> Finally, we agreed to re-purpose some of our time on Saturday in 
> Marrakesh as a Public Session of the Council.  I?ll work with the Vice 
> Chairs and Staff to adjust our published agenda to reflect this.
> Thanks again?
> J.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.



---
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/20160218/e34debc0/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Feb 21 15:06:53 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:06:53 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appoint Participants
In-Reply-To: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
References: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
Message-ID: <064A86AB-5BC2-4452-9FFA-6E24F0B7B2C6@egyptig.org>

Hi Ed,

My instincts on this is to try to have a dialogue with the CSG on the NCPH list about this, and perhaps try to frame the discussion as an attempt to come up with an effective NCPH team that can address the Council on the 29th. My impression is that we?re more-or-less aligned with the CSG on what we want to see coming out of the CCWG recommendations at this point.

My opinions above may very well be largely based on me not seeing the full picture. I?m sure you and the rest of the NCSG team on the CCWG know the ins and outs of this more intimately than I (and perhaps Tapani) do. I would feel happy with you all starting this discussion with the CSG folks, but please do keep it on the NCPH list.

I will note that you, Robin, Matt and Farzi should all be subscribed to that list, so should all be able to take part in a conversation there. I?m guessing Phil, Greg and SDB are also subscribed to it. Any objection to taking a stab there?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
>  
> The Council decided on its call today to hold a special meeting on February 29th to talk about the CCWG report. Thanks to the great effort of my fellow Councillors no vote will be taken during this meeting, giving us maximum leverage during the March 4th CCWG meeting.
>  
> As noted below,  5-7 CCWG participants from the NCPH will be asked top join the call. I'm not sure how the NCPH will select the participants, I'm hoping Tapani or Amr can work that out, but I would ask that fuel consideration be given to the following CCWG participants should they wish to join the call:
>  
> Avri Doria
> Farzi Badii
> Matt Shears
> Brett Schaefer
>  
> Avri has been the ATRT rep to the CCWG and her 92.9% attendance record far surpasses any of our (non appointed Member) participants. Farzi is our expert on recommendation 10, perhaps the recommendation we are now most opposed to, and her attendance record of 68.9% is second of our participants who have been eligible to attend at least 2/3 of the meetings. Brett and Matt both have excellent attendance records, both have testified on the transition before Congress, and are our resident experts on the proposed structure of the new ICANN. I'll note that Robin Gross will be invited to the call as our CCWG Member, as will our six Councillors.
>  
> I may have missed other participants of note; if so, hopefully someone will bring them to our attention.
>  
> I'll leave this to Tapani or Amr ( our PC Chair for life? :) ) to sort. I just wanted to start the process to get our folks on the call.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Ed
>  
>  
> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:51 PM
> To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Special Session - 29 FEB
>  
> Councilors -
>  
> Thanks for your effort, dedication and patience as we work through all of the issues currently on our agenda, while in parallel delivering on our responsibilities as a Chartering Organization for the CCWG-Accountablity.
>  
> As discussed on today?s call, we will go forward with the proposed Special Session on 29 FEB to consider and discuss the Supplemental Report from the CCWG-ACCT (expected publication: tomorrow).  On this call, we will not vote on any of the Recommendations, or the report itself.  There is no associated motion on the table.
>  
> Instead, we will use this opportunity to exchange views on the Report, update the Council on the ongoing work within the various SGs/Cs in preparation for Marrakesh, and highlight any problem areas or ?red flags? that have been identified in our discussions.
>  
> Additionally, we will invite the Appointed Members and several key Participants from the CCWG-ACCT to join our discussions.  These will include:  Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and Thomas Rickert.  I would ask that each House send along a list of 5-7 other key participants who should be invited to attend as well, with the goal of incorporating the diverse spectrum of GNSO positions, but not overloading our call.
>  
> Finally, we agreed to re-purpose some of our time on Saturday in Marrakesh as a Public Session of the Council.  I?ll work with the Vice Chairs and Staff to adjust our published agenda to reflect this.
>  
> Thanks again?
>  
> J.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Sun Feb 21 15:11:19 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:11:19 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>

Hi,

This is just a friendly reminder that the deadline to nominate candidates for the PC Chair elections is fast approaching. Not having any nominations by this deadline does not exactly bode well for the future of this committee.

I hope we do see some nominations over the next day.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As you all know, we?re quite overdue for the PC Chair elections. I?ve consulted with Tapani and Maryam, and we?ve come up with a quick elections schedule, beginning tomorrow.
> 
> Nomination Period opens February 16th at UTC 00:00 ?> Closes February 22nd at UTC 23:59.
> 
> Ballots should be ready for distribution on February 23rd, and the voting period will continue until February 29th at UTC 23:59.
> 
> This election is for the position of the NCSG Policy Committee Chair, which is a charter requirement. It does not include an election or appointment of any vice chairs. This can be addressed once we have an outcome to the Chair election.
> 
> As I have previously mentioned, I will not be running for a second year, so I hope that some of you have already considered volunteering to do this job. Considering that the new PC Chair will not have very much time to prep for Marrakech, I will be happy to help in working out the agenda for the PC meeting that will be held on Sunday, March at 17:00 local time (https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/sun-ncsg-policy).
> 
> Let me know if you have any questions about this year?s elections.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Sun Feb 21 15:19:42 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:19:42 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appoint Participants
In-Reply-To: <56C63107.8050600@cdt.org>
References: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
	<56C63107.8050600@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <3E30DBF6-C380-4E79-9CBD-3044E8FBC2F9@egyptig.org>

Hi,

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:00 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> I am very happy to participate.  What time is the call though?

I actually don?t recall a time being set for the call, but I may have missed that. Anyone have a better recollection than mine?

Thanks.

Amr


From aelsadr  Sun Feb 21 15:37:19 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:37:19 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
	work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
	<D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
	<54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

Some more follow-up to this issue;

First of all, Kathy had mentioned during the last monthly NCSG policy call redline changes she made to the draft charter, and she was wondering whether she should share it with the PC. I?ve attached it to this email for folks to consider.

Second, in its last meeting, the Council asked that a sub-team of volunteers be formed to try to resolve the disagreements on this charter and have it ready in time for a motion to be submitted for the public Council meeting scheduled to take place in Marrakech. This team has been formed, and now consists of Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady and myself. The sub-team is scheduled to hold a number of consecutive calls to try to work through this on:

February 22nd
February 23rd
February 25th
February 26th

I will try to keep you all up-to-date with events as they unfold on this group.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016-1 (kk ed).doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 101888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160221/2e8c1cd4/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> I realised after sending this email that I didn?t attach the draft charter, so I?ve attached it to this email.
> 
> I also noticed that I addressed the last email to Kathy (really grateful for all the work you put into this for us all Kathy), but the majority of the message below was of course directed to the entire PC.
> 
> Apologies folks. :)
> 
> Amr
> 
> <Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016.docx>
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Kathy,
>> 
>> Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.
>> 
>> Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
>> 
>> 1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.
>> 
>> 2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be formally adopted.
>> 
>> Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html.
>> 
>> Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Amr,
>>> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
>>> 
>>> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
>>> 
>>> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
>>> 
>>> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
>>> 
>>> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
>>> 
>>> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
>>> 
>>> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
>>> Best and huge tx,
>>> Kathy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>>>> 
>>>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf. Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agreeing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From kathy  Sun Feb 21 16:27:54 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 06:27:54 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
 work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
	<D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
	<54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>
	<EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56C9C96A.7090100@kathykleiman.com>

Amr,
This is outstanding! Given 2 BCer's and 2 IPCers, could there be 2 
NCSGers from Council on this new sub-team?
Tx,
Kathy
p.s. what can I do to help?

On 2/21/2016 5:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Some more follow-up to this issue;
>
> First of all, Kathy had mentioned during the last monthly NCSG policy call redline changes she made to the draft charter, and she was wondering whether she should share it with the PC. I?ve attached it to this email for folks to consider.
>
> Second, in its last meeting, the Council asked that a sub-team of volunteers be formed to try to resolve the disagreements on this charter and have it ready in time for a motion to be submitted for the public Council meeting scheduled to take place in Marrakech. This team has been formed, and now consists of Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady and myself. The sub-team is scheduled to hold a number of consecutive calls to try to work through this on:
>
> February 22nd
> February 23rd
> February 25th
> February 26th
>
> I will try to keep you all up-to-date with events as they unfold on this group.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I realised after sending this email that I didn?t attach the draft charter, so I?ve attached it to this email.
>>
>> I also noticed that I addressed the last email to Kathy (really grateful for all the work you put into this for us all Kathy), but the majority of the message below was of course directed to the entire PC.
>>
>> Apologies folks. :)
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> <Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016.docx>
>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.
>>>
>>> Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
>>>
>>> 1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.
>>>
>>> 2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be formally adopted.
>>>
>>> Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html.
>>>
>>> Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Amr,
>>>> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
>>>>
>>>> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
>>>>
>>>> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
>>>>
>>>> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
>>>>
>>>> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
>>>> Best and huge tx,
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf. Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agreeing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160221/507623ff/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Sun Feb 21 17:41:27 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:41:27 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appoint Participants
In-Reply-To: <064A86AB-5BC2-4452-9FFA-6E24F0B7B2C6@egyptig.org>
References: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
	<064A86AB-5BC2-4452-9FFA-6E24F0B7B2C6@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <810CC2F4-89D0-4130-BF9C-C0626E3D5676@toast.net>

I'm fine with that approach, Amr, but don't have the time to take the lead on it. You'll recall the CSG didn't exactly cooperate with us on the CCT appointments.

Over the last few days there is widening disparity within the NCPH on certain key issues. It would be good to get as many of our people there as possible.

I've reached out and the four individuals I've suggested are all willing to do the call. Having heard no objection and realising this nomination is a duty for Councillors, an invitation to a Council call, I was going to suggest the names to James. I'll hold off.

If you'd like to take over and deal with this on a NCPH basis you have my full support. I'd ask that this be done ASAP because people have schedules they need to make. I will note that I am unable to be on this call, making the maximisation of our representation even more important.

I stepped forward because no one was dealing with the issue and we had once selected me as the go to guy on Council CCWG stuff. Please take over (you are PC Chair for life, no....or until we get human rights into the bylaws, that damn torture thing  :) ) from me if you'd like to make this a NCPH thing, which is appropriate. I just don't have the time to engage in diplomatic niceties at the moment, give the recent implosion on the CCWG.

Thanks,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Feb 2016, at 13:18, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> My instincts on this is to try to have a dialogue with the CSG on the NCPH list about this, and perhaps try to frame the discussion as an attempt to come up with an effective NCPH team that can address the Council on the 29th. My impression is that we?re more-or-less aligned with the CSG on what we want to see coming out of the CCWG recommendations at this point.
> 
> My opinions above may very well be largely based on me not seeing the full picture. I?m sure you and the rest of the NCSG team on the CCWG know the ins and outs of this more intimately than I (and perhaps Tapani) do. I would feel happy with you all starting this discussion with the CSG folks, but please do keep it on the NCPH list.
> 
> I will note that you, Robin, Matt and Farzi should all be subscribed to that list, so should all be able to take part in a conversation there. I?m guessing Phil, Greg and SDB are also subscribed to it. Any objection to taking a stab there?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> The Council decided on its call today to hold a special meeting on February 29th to talk about the CCWG report. Thanks to the great effort of my fellow Councillors no vote will be taken during this meeting, giving us maximum leverage during the March 4th CCWG meeting.
>> 
>> As noted below,  5-7 CCWG participants from the NCPH will be asked top join the call. I'm not sure how the NCPH will select the participants, I'm hoping Tapani or Amr can work that out, but I would ask that fuel consideration be given to the following CCWG participants should they wish to join the call:
>> 
>> Avri Doria
>> Farzi Badii
>> Matt Shears
>> Brett Schaefer
>> 
>> Avri has been the ATRT rep to the CCWG and her 92.9% attendance record far surpasses any of our (non appointed Member) participants. Farzi is our expert on recommendation 10, perhaps the recommendation we are now most opposed to, and her attendance record of 68.9% is second of our participants who have been eligible to attend at least 2/3 of the meetings. Brett and Matt both have excellent attendance records, both have testified on the transition before Congress, and are our resident experts on the proposed structure of the new ICANN. I'll note that Robin Gross will be invited to the call as our CCWG Member, as will our six Councillors.
>> 
>> I may have missed other participants of note; if so, hopefully someone will bring them to our attention.
>> 
>> I'll leave this to Tapani or Amr ( our PC Chair for life? :) ) to sort. I just wanted to start the process to get our folks on the call.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> 
>> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:51 PM
>> To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: [council] Special Session - 29 FEB
>> 
>> Councilors -
>> 
>> Thanks for your effort, dedication and patience as we work through all of the issues currently on our agenda, while in parallel delivering on our responsibilities as a Chartering Organization for the CCWG-Accountablity.
>> 
>> As discussed on today?s call, we will go forward with the proposed Special Session on 29 FEB to consider and discuss the Supplemental Report from the CCWG-ACCT (expected publication: tomorrow).  On this call, we will not vote on any of the Recommendations, or the report itself.  There is no associated motion on the table.
>> 
>> Instead, we will use this opportunity to exchange views on the Report, update the Council on the ongoing work within the various SGs/Cs in preparation for Marrakesh, and highlight any problem areas or ?red flags? that have been identified in our discussions.
>> 
>> Additionally, we will invite the Appointed Members and several key Participants from the CCWG-ACCT to join our discussions.  These will include:  Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and Thomas Rickert.  I would ask that each House send along a list of 5-7 other key participants who should be invited to attend as well, with the goal of incorporating the diverse spectrum of GNSO positions, but not overloading our call.
>> 
>> Finally, we agreed to re-purpose some of our time on Saturday in Marrakesh as a Public Session of the Council.  I?ll work with the Vice Chairs and Staff to adjust our published agenda to reflect this.
>> 
>> Thanks again?
>> 
>> J.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


From egmorris1  Sun Feb 21 17:41:56 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:41:56 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appoint Participants
In-Reply-To: <3E30DBF6-C380-4E79-9CBD-3044E8FBC2F9@egyptig.org>
References: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
	<56C63107.8050600@cdt.org>
	<3E30DBF6-C380-4E79-9CBD-3044E8FBC2F9@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <BFFE5604-193A-41A2-AAE7-C991AA3B23D9@toast.net>

21:00 UTC

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Feb 2016, at 13:23, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:00 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I am very happy to participate.  What time is the call though?
> 
> I actually don?t recall a time being set for the call, but I may have missed that. Anyone have a better recollection than mine?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr


From kathy  Sun Feb 21 20:35:30 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 13:35:30 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
 work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
	<D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
	<54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>
	<EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56CA0372.4020001@kathykleiman.com>

Hi Amr,
Can I assist you by joining these calls?
Tx,
Kathy

On 2/21/2016 8:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Some more follow-up to this issue;
>
> First of all, Kathy had mentioned during the last monthly NCSG policy call redline changes she made to the draft charter, and she was wondering whether she should share it with the PC. I?ve attached it to this email for folks to consider.
>
> Second, in its last meeting, the Council asked that a sub-team of volunteers be formed to try to resolve the disagreements on this charter and have it ready in time for a motion to be submitted for the public Council meeting scheduled to take place in Marrakech. This team has been formed, and now consists of Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady and myself. The sub-team is scheduled to hold a number of consecutive calls to try to work through this on:
>
> February 22nd
> February 23rd
> February 25th
> February 26th
>
> I will try to keep you all up-to-date with events as they unfold on this group.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I realised after sending this email that I didn?t attach the draft charter, so I?ve attached it to this email.
>>
>> I also noticed that I addressed the last email to Kathy (really grateful for all the work you put into this for us all Kathy), but the majority of the message below was of course directed to the entire PC.
>>
>> Apologies folks. :)
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> <Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016.docx>
>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.
>>>
>>> Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
>>>
>>> 1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.
>>>
>>> 2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be formally adopted.
>>>
>>> Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html.
>>>
>>> Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Amr,
>>>> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
>>>>
>>>> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
>>>>
>>>> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
>>>>
>>>> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
>>>>
>>>> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
>>>> Best and huge tx,
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf. Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agreeing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160221/9764bf73/attachment-0001.html>


From kathy  Mon Feb 22 06:46:27 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:46:27 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A balanced approach to RPMs for trademark holders,
 noncommercial registrants and everyone else
In-Reply-To: <EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
	<D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
	<54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>
	<EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56CA92A3.8020409@kathykleiman.com>

Hi Amr and All,
I greatly appreciate the leadership you are providing and the time you 
are about to spend revising the "RPM" Charter. I have reviewed the draft 
charter anything and, if anything, I am more concerned than before about 
the one-sided goals of the Draft Charter -- all intellectual property, 
all the time. There is nothing in the "Background," "Mission and Scope," 
"Objections & Goals," "Deliverables and Times Frames" about fairness, 
balance, or protection of the rights of Both registrants (noncommercial 
and commercial) and intellectual property owners.  It's all intellectual 
property all the time -- and that will make our job to fight for balance 
almost impossible. So your role in the next few days will be key - and 
invaluable.

To help in this process, I share additional ideas below -- knowing that 
there are at least 3 people on the BC/IPC side who care deeply about 
balance and know the laws that protect free speech and fair use - within 
trademark and other intellectual property laws - intimately. **I think 
we have to do farther than my initial suggestions, and I share more below.**

1. The STI (Special Trademarks Initiative that drafted the GNSO final 
text on the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearinghouse 
(TMCH) and Trademark Notice (TM Notice) intentionally, specifically and 
fully embraced the need to balance the rights of trademark holders and 
all other rights that a registrant might have (including free 
speech/freedom of expression, fair use, trademark infringement AND "the 
legitimate use of domain names" and "fair notice, justice, and due 
process."  Konstantinos, Robin, Wendy and I fought for those words and 
this clear balance -- but the rest of the Issues Work Team supported us 
as did the GNSO Council which adopted this balanced goal, language and 
mission unanimously. I include it below.

EXCERPT FROM Special Trademark Issues Work Team Recommendations, 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf
***
"UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION PROCEDURE
There is consensus among the members of STI that creation of a Uniform 
Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure would be a beneficial rights protection 
mechanism for inclusion in the New GTLD program. The STI recognizes that 
the URS could provide trademark holders with a cost effective, expedited 
process in instances of clear cut instances of trademark abuse, provided 
_that the procedure includes appropriate safeguards to protect 
registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names. _Despite the 
expedited nature of the URS, Staff shall recommend a uniform procedure 
for and URS Service providers _that shall provide procedures consistent 
with fair notice, justice, and due process." _[emphasis added]/

/*2. It's not "intellectual property rights," it's trademark rights. **
*

*Since the beg**inning of the UDRP process, we **limited policies to 
trademark **issues **only**, **not all "intellectual property"****(which 
include **cop**yright and pat**ent **rights**). **Thus, the **UDRP, URS, 
**_Trademark _**Clearinghouse and **_Trademark _**Claims policies 
**protect **only to trademark holders -- despite huge efforts to expand 
the rights to all "intellectual property" owners in every past R**PM 
**PDP. **Thus, i**t is **disingenuous today for **staff to **draft this 
**charter with **"intellectual property owners" named eve**rywhere and 
not stick with the limi**tation of the UDRP, URS**, + **-- which is only 
trademark owners. To allo**w this would result in giving **copyright 
right holders A  Whole New Entrance Into this upcoming RPM Policy 
Development Processes**-- and one **to which they are not entitled. **
*

*We need your help **to co**ntinue the fight of the last 16 years, and 
limit this R**P**M**stric**tly and only to trademark rights. (**If you 
would like me to share more detailed reasons, I am happy to**, but 
ch**ief **among that is tha**t only trademarks **can be invoked by 
**domain names****disputes. **Copyright**s have to **do with content 
issues - of webpages, etc.**- beyond the scope of ICANN's narrow mission 
and mandate.**)****They've tried this huge rights exp**ansion atte**mpt 
before -- **PLEASE **DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM NOW. **All "Intellectual 
Property" must be changed to "**Trademark." Tx you!!!]**
*

**
3/. /*Current "**Background" language is: *

"The question of who legally has rights to, or is the legitimate holder 
of, a domain name can be open to dispute. In relation to domain name 
disputes concerning the registration and use of legally protected 
trademarks, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is the longest 
standing alternative dispute resolution procedure. As a result of the 
New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were 
developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights 
holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace: the 
Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse 
(TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise 
periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the 
Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)." /In all of 
these dispute mechanisms, the rights of the domain name registrant and 
gTLD registry are also taken into account, including their ability to 
participate fairly and the mitigation of risks of harrassing and 
unwarranted claims. [Italics = KK proposal to add some balancing 
language - I think we need more.]
/

/==> /If I were to rewrite this, I would say: **Since the beginning of 
open domain name registration, the Internet Community has operated on a 
"first-come, first-served" basis. Everyone had access to available 
domain names, and if problems arose then challenges could be brought. 
The initial legitimate holder of a domain **is the registrant** unless 
proven otherwise. Any process to remove a domain name from a gTLD 
registrant must have fair notice, justice and due process written into 
its rules, as set out in the UDRP the longest standing alternative 
dispute resolution procedure. It must also balance trademark rights with 
the rights of free speech/freedom of expression and legal protections 
for "fair use" including criticism, competition, noncommercial use and 
commercial use in completely different categories of goods and 
services... **

/[NOTE: Working Group 2 -- on Famous Marks - REJECTED "famous marks" 
protections for trademarks because there was no international treaty in 
which nations broadly agreed to comply by a common set of principles. So 
we are working with basic trademark rights **and limitations** as agreed 
by treaty, practiced by federal law and well-known. You simply can't 
stop me from naming my dog Orange and setting up a website at 
www.orange.dog simply because Orange Telecom is a huge company in 
Europe. Trust me - WIPO tried that already and lost.//]/

*3. Current "Mission and S**cope" language is:
*


This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all 
RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One may focus on a review of all 
the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two may 
focus on a review of the UDRP. The Community in its public comments was 
split on whether this order makes sense given that the UDRP is the 
ordest consensus policy of ICANN and may be the best place to begin an 
overall RPM review. This is an issue for initial evaluation and decision 
by the WG as no consensus as yet been reached in the Community. ,In all 
events, by the completion of its work, the Working Group will be 
expected to have also considered the overarching issue as to whether or 
not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were 
created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, 
including to clarify and unify the policy goals.

==> I would rewrite this opening paragraph of the section as: /This PDP 
Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all 
gTLDs for their fairness and balance, effectiveness in protecting the 
rights of domain name registrants and trademark owners, whether 
continuation is required, and whether the fairness, protections, 
justice, notice and due process hoped for by the drafters is being 
achieved in the implementation.  Are the UDRP, URS and other new gTLD 
RPMs fair and being fairly implemented?  [Then the details of UDRP and 
URS, including the edits I proposed, could be included. As written, it 
is currently only a laundry list of policies and not a true Mission and 
Scope statement for goals, so the Draft Charter needs the definite and 
goal set out above to be fair and balanced in the objectives of the PDP.] /

4. *Current "Objectives and Goals" language:*

In addition to an assessment of the effectiveness of each RPM, the PDP 
Working Group is expected to consider, at the appropriate stage of its 
work, the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs 
collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or 
whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to 
clarify and unify the policy goals. If such additional policy 
recommendations are needed, the Working Group is expected to develop 
recommendations to address the specific issues identified.

The Working Group is also directed to bear in mind that a fundamental 
underlying intention of conducting a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs is 
to create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these 
mechanisms in the future.

==> I would rewrite this opening sentence of the section as: /Our goal 
here is the assessment of the fair implementation and balance of the 
policies developed -- are all parties from registrants to intellectual 
property owners treated in a fair, just and equitable manner? The PDP 
Working Group is expected to consider whether the rights of trademark 
owners and registrants are being balanced properly and fully protected...
/

5. *Current "Deliverables and Timeframes" language is: *

"In addition to the PDP deliverables prescribed in the ICANN Bylaws and 
the PDP Manual, the Working Group shall provide a first Initial Report 
to the GNSO Council at the conclusion of Phase One of the PDP. The 
Report shall be put out for public comment and also inform the GNSO 
Council about the progress of the Working Group. At a minimum, the 
Report shall outline the Working Group?s progress and any preliminary 
recommendations it may have developed with regard to whatever it chooses 
to evaluate first: the UDRP or the new gTLD RPMs. The first Initial 
Report shall also highlight any relevant findings, information or issues 
that may have emerged during Phase One and any issues or recommendations 
that the Group believes should be considered by the PDP Working Group on 
Subsequent Procedures, and/or that the Working Group considers relevant 
to its work in Phase Two.

Phase Two of the PDP Working Group shall focus primarily on the second 
half: the New gTLD RPMs or UDRP (whatever is left). However, during this 
Phase the WG is also expected to review its first Initial Report, taking 
into account public comments received, and/or feedback submitted from 
the New gTLD Subsequent Rounds PDP or other ongoing efforts."

==> I would rewrite this opening sentence of this section to be: /In 
addition to the PDP deliverables prescribed in the ICANN Bylaws and the 
PDP Manual, the Working Group shall provide a first Initial Report to 
the GNSO Council regarding the balance and protection of rights of both 
trademark owners and registrants and additional steps necessary to 
protect the rights of each.... /


6. Conclusion:
I hope I provided some useful guidance. I am certainly losing sleep - 
and thank you for all of your efforts on this. Please let me know what I 
can do to help - including short memos on legal issues, editing in the 
background, etc.

Best regards,
Kathy




On 2/21/2016 8:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Some more follow-up to this issue;
>
> First of all, Kathy had mentioned during the last monthly NCSG policy call redline changes she made to the draft charter, and she was wondering whether she should share it with the PC. I?ve attached it to this email for folks to consider.
>
> Second, in its last meeting, the Council asked that a sub-team of volunteers be formed to try to resolve the disagreements on this charter and have it ready in time for a motion to be submitted for the public Council meeting scheduled to take place in Marrakech. This team has been formed, and now consists of Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady and myself. The sub-team is scheduled to hold a number of consecutive calls to try to work through this on:
>
> February 22nd
> February 23rd
> February 25th
> February 26th
>
> I will try to keep you all up-to-date with events as they unfold on this group.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I realised after sending this email that I didn?t attach the draft charter, so I?ve attached it to this email.
>>
>> I also noticed that I addressed the last email to Kathy (really grateful for all the work you put into this for us all Kathy), but the majority of the message below was of course directed to the entire PC.
>>
>> Apologies folks. :)
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> <Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016.docx>
>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.
>>>
>>> Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
>>>
>>> 1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.
>>>
>>> 2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be formally adopted.
>>>
>>> Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html.
>>>
>>> Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Amr,
>>>> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
>>>>
>>>> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
>>>>
>>>> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
>>>>
>>>> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
>>>>
>>>> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
>>>> Best and huge tx,
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf. Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agreeing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160221/8a70f8df/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Mon Feb 22 20:32:51 2016
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:32:51 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN Staff Pilot Program to assist ICANN document
 development and drafting
Message-ID: <56CB5453.3000505@yorku.ca>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160222/71e7427f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WBC_Global_Proposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 26473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160222/71e7427f/attachment-0001.pdf>


From klaus.stoll  Mon Feb 22 20:38:53 2016
From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:38:53 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN Staff Pilot Program to assist ICANN document
 development and drafting
In-Reply-To: <56CB5453.3000505@yorku.ca>
References: <56CB5453.3000505@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <56CB55BD.3010901@gkpfoundation.org>

Dear Friends

Greetings. I would strongly support Sam's position. This program for me 
represents another step to disenfranchise the community and move the 
control over the policy making processes away from it. We should take 
this very serious and ensure that are concerns are taken into account.

Yours

Klaus

On 2/22/2016 1:32 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Some of you will have read the message from David Olive, sent to the 
> SOAC leadership list earlier in the month, in which he outlines a 
> Staff initiative for "a new pilot program we are developing to assist 
> ICANN communities with document development and drafting." I have no 
> idea where the proposal stands at the moment, although they hoped to 
> roll it out before Marrakesh. (See full message attached).
>
> I have several concerns about the viability of this proposal. They are 
> listed below this */brief overview /*of the proposal.
>
> ?    The proposal ICANN is working on is with Dan O?Neill of WBC 
> Global to help develop, coordinate and manage the implementation of 
> this assistance program. WBC Global is mainly a provider of background 
> information to the business community, and an arranger for access to 
> staff and representatives in the U.S. Congress. I do not know if it 
> currently performs Washington work for ICANN.
>
> ?    The proposed pilot program will assist eligible ICANN community 
> groups with search, and preparation of issue overviews, participation 
> in community calls, writing, editing, or any combination of those 
> services. The program will help ICANN test what types of services can 
> be provided and in what manner to see if it is possible to establish 
> the capability as a regular ICANN support program.
>
> ?    Staff is requesting expressions of interest via a questionnaire 
> [/not sure where it is/], to be completed by 29 January 2016. Staff is 
> also requesting suggestions for specific individuals who might take on 
> temporary assignments to serve in the support role, but 
> [unfortunately] ICANN procurement principles would prevent someone 
> from the same community helping out within that community. In my view 
> this will almost guarantee that support is from sources that poorly 
> understand context and process, no matter what their writing and 
> editing skills may be. The goal was to launch the pilot program before 
> Marrakesh, but I have heard nothing more.
>
> /*Concerns:*/
>
> Based on what WBC Global does I think this is a poor match between WBC 
> Global's skills and our constituency needs. WBC Global's services are 
> listed here: http://www.wbcglobal.com/7022.html
>
> It does briefing papers for the corporate sector, and it does Wash 
> D.C. contacting services: /"//Arrange appointments for client 
> executives with Members of Congress or staff, Administration officials 
> and other policy experts in Washington; Organize and staff a 
> customized seminars or briefings for visiting senior executives on 
> setting up and carrying out an effective government relations program 
> in Washington."/
>
> I wonder if it is already under contract to ICANN for Wash D.C. 
> government relations activity.
>
> My reluctance about this proposition has nothing to do with the 
> abilities of WBC Global, within its scope of competence. This effort 
> has to be targeted primarily at the non-contract and probably mainly 
> the non-commercial groups since contracted and commercial groups 
> frequently have the resources to pay for/get done what they need 
> worked on.
>
> For the non-commercial and not-for-profit/civil society organization 
> groups the challenge is neither a lack of expertise nor a lack of 
> writing ability. Many people in our constituencies are occupied doing 
> both in other areas, and that is the problem. The problem is a lack of 
> volunteer time to devote to what needs to be done. Based on what WBC 
> Global does [see website] I do not think it has the appropriate 
> expertise to be of significant help here. We could do better with a 
> contract to a dedicated constituency person who handed edits and 
> cracks the whip on time lines from agreed flow chart milestones.
>
> A model where each WG, PDP, etc. included funding to contract one 
> knowledgeable person for x hours over y weeks to "handle the pen" and 
> "crack the whip" on time lines would work better and be a lot less 
> costly. That ICANN contract procurement principles would prevent this 
> is an issue to be dealt with and addressed. The alternative, only 
> retaining people without specific knowledge or an understanding of the 
> specific context is not a good alternative. It would neither reduce 
> our work nor improve the outcome. Our challenge is neither background 
> research, nor editing and word-smithing skills, it is access to blocks 
> of time from skilled expertise within our community.
>
> Since this deals with how we (NCSG, NCUC, NPOC) would engage in policy 
> development, should we have a discussion and reach a consensus 
> position on this proposal? Does anyone have updated information on 
> this initiative?
>
> Sam L.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160222/486271b7/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Feb 22 20:43:53 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 03:43:53 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN Staff Pilot Program to assist ICANN document
 development and drafting
In-Reply-To: <56CB5453.3000505@yorku.ca>
References: <56CB5453.3000505@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnkJGThNG608k3qDQv2djUNMiHSXBbsbD=tLnmzcC8hLw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sam,

I think WBC global was recruited to help design the program but not
necessarily to provide the policy support itself.

Best,

Rafik
On Feb 23, 2016 3:33 AM, "Sam Lanfranco" <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Some of you will have read the message from David Olive, sent to the SOAC
> leadership list earlier in the month, in which he outlines a Staff
> initiative for "a new pilot program we are developing to assist ICANN
> communities with document development and drafting." I have no idea where
> the proposal stands at the moment, although they hoped to roll it out
> before Marrakesh. (See full message attached).
>
> I have several concerns about the viability of this proposal. They are
> listed below this *brief overview *of the proposal.
>
> ?    The proposal ICANN is working on is with Dan O?Neill of WBC Global to
> help develop, coordinate and manage the implementation of this assistance
> program. WBC Global is mainly a provider of background information to the
> business community, and an arranger for access to staff and representatives
> in the U.S. Congress. I do not know if it currently performs Washington
> work for ICANN.
>
> ?    The proposed pilot program will assist eligible ICANN community
> groups with search, and preparation of issue overviews, participation in
> community calls, writing, editing, or any combination of those services.
> The program will help ICANN test what types of services can be provided and
> in what manner to see if it is possible to establish the capability as a
> regular ICANN support program.
>
> ?    Staff is requesting expressions of interest via a questionnaire [*not
> sure where it is*], to be completed by 29 January 2016. Staff is also
> requesting suggestions for specific individuals who might take on temporary
> assignments to serve in the support role, but [unfortunately] ICANN
> procurement principles would prevent someone from the same community
> helping out within that community. In my view this will almost guarantee
> that support is from sources that poorly understand context and process, no
> matter what their writing and editing skills may be. The goal was to launch
> the pilot program before Marrakesh, but I have heard nothing more.
>
> *Concerns:*
>
> Based on what WBC Global does I think this is a poor match between WBC
> Global's skills and our constituency needs. WBC Global's services are
> listed here: http://www.wbcglobal.com/7022.html
>
> It does briefing papers for the corporate sector, and it does Wash D.C.
> contacting services:  *"**Arrange appointments for client executives with
> Members of Congress or staff,  Administration officials and other policy
> experts in Washington; Organize and staff a customized seminars or
> briefings for visiting senior executives on setting up and carrying out an
> effective government relations program in Washington."*
>
> I wonder if it is already under contract to ICANN for Wash D.C. government
> relations activity.
>
> My reluctance about this proposition has nothing to do with the abilities
> of WBC Global, within its scope of competence. This effort has to be
> targeted primarily at the non-contract and probably mainly the
> non-commercial groups since contracted and commercial groups frequently
> have the resources to pay for/get done what they need worked on.
>
> For the non-commercial and not-for-profit/civil society organization
> groups the challenge is neither a lack of expertise nor a lack of writing
> ability. Many people in our constituencies are occupied doing both in other
> areas, and that is the problem. The problem is a lack of volunteer time to
> devote to what needs to be done. Based on what WBC Global does [see
> website] I do not think it has the appropriate expertise to be of
> significant help here. We could do better with a contract to a dedicated
> constituency person who handed edits and cracks the whip on time lines from
> agreed flow chart milestones.
>
> A model where each WG, PDP, etc. included funding to contract one
> knowledgeable person for x hours over y weeks to "handle the pen" and
> "crack the whip" on time lines would work better and be a lot less costly.
> That ICANN contract procurement principles would prevent this is an issue
> to be dealt with and addressed. The alternative, only retaining people
> without specific knowledge or an understanding of the specific context is
> not a good alternative. It would neither reduce our work nor improve the
> outcome. Our challenge is neither background research, nor editing and
> word-smithing skills, it is access to blocks of time from skilled expertise
> within our community.
>
> Since this deals with how we (NCSG, NCUC, NPOC) would engage in policy
> development, should we have a discussion and reach a consensus position on
> this proposal? Does anyone have updated information on this initiative?
>
> Sam L.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160223/d9604cff/attachment-0001.html>


From lanfran  Mon Feb 22 21:08:58 2016
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:08:58 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN Staff Pilot Program to assist ICANN document
 development and drafting
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnkJGThNG608k3qDQv2djUNMiHSXBbsbD=tLnmzcC8hLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56CB5453.3000505@yorku.ca>
	<CAH5sThnkJGThNG608k3qDQv2djUNMiHSXBbsbD=tLnmzcC8hLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56CB5CCA.2040709@yorku.ca>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160222/199dd859/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Feb 22 21:22:18 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:22:18 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A balanced approach to RPMs for trademark holders,
	noncommercial registrants and everyone else
In-Reply-To: <56CA92A3.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
	<D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
	<54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>
	<EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
	<56CA92A3.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <6D92DBED-7117-4BD5-9A9B-5811950D5CC7@egyptig.org>

Hi Kathy,

As always?, a great deal of gratitude for all of your work on this. Please find some responses in-line below:

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:

[SNIP]

> I have reviewed the draft charter anything and, if anything, I am more concerned than before about the one-sided goals of the Draft Charter -- all intellectual property, all the time. There is nothing in the "Background," "Mission and Scope," "Objections & Goals," "Deliverables and Times Frames" about fairness, balance, or protection of the rights of Both registrants (noncommercial and commercial) and intellectual property owners.  It's all intellectual property all the time -- and that will make our job to fight for balance almost impossible.

I don?t believe that I see how this will make our job more or less difficult than it would have already been. Remember?, all of the concerns regarding fairness, due notice, protection of registrant rights have all been included as topics to be discussed by the WG. This was, of course, thanks to the public comment you drafted on the preliminary issues report.

Still?, I do completely agree that the purpose of the PDP should be balanced, and presented that way in the charter. The purpose should not be to find ways for trademark holders to protect their interests with efficiency and speed as well as the least amount of cost, if this would be at the expense of others. A balanced objective at the start should be desirable. I?ll see what I can do about that.

> So your role in the next few days will be key - and invaluable. 
> 
> To help in this process, I share additional ideas below -- knowing that there are at least 3 people on the BC/IPC side who care deeply about balance and know the laws that protect free speech and fair use - within trademark and other intellectual property laws - intimately. **I think we have to do farther than my initial suggestions, and I share more below.**
> 
> 1. The STI (Special Trademarks Initiative that drafted the GNSO final text on the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and Trademark Notice (TM Notice) intentionally, specifically and fully embraced the need to balance the rights of trademark holders and all other rights that a registrant might have (including free speech/freedom of expression, fair use, trademark infringement AND "the legitimate use of domain names" and "fair notice, justice, and due process."  Konstantinos, Robin, Wendy and I fought for those words and this clear balance -- but the rest of the Issues Work Team supported us as did the GNSO Council which adopted this balanced goal, language and mission unanimously. I include it below.
> 
> EXCERPT FROM Special Trademark Issues Work Team Recommendations,http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf
> *** 
> "UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION PROCEDURE 
> There is consensus among the members of STI that creation of a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure would be a beneficial rights protection mechanism for inclusion in the New GTLD program.  The STI recognizes that the URS could provide trademark holders with a cost effective, expedited process in instances of clear cut instances of trademark abuse, provided that the procedure includes appropriate safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names. Despite the expedited nature of the URS, Staff shall recommend a uniform procedure for and URS Service providers that shall provide procedures consistent with fair notice, justice, and due process." [emphasis added]

This is brilliant, and extremely helpful. Thank you so much for drawing attention to this. This overarching description of the purpose of the URS by the STI should provide the context under which it is reviewed. Fair notice, justice and due process are part of that description.

> 2. It's not "intellectual property rights," it's trademark rights. 
> Since the beginning of the UDRP process, we limited policies to trademark issues only, not all "intellectual property" (which include copyright and patent rights). Thus, the UDRP, URS, Trademark Clearinghouse and Trademark Claims policies protect only to trademark holders -- despite huge efforts to expand the rights to all "intellectual property" owners in every past RPM PDP.  Thus, it is disingenuous today for staff to draft this charter with "intellectual property owners" named everywhere and not stick with the limitation of the UDRP, URS, +  -- which is only trademark owners. To allow this would result in giving copyright right holders A  Whole New Entrance Into this upcoming RPM Policy Development Processes -- and one to which they are not entitled. 
> We need your help to continue the fight of the last 16 years, and limit this RPM strictly and only to trademark rights. (If you would like me to share more detailed reasons, I am happy to, but chief among that is that only trademarks can be invoked by domain names disputes. Copyrights have to do with content issues - of webpages, etc. - beyond the scope of ICANN's narrow mission and mandate.) They've tried this huge rights expansion attempt before --PLEASE DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM NOW. All "Intellectual Property" must be changed to "Trademark." Tx you!!!]

I certainly agree that the scope of this PDP should be limited to trademark, not intellectual property rights, but I?m not sure why you believe the draft charter suggests otherwise. The whole charter seems rather specific to trademarks, not IPRs, to me. I?ve attached the latest draft of the charter to this email once more, and I?ve gone over it many times over the past few weeks. If I?ve missed any indication of IPRs being the subject of the PDP, rather than trademarks, I apologise. Kathy, could you point me to the exact sections you have concerns with in this regard?

> 3. Current "Background" language is: 
> "The question of who legally has rights to, or is the legitimate holder of, a domain name can be open to dispute. In relation to domain name disputes concerning the registration and use of legally protected trademarks, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is the longest standing alternative dispute resolution procedure. As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)." In all of these dispute mechanisms, the rights of the domain name registrant and gTLD registry are also taken into account, including their ability to participate fairly and the mitigation of risks of harrassing and unwarranted claims. [Italics = KK proposal to add some balancing language - I think we need more.]
> ==> If I were to rewrite this, I would say: **Since the beginning of open domain name registration, the Internet Community has operated on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Everyone had access to available domain names, and if problems arose then challenges could be brought. The initial legitimate holder of a domain **is the registrant** unless proven otherwise. Any process to remove a domain name from a gTLD registrant must have fair notice, justice and due process written into its rules, as set out in the UDRP the longest standing alternative dispute resolution procedure. It must also balance trademark rights with the rights of free speech/freedom of expression and legal protections for "fair use" including criticism, competition, noncommercial use and commercial use in completely different categories of goods and services... **

I could also try to make changes to this effect, but it seems to me that this is bordering close to a policy outcome. Wouldn?t this be better introduced during the course of the work of the PDP WG?

I?m also trying to think strategically here. We only have about a week to wrap this up, and I hope to focus on the changes that matter most to us in that time. Make sure they get changed?, including a shot at getting the WG to consider starting phase 1 with the UDRP instead of the RPMs developed for the new gTLD program.

[SNIP]

> 3. Current "Mission and Scope" language is: 
> 
> This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One may focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two may focus on a review of the UDRP. The Community in its public comments was split on whether this order makes sense given that the UDRP is the ordest consensus policy of ICANN and may be the best place to begin an overall RPM review. This is an issue for initial evaluation and decision by the WG as no consensus as yet been reached in the Community. ,In all events, by the completion of its work, the Working Group will be expected to have also considered the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals.

This is actually nowhere near being the current language, Kathy. This is actually the opposite of the current language. This is what I am hoping the outcome of a change to the charter, and case being made to the PDP WG will accomplish. I think you skipped to the end of this process. ;-)

> ==> I would rewrite this opening paragraph of the section as: This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs for their fairness and balance, effectiveness in protecting the rights of domain name registrants and trademark owners, whether continuation is required, and whether the fairness, protections, justice, notice and due process hoped for by the drafters is being achieved in the implementation.  Are the UDRP, URS and other new gTLD RPMs fair and being fairly implemented?  [Then the details of UDRP and URS, including the edits I proposed, could be included. As written, it is currently only a laundry list of policies and not a true Mission and Scope statement for goals, so the Draft Charter needs the definite and goal set out above to be fair and balanced in the objectives of the PDP.]

Yes?, I believe something closer to the outcome of the work of the STI is more appropriate than what is currently in the charter.

>  
> 4. Current "Objectives and Goals" language:
> In addition to an assessment of the effectiveness of each RPM, the PDP Working Group is expected to consider, at the appropriate stage of its work, the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. If such additional policy recommendations are needed, the Working Group is expected to develop recommendations to address the specific issues identified. 
> The Working Group is also directed to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying intention of conducting a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs is to create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these mechanisms in the future.
> ==> I would rewrite this opening sentence of the section as: Our goal here is the assessment of the fair implementation and balance of the policies developed -- are all parties from registrants to intellectual property owners treated in a fair, just and equitable manner? The PDP Working Group is expected to consider whether the rights of trademark owners and registrants are being balanced properly and fully protected? 

Thanks. Will see what I can do with this.

> 5. Current "Deliverables and Timeframes" language is: 
> 
> "In addition to the PDP deliverables prescribed in the ICANN Bylaws and the PDP Manual, the Working Group shall provide a first Initial Report to the GNSO Council at the conclusion of Phase One of the PDP. The Report shall be put out for public comment and also inform the GNSO Council about the progress of the Working Group. At a minimum, the Report shall outline the Working Group?s progress and any preliminary recommendations it may have developed with regard to whatever it chooses to evaluate first: the UDRP or the new gTLD RPMs. The first Initial Report shall also highlight any relevant findings, information or issues that may have emerged during Phase One and any issues or recommendations that the Group believes should be considered by the PDP Working Group on Subsequent Procedures, and/or that the Working Group considers relevant to its work in Phase Two.
> Phase Two of the PDP Working Group shall focus primarily on the second half: the New gTLD RPMs or UDRP (whatever is left). However, during this Phase the WG is also expected to review its first Initial Report, taking into account public comments received, and/or feedback submitted from the New gTLD Subsequent Rounds PDP or other ongoing efforts."
> ==> I would rewrite this opening sentence of this section to be: In addition to the PDP deliverables prescribed in the ICANN Bylaws and the PDP Manual, the Working Group shall provide a first Initial Report to the GNSO Council regarding the balance and protection of rights of both trademark owners and registrants and additional steps necessary to protect the rights of each?.

OK?, I think I see what?s going on. When you say ?current language?, you are referring to the changes you made, not the current version of the charter under discussion on the Council. I was confused for a minute.

If we get what I hope we will, the language requiring phase 1 to be a review of the RPMs will no longer be there, and the appropriate changes will need to be reflected in other parts of the charter, including ?Deliverables and Timeframes?. And yes to making sure the language is consistently balanced, and not in favour of trademark interests.

> 6. Conclusion:
> I hope I provided some useful guidance. I am certainly losing sleep - and thank you for all of your efforts on this.

Thank you for everything, Kathy, and yes?, the guidance is not just useful, but essential. I wish we had more time to deal with this, instead of it being rushed the way it is to meet a deadline to submit a Council motion.

> Please let me know what I can do to help - including short memos on legal issues, editing in the background, etc.

Just keep doing what you?re doing. I am already really grateful. You?ve drafted comments on behalf of the NCSG, reviewed past and current documents, suggested changes and provided vital historic context to current work. What more could I ask for?! :)

Thank you so much Kathy.

Amr

>  
> Best regards,
> Kathy
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/21/2016 8:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> Some more follow-up to this issue;
>> 
>> First of all, Kathy had mentioned during the last monthly NCSG policy call redline changes she made to the draft charter, and she was wondering whether she should share it with the PC. I?ve attached it to this email for folks to consider.
>> 
>> Second, in its last meeting, the Council asked that a sub-team of volunteers be formed to try to resolve the disagreements on this charter and have it ready in time for a motion to be submitted for the public Council meeting scheduled to take place in Marrakech. This team has been formed, and now consists of Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady and myself. The sub-team is scheduled to hold a number of consecutive calls to try to work through this on:
>> 
>> February 22nd
>> February 23rd
>> February 25th
>> February 26th
>> 
>> I will try to keep you all up-to-date with events as they unfold on this group.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi again,
>>> 
>>> I realised after sending this email that I didn?t attach the draft charter, so I?ve attached it to this email.
>>> 
>>> I also noticed that I addressed the last email to Kathy (really grateful for all the work you put into this for us all Kathy), but the majority of the message below was of course directed to the entire PC.
>>> 
>>> Apologies folks. :)
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> <Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016.docx>
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
>>>> 
>>>> 1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be 
>>>> formally adopted.
>>>> 
>>>> Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: 
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html
>>>> .
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr,
>>>>> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
>>>>> Best and huge tx,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (
>>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf
>>>>>>> . Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agre
>>>>>>>>> eing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> 
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 




From aelsadr  Mon Feb 22 21:23:58 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:23:58 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
	work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <56C9C96A.7090100@kathykleiman.com>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
	<D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
	<54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>
	<EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
	<56C9C96A.7090100@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <F9057941-59B3-40D7-9AE1-BEB150690E0D@egyptig.org>

I would be grateful if more of our councillors sign up to help on this. Unfortunately, this is a Council sub-team, so only councillors may sign up for it right now.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> Amr,
> This is outstanding! Given 2 BCer's and 2 IPCers, could there be 2 NCSGers from Council on this new sub-team?
> Tx,
> Kathy
> p.s. what can I do to help?
> 
> On 2/21/2016 5:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> Some more follow-up to this issue;
>> 
>> First of all, Kathy had mentioned during the last monthly NCSG policy call redline changes she made to the draft charter, and she was wondering whether she should share it with the PC. I?ve attached it to this email for folks to consider.
>> 
>> Second, in its last meeting, the Council asked that a sub-team of volunteers be formed to try to resolve the disagreements on this charter and have it ready in time for a motion to be submitted for the public Council meeting scheduled to take place in Marrakech. This team has been formed, and now consists of Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady and myself. The sub-team is scheduled to hold a number of consecutive calls to try to work through this on:
>> 
>> February 22nd
>> February 23rd
>> February 25th
>> February 26th
>> 
>> I will try to keep you all up-to-date with events as they unfold on this group.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi again,
>>> 
>>> I realised after sending this email that I didn?t attach the draft charter, so I?ve attached it to this email.
>>> 
>>> I also noticed that I addressed the last email to Kathy (really grateful for all the work you put into this for us all Kathy), but the majority of the message below was of course directed to the entire PC.
>>> 
>>> Apologies folks. :)
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> <Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016.docx>
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
>>>> 
>>>> 1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be 
>>>> formally adopted.
>>>> 
>>>> Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: 
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html
>>>> .
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr,
>>>>> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
>>>>> Best and huge tx,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (
>>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf
>>>>>>> . Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agre
>>>>>>>>> eing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> 
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From aelsadr  Mon Feb 22 21:27:42 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:27:42 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A balanced approach to RPMs for trademark holders,
	noncommercial registrants and everyone else
In-Reply-To: <6D92DBED-7117-4BD5-9A9B-5811950D5CC7@egyptig.org>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
	<D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
	<54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>
	<EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
	<56CA92A3.8020409@kathykleiman.com>
	<6D92DBED-7117-4BD5-9A9B-5811950D5CC7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <907D7C3D-782D-4D4C-A39A-F779BF4F3A21@egyptig.org>

I keep forgetting to attache the documents I say I will. Sorry. Here it is.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft Charter for RPM PDP - updated 19 Feb 2016.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 162349 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160222/133b187f/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 9:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kathy,
> 
> As always?, a great deal of gratitude for all of your work on this. Please find some responses in-line below:
> 
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
>> I have reviewed the draft charter anything and, if anything, I am more concerned than before about the one-sided goals of the Draft Charter -- all intellectual property, all the time. There is nothing in the "Background," "Mission and Scope," "Objections & Goals," "Deliverables and Times Frames" about fairness, balance, or protection of the rights of Both registrants (noncommercial and commercial) and intellectual property owners.  It's all intellectual property all the time -- and that will make our job to fight for balance almost impossible.
> 
> I don?t believe that I see how this will make our job more or less difficult than it would have already been. Remember?, all of the concerns regarding fairness, due notice, protection of registrant rights have all been included as topics to be discussed by the WG. This was, of course, thanks to the public comment you drafted on the preliminary issues report.
> 
> Still?, I do completely agree that the purpose of the PDP should be balanced, and presented that way in the charter. The purpose should not be to find ways for trademark holders to protect their interests with efficiency and speed as well as the least amount of cost, if this would be at the expense of others. A balanced objective at the start should be desirable. I?ll see what I can do about that.
> 
>> So your role in the next few days will be key - and invaluable. 
>> 
>> To help in this process, I share additional ideas below -- knowing that there are at least 3 people on the BC/IPC side who care deeply about balance and know the laws that protect free speech and fair use - within trademark and other intellectual property laws - intimately. **I think we have to do farther than my initial suggestions, and I share more below.**
>> 
>> 1. The STI (Special Trademarks Initiative that drafted the GNSO final text on the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and Trademark Notice (TM Notice) intentionally, specifically and fully embraced the need to balance the rights of trademark holders and all other rights that a registrant might have (including free speech/freedom of expression, fair use, trademark infringement AND "the legitimate use of domain names" and "fair notice, justice, and due process."  Konstantinos, Robin, Wendy and I fought for those words and this clear balance -- but the rest of the Issues Work Team supported us as did the GNSO Council which adopted this balanced goal, language and mission unanimously. I include it below.
>> 
>> EXCERPT FROM Special Trademark Issues Work Team Recommendations,http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf
>> *** 
>> "UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION PROCEDURE 
>> There is consensus among the members of STI that creation of a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure would be a beneficial rights protection mechanism for inclusion in the New GTLD program.  The STI recognizes that the URS could provide trademark holders with a cost effective, expedited process in instances of clear cut instances of trademark abuse, provided that the procedure includes appropriate safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names. Despite the expedited nature of the URS, Staff shall recommend a uniform procedure for and URS Service providers that shall provide procedures consistent with fair notice, justice, and due process." [emphasis added]
> 
> This is brilliant, and extremely helpful. Thank you so much for drawing attention to this. This overarching description of the purpose of the URS by the STI should provide the context under which it is reviewed. Fair notice, justice and due process are part of that description.
> 
>> 2. It's not "intellectual property rights," it's trademark rights. 
>> Since the beginning of the UDRP process, we limited policies to trademark issues only, not all "intellectual property" (which include copyright and patent rights). Thus, the UDRP, URS, Trademark Clearinghouse and Trademark Claims policies protect only to trademark holders -- despite huge efforts to expand the rights to all "intellectual property" owners in every past RPM PDP.  Thus, it is disingenuous today for staff to draft this charter with "intellectual property owners" named everywhere and not stick with the limitation of the UDRP, URS, +  -- which is only trademark owners. To allow this would result in giving copyright right holders A  Whole New Entrance Into this upcoming RPM Policy Development Processes -- and one to which they are not entitled. 
>> We need your help to continue the fight of the last 16 years, and limit this RPM strictly and only to trademark rights. (If you would like me to share more detailed reasons, I am happy to, but chief among that is that only trademarks can be invoked by domain names disputes. Copyrights have to do with content issues - of webpages, etc. - beyond the scope of ICANN's narrow mission and mandate.) They've tried this huge rights expansion attempt before --PLEASE DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM NOW. All "Intellectual Property" must be changed to "Trademark." Tx you!!!]
> 
> I certainly agree that the scope of this PDP should be limited to trademark, not intellectual property rights, but I?m not sure why you believe the draft charter suggests otherwise. The whole charter seems rather specific to trademarks, not IPRs, to me. I?ve attached the latest draft of the charter to this email once more, and I?ve gone over it many times over the past few weeks. If I?ve missed any indication of IPRs being the subject of the PDP, rather than trademarks, I apologise. Kathy, could you point me to the exact sections you have concerns with in this regard?
> 
>> 3. Current "Background" language is: 
>> "The question of who legally has rights to, or is the legitimate holder of, a domain name can be open to dispute. In relation to domain name disputes concerning the registration and use of legally protected trademarks, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is the longest standing alternative dispute resolution procedure. As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)." In all of these dispute mechanisms, the rights of the domain name registrant and gTLD registry are also taken into account, including their ability to participate fairly and the mitigation of risks of harrassing and unwarranted claims. [Italics = KK proposal to add some balancing language - I think we need more.]
>> ==> If I were to rewrite this, I would say: **Since the beginning of open domain name registration, the Internet Community has operated on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Everyone had access to available domain names, and if problems arose then challenges could be brought. The initial legitimate holder of a domain **is the registrant** unless proven otherwise. Any process to remove a domain name from a gTLD registrant must have fair notice, justice and due process written into its rules, as set out in the UDRP the longest standing alternative dispute resolution procedure. It must also balance trademark rights with the rights of free speech/freedom of expression and legal protections for "fair use" including criticism, competition, noncommercial use and commercial use in completely different categories of goods and services... **
> 
> I could also try to make changes to this effect, but it seems to me that this is bordering close to a policy outcome. Wouldn?t this be better introduced during the course of the work of the PDP WG?
> 
> I?m also trying to think strategically here. We only have about a week to wrap this up, and I hope to focus on the changes that matter most to us in that time. Make sure they get changed?, including a shot at getting the WG to consider starting phase 1 with the UDRP instead of the RPMs developed for the new gTLD program.
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
>> 3. Current "Mission and Scope" language is: 
>> 
>> This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One may focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two may focus on a review of the UDRP. The Community in its public comments was split on whether this order makes sense given that the UDRP is the ordest consensus policy of ICANN and may be the best place to begin an overall RPM review. This is an issue for initial evaluation and decision by the WG as no consensus as yet been reached in the Community. ,In all events, by the completion of its work, the Working Group will be expected to have also considered the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals.
> 
> This is actually nowhere near being the current language, Kathy. This is actually the opposite of the current language. This is what I am hoping the outcome of a change to the charter, and case being made to the PDP WG will accomplish. I think you skipped to the end of this process. ;-)
> 
>> ==> I would rewrite this opening paragraph of the section as: This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs for their fairness and balance, effectiveness in protecting the rights of domain name registrants and trademark owners, whether continuation is required, and whether the fairness, protections, justice, notice and due process hoped for by the drafters is being achieved in the implementation.  Are the UDRP, URS and other new gTLD RPMs fair and being fairly implemented?  [Then the details of UDRP and URS, including the edits I proposed, could be included. As written, it is currently only a laundry list of policies and not a true Mission and Scope statement for goals, so the Draft Charter needs the definite and goal set out above to be fair and balanced in the objectives of the PDP.]
> 
> Yes?, I believe something closer to the outcome of the work of the STI is more appropriate than what is currently in the charter.
> 
>> 
>> 4. Current "Objectives and Goals" language:
>> In addition to an assessment of the effectiveness of each RPM, the PDP Working Group is expected to consider, at the appropriate stage of its work, the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. If such additional policy recommendations are needed, the Working Group is expected to develop recommendations to address the specific issues identified. 
>> The Working Group is also directed to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying intention of conducting a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs is to create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these mechanisms in the future.
>> ==> I would rewrite this opening sentence of the section as: Our goal here is the assessment of the fair implementation and balance of the policies developed -- are all parties from registrants to intellectual property owners treated in a fair, just and equitable manner? The PDP Working Group is expected to consider whether the rights of trademark owners and registrants are being balanced properly and fully protected? 
> 
> Thanks. Will see what I can do with this.
> 
>> 5. Current "Deliverables and Timeframes" language is: 
>> 
>> "In addition to the PDP deliverables prescribed in the ICANN Bylaws and the PDP Manual, the Working Group shall provide a first Initial Report to the GNSO Council at the conclusion of Phase One of the PDP. The Report shall be put out for public comment and also inform the GNSO Council about the progress of the Working Group. At a minimum, the Report shall outline the Working Group?s progress and any preliminary recommendations it may have developed with regard to whatever it chooses to evaluate first: the UDRP or the new gTLD RPMs. The first Initial Report shall also highlight any relevant findings, information or issues that may have emerged during Phase One and any issues or recommendations that the Group believes should be considered by the PDP Working Group on Subsequent Procedures, and/or that the Working Group considers relevant to its work in Phase Two.
>> Phase Two of the PDP Working Group shall focus primarily on the second half: the New gTLD RPMs or UDRP (whatever is left). However, during this Phase the WG is also expected to review its first Initial Report, taking into account public comments received, and/or feedback submitted from the New gTLD Subsequent Rounds PDP or other ongoing efforts."
>> ==> I would rewrite this opening sentence of this section to be: In addition to the PDP deliverables prescribed in the ICANN Bylaws and the PDP Manual, the Working Group shall provide a first Initial Report to the GNSO Council regarding the balance and protection of rights of both trademark owners and registrants and additional steps necessary to protect the rights of each?.
> 
> OK?, I think I see what?s going on. When you say ?current language?, you are referring to the changes you made, not the current version of the charter under discussion on the Council. I was confused for a minute.
> 
> If we get what I hope we will, the language requiring phase 1 to be a review of the RPMs will no longer be there, and the appropriate changes will need to be reflected in other parts of the charter, including ?Deliverables and Timeframes?. And yes to making sure the language is consistently balanced, and not in favour of trademark interests.
> 
>> 6. Conclusion:
>> I hope I provided some useful guidance. I am certainly losing sleep - and thank you for all of your efforts on this.
> 
> Thank you for everything, Kathy, and yes?, the guidance is not just useful, but essential. I wish we had more time to deal with this, instead of it being rushed the way it is to meet a deadline to submit a Council motion.
> 
>> Please let me know what I can do to help - including short memos on legal issues, editing in the background, etc.
> 
> Just keep doing what you?re doing. I am already really grateful. You?ve drafted comments on behalf of the NCSG, reviewed past and current documents, suggested changes and provided vital historic context to current work. What more could I ask for?! :)
> 
> Thank you so much Kathy.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Kathy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/21/2016 8:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi again,
>>> 
>>> Some more follow-up to this issue;
>>> 
>>> First of all, Kathy had mentioned during the last monthly NCSG policy call redline changes she made to the draft charter, and she was wondering whether she should share it with the PC. I?ve attached it to this email for folks to consider.
>>> 
>>> Second, in its last meeting, the Council asked that a sub-team of volunteers be formed to try to resolve the disagreements on this charter and have it ready in time for a motion to be submitted for the public Council meeting scheduled to take place in Marrakech. This team has been formed, and now consists of Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady and myself. The sub-team is scheduled to hold a number of consecutive calls to try to work through this on:
>>> 
>>> February 22nd
>>> February 23rd
>>> February 25th
>>> February 26th
>>> 
>>> I will try to keep you all up-to-date with events as they unfold on this group.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi again,
>>>> 
>>>> I realised after sending this email that I didn?t attach the draft charter, so I?ve attached it to this email.
>>>> 
>>>> I also noticed that I addressed the last email to Kathy (really grateful for all the work you put into this for us all Kathy), but the majority of the message below was of course directed to the entire PC.
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies folks. :)
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> <Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016.docx>
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be 
>>>>> formally adopted.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: 
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html
>>>>> .
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr,
>>>>>> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
>>>>>> Best and huge tx,
>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (
>>>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf
>>>>>>>> . Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agre
>>>>>>>>>> eing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> 
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From aelsadr  Mon Feb 22 22:01:52 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:01:52 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appoint Participants
In-Reply-To: <810CC2F4-89D0-4130-BF9C-C0626E3D5676@toast.net>
References: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
	<064A86AB-5BC2-4452-9FFA-6E24F0B7B2C6@egyptig.org>
	<810CC2F4-89D0-4130-BF9C-C0626E3D5676@toast.net>
Message-ID: <C8F0E4A6-B557-4504-AA95-3986355E0F28@egyptig.org>

Hi Ed,

I?m actually fine with you suggesting the names directly to James as well. I suggested the NCPH list as a possible way to go, but cannot take the lead on that either right now. It?d be great to move fwd on this any way we can right now. If anyone?s willing to take the lead, please speak up.

One thought I do have is if we will be missing Ed on the call on the 29th, one of the names he listed could be placed as temporary alternate to him for that call. That way, we?d guarantee getting one of our members in on the discussion, as well as lower the number of guests we would like to invite.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> I'm fine with that approach, Amr, but don't have the time to take the lead on it. You'll recall the CSG didn't exactly cooperate with us on the CCT appointments.
> 
> Over the last few days there is widening disparity within the NCPH on certain key issues. It would be good to get as many of our people there as possible.
> 
> I've reached out and the four individuals I've suggested are all willing to do the call. Having heard no objection and realising this nomination is a duty for Councillors, an invitation to a Council call, I was going to suggest the names to James. I'll hold off.
> 
> If you'd like to take over and deal with this on a NCPH basis you have my full support. I'd ask that this be done ASAP because people have schedules they need to make. I will note that I am unable to be on this call, making the maximisation of our representation even more important.
> 
> I stepped forward because no one was dealing with the issue and we had once selected me as the go to guy on Council CCWG stuff. Please take over (you are PC Chair for life, no....or until we get human rights into the bylaws, that damn torture thing  :) ) from me if you'd like to make this a NCPH thing, which is appropriate. I just don't have the time to engage in diplomatic niceties at the moment, give the recent implosion on the CCWG.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 21 Feb 2016, at 13:18, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ed,
>> 
>> My instincts on this is to try to have a dialogue with the CSG on the NCPH list about this, and perhaps try to frame the discussion as an attempt to come up with an effective NCPH team that can address the Council on the 29th. My impression is that we?re more-or-less aligned with the CSG on what we want to see coming out of the CCWG recommendations at this point.
>> 
>> My opinions above may very well be largely based on me not seeing the full picture. I?m sure you and the rest of the NCSG team on the CCWG know the ins and outs of this more intimately than I (and perhaps Tapani) do. I would feel happy with you all starting this discussion with the CSG folks, but please do keep it on the NCPH list.
>> 
>> I will note that you, Robin, Matt and Farzi should all be subscribed to that list, so should all be able to take part in a conversation there. I?m guessing Phil, Greg and SDB are also subscribed to it. Any objection to taking a stab there?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> The Council decided on its call today to hold a special meeting on February 29th to talk about the CCWG report. Thanks to the great effort of my fellow Councillors no vote will be taken during this meeting, giving us maximum leverage during the March 4th CCWG meeting.
>>> 
>>> As noted below,  5-7 CCWG participants from the NCPH will be asked top join the call. I'm not sure how the NCPH will select the participants, I'm hoping Tapani or Amr can work that out, but I would ask that fuel consideration be given to the following CCWG participants should they wish to join the call:
>>> 
>>> Avri Doria
>>> Farzi Badii
>>> Matt Shears
>>> Brett Schaefer
>>> 
>>> Avri has been the ATRT rep to the CCWG and her 92.9% attendance record far surpasses any of our (non appointed Member) participants. Farzi is our expert on recommendation 10, perhaps the recommendation we are now most opposed to, and her attendance record of 68.9% is second of our participants who have been eligible to attend at least 2/3 of the meetings. Brett and Matt both have excellent attendance records, both have testified on the transition before Congress, and are our resident experts on the proposed structure of the new ICANN. I'll note that Robin Gross will be invited to the call as our CCWG Member, as will our six Councillors.
>>> 
>>> I may have missed other participants of note; if so, hopefully someone will bring them to our attention.
>>> 
>>> I'll leave this to Tapani or Amr ( our PC Chair for life? :) ) to sort. I just wanted to start the process to get our folks on the call.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:51 PM
>>> To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> Subject: [council] Special Session - 29 FEB
>>> 
>>> Councilors -
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your effort, dedication and patience as we work through all of the issues currently on our agenda, while in parallel delivering on our responsibilities as a Chartering Organization for the CCWG-Accountablity.
>>> 
>>> As discussed on today?s call, we will go forward with the proposed Special Session on 29 FEB to consider and discuss the Supplemental Report from the CCWG-ACCT (expected publication: tomorrow).  On this call, we will not vote on any of the Recommendations, or the report itself.  There is no associated motion on the table.
>>> 
>>> Instead, we will use this opportunity to exchange views on the Report, update the Council on the ongoing work within the various SGs/Cs in preparation for Marrakesh, and highlight any problem areas or ?red flags? that have been identified in our discussions.
>>> 
>>> Additionally, we will invite the Appointed Members and several key Participants from the CCWG-ACCT to join our discussions.  These will include:  Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and Thomas Rickert.  I would ask that each House send along a list of 5-7 other key participants who should be invited to attend as well, with the goal of incorporating the diverse spectrum of GNSO positions, but not overloading our call.
>>> 
>>> Finally, we agreed to re-purpose some of our time on Saturday in Marrakesh as a Public Session of the Council.  I?ll work with the Vice Chairs and Staff to adjust our published agenda to reflect this.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again?
>>> 
>>> J.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 




From egmorris1  Mon Feb 22 22:11:27 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:11:27 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of
	work coming onto the GNSO table.
In-Reply-To: <F9057941-59B3-40D7-9AE1-BEB150690E0D@egyptig.org>
References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com>
	<569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com>
	<CB69029F-FD4C-48C0-BDEF-3753E01035C6@egyptig.org>
	<569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com>
	<048DEE47-30CB-4785-8157-E25EC140FF5D@egyptig.org>
	<98E01A1B-A190-4FCF-9060-29105FEE7077@egyptig.org>
	<56B61566.8070709@kathykleiman.com>
	<D6F6156F-98FF-41F8-9575-BA780D27A448@egyptig.org>
	<54E23CA9-28D5-4441-9212-5EA78E4A49BA@egyptig.org>
	<EBBCD732-7E29-4D15-83B7-DB359A836E3E@egyptig.org>
	<56C9C96A.7090100@kathykleiman.com>
	<F9057941-59B3-40D7-9AE1-BEB150690E0D@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <041A6544-0B6B-462B-9484-DD0769D15D66@toast.net>

Amr,

I would very much like to help on this but the implosion of the CCWG over the weekend means my focus needs to be there. I wish there were two of me. Hopefully somebody else can step up. Sorry - and thanks for going this.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Feb 2016, at 19:20, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> I would be grateful if more of our councillors sign up to help on this. Unfortunately, this is a Council sub-team, so only councillors may sign up for it right now.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>> 
>> Amr,
>> This is outstanding! Given 2 BCer's and 2 IPCers, could there be 2 NCSGers from Council on this new sub-team?
>> Tx,
>> Kathy
>> p.s. what can I do to help?
>> 
>>> On 2/21/2016 5:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi again,
>>> 
>>> Some more follow-up to this issue;
>>> 
>>> First of all, Kathy had mentioned during the last monthly NCSG policy call redline changes she made to the draft charter, and she was wondering whether she should share it with the PC. I?ve attached it to this email for folks to consider.
>>> 
>>> Second, in its last meeting, the Council asked that a sub-team of volunteers be formed to try to resolve the disagreements on this charter and have it ready in time for a motion to be submitted for the public Council meeting scheduled to take place in Marrakech. This team has been formed, and now consists of Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady and myself. The sub-team is scheduled to hold a number of consecutive calls to try to work through this on:
>>> 
>>> February 22nd
>>> February 23rd
>>> February 25th
>>> February 26th
>>> 
>>> I will try to keep you all up-to-date with events as they unfold on this group.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi again,
>>>> 
>>>> I realised after sending this email that I didn?t attach the draft charter, so I?ve attached it to this email.
>>>> 
>>>> I also noticed that I addressed the last email to Kathy (really grateful for all the work you put into this for us all Kathy), but the majority of the message below was of course directed to the entire PC.
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies folks. :)
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> <Updated draft Charter for RPM PDP - 6 Feb 2016.docx>
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I completely agree that we cannot make compromises on this, nor do I think it right that we be asked to do so.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyway?, I?ve pretty much hit a stone wall on this. I?ve been working very closely with both Mary and Lars on getting this done, and there have been some significant improvements to the charter, however, there have also been some setbacks. I will try to go through some of the changes that have been made, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. First, the good. So the list of concerns raised by the NCSG (along with everybody else?s) have been moved to the charter itself, as opposed to only being included in an annex to the issue report. I?ve attached the latest version of the charter to this email, so please take a look. This includes the issue of reverse domain name hijacking as well as other topics that the NCSG raised in our comment on the preliminary issues report.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Now the bad. Unfortunately the language under ?mission and scope? as well as ?timeframes and deliverables? which details the 2-phase approach has been returned to its original state of phase 1 reviewing the new gTLDs RPMs followed by phase 2 to review the UDRP. The reason staff decided it was best to do this, is that they were uncomfortable making a significant change like this without including the entire Council in the discussion that would result in this change. I can?t say that this logic is flawed. It wouldn?t be particularly acceptable for one councillor to work unilaterally with staff to make changes to a charter already presented to the Council without the knowledge of the rest of the councillors. My advice now is that we take up the change to the charter originally suggested by staff; that the PDP WG members be allowed to determine their own work plan, including how the 2-phase approach should be conducted with the GNSO Council, and ask that these changes be 
>>>>> formally adopted.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Still?, as I couldn?t agree to propose a motion to adopt an issue report/charter that clearly conflicted with the NCSG?s view, I have informed staff that they will need to get another councillor to do this. So James Bladel proposed a motion to adopt the issue report for this PDP, but only the issue report (not the charter). He recommended that the charter be put on the Council?s agenda as a discussion item during our next call. I had previously also discussed this with staff, and agreed that it would be a good idea to de-link the two documents. This, I believe, is pretty good for us. We should make our case on the charter to the Council, and ask for the flexibility required for the WG to be able to determine the methodology by which this PDP is addressed. Check out the email sent by James B. here: 
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18076.html
>>>>> .
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyway?, that?s pretty much where things are at the moment. Like I said, I?d be happy to answer any questions, and also look forward to ideas on how folks believe we should tackle this issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amr,
>>>>>> First, I truly, truly appreciate all you are doing on this. Second, I would really need to sit down with you and go through the Staff Report and our extensive comments -- and I can do that after Tuesday. But third, I am concerned about putting most of the NCSG concerns/issues/ideas in the Annex B/Potential Issues to be Reviewing -- "kitchen sink" category.  Every WG has the core issues that it is forced to address and then other issues it may address. In my experience, WG virtually never get to the issues they "may" address -- only the core issues they MUST address because that is already overwhelming.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This WG MUST be asked to assess what happens when trademark owners abuse the system (reverse domain name hijacking); they MUST assess whether the "procedural rules" voluntarily adopted by the arbitration WITHOUT GNSO OVERSIGHT are and have been fair and neutral or help largely those who chose and pay them (the trademark owner/complainants). There are more in our list/our comments that involve fairness and balance - freedom of expression & fair use versus Rights Protection Mechanisms.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In fact, that should even be reflected in the title. If we are only dealing with Rights Protection Mechanisms, then by the title, we only listen to one side. Why can't even the title of this WG be balanced?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Question: so the staff is Not Mandating that we do URS/TMCH first -- but that the WG can decide for itself whether it does UDRP or URS/TMCH first?  That would be OK. The reason I ask is that IPC wants few changes to UDRP and all of them to URS -- which is a hugely unfair, no-due-process system in and of itself (which is why we, NCSG, made it so, so narrow).  UDRP is the system with a) fairer notice b) fairer time for Panelist evaluation. Go to URS first and all the IPC wants is "transfer" -- moving a losing domain name to themselves: virtually no fairness and no due process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The best way (and virtually the only way) to defend registrants is to assess the UDRP first, make it fairer for all, and then look at the URS (which will seem trivial in comparison). Do it the other way, assess the upper floors of the building before evaluating the foundation, and you have to put a lot more changes into the upper floors.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will be offline this weekend through Tuesday, but happy to talk, work, support, research as of Wednesday -- if that is OK.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't think we can compromise with procedure, Amr, because in it lies all we care about....
>>>>>> Best and huge tx,
>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2016 2:30 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I never received this message in my inbox, so resending.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Following my withdrawal of the motion to launch the RPMs review PDP, I?ve been working with staff to address NCSG's concerns. Specifically, the discussion has been on issues identified in the NCSG comment on the preliminary issues report that were not included in the final report, in addition to the 2-phase method approach to working through this PDP; with a review of the RPMs developed for the new gTLDs being conducted before the the review of the UDRP. This is what we came up with:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> First, the issues identified by the NCSG will be included in the Annex B of the final issues report (
>>>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). These issues have already been documented in the staff report of the public comments. NCSG?s comments begin on row 68 of the table found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf
>>>>>>>> . Including these in Annex B places them in the ?List of Potential Issues for Review? to be discussed by the PDP WG.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Second, on the methodological approach, I?ve agreed with staff that the charter will be amended to inform the PDP WG that there were divergent views on the method to follow. The same two-phase method will still be the method outlined in the charter, however, the charter will instruct the WG to develop a work-plan, and in doing so, consider reviewing or amending the method while discussing the views of different stakeholders.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would appreciate feedback on this now, so that I have a clear picture of the views on this before proceeding with this item of Council business. Personally, I believe this is a fair compromise. I hope I?m not missing anything.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I support deferral - and substantial re-write. As you know there are *many* things missing from this report that we advocated -- or thrown into a remote corner of the "miscellaneous" section and unlikely to be visited or reviewed by any WG.  Reverse domain name hijacking -- something I wrote into the original UDRP - is now a not-infrequent finding of UDRP (hooray!)  It's trademark owner's bad faith and improper action and yet there is no penalty -- and it is time to impose one.  A Registrant engages in bad faith - loss of domain name; a large brand owner - nothing. Hmm...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But Amr, just because something should be heard does not mean it has to be heard now. It is a zero sum game and the Whois2 is already rolling. We cannot create more people or time.  We can only create a flow of work that does not a) kill or b) drive away any and everyone with the skills to work on it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 7:52 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for this. I very much agree with you; that the final issue report is poorly balanced in favour of trademark concerns including the two-phased approach. Apart from that there are some issues that the NCSG asked to be included in the final report that (as far as I can tell) are not in it or the draft charter. Examples include reverse domain name hijacking not being included in the draft charter, expanding roles of RPM providers beyond the scope of their work?, and others.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I will, however, try to answer your question on why I submitted this motion. From a procedural perspective, it doesn?t really matter who submits the motion. Issue reports (preliminary and final) are prepped by staff, and need to be reviewed by council. The GNSO operating procedures describes the rules and timelines concerning how these are submitted and managed, and it?s all pretty straight forward. Staff prepared the final issues report for this PDP only a couple of hours before the deadline to submit motions for the January 21st council meeting. They needed a councillor to submit the motion so that the report may be formally considered, and they asked me. Procedurally, it didn?t strike me as a problem to agree. I did, however, make it clear on the council email list that the report was delivered very close to the deadline, and that I had not had a chance to review it prior to submitting the motion, so submitting the motion did not indicate any support for it, but rather agre
>>>>>>>>>> eing to a staff request. I also immediately forwarded the email and report to both you and Tapani to make sure you knew this was happening. I?m glad I did that. :)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to discussing this motion on today?s NCSG call, along with other important motions. My suggestion would be for one of our councillors to request a deferral of this motion (as opposed to holding a vote on it), and pointing out what we feel is problematic with it, particularly the draft charter. My hope is that we can give staff clear instructions on what needs to be amended in the report/charter before it comes up for another vote.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I am divided on whether or not it is reasonable to indefinitely delay this PDP. I appreciate the limited amount of time our members have to volunteer on this and other PDPs and CCWGs. It certainly seems impractical to me to delay this until after the new gTLDs subsequent rounds and WHOIS2 PDPs are done. Apart from the UDRP, the other RPMs are not consensus policy developed by the community, but rather forced on us by staff. This (IMHO) always needed to change. Seems to me like this is especially necessary now that a subsequent round of new gTLDs is being discussed.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Those are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly appreciate hearing more on this.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again, Kathy.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Amr and All Councilors,
>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS (which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without the full context of the UDRP.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not down.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire tree?   Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> 
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


From egmorris1  Mon Feb 22 22:27:36 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:27:36 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appoint Participants
In-Reply-To: <C8F0E4A6-B557-4504-AA95-3986355E0F28@egyptig.org>
References: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
	<064A86AB-5BC2-4452-9FFA-6E24F0B7B2C6@egyptig.org>
	<810CC2F4-89D0-4130-BF9C-C0626E3D5676@toast.net>
	<C8F0E4A6-B557-4504-AA95-3986355E0F28@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <27F49855-89FC-41D0-8630-17FDEB7AEA8D@toast.net>

Hi Amr, 

If don't hear from anyone objecting to the suggested names (Avri, Farzi, Matt, Brett) or willing to take the lead on starting talks on the NCPH list I will dash the names off to James 24 hours from now. If I'm awake: calls at 4 am and 6 am highlight my night tonight. I need a new time zone: I'm starting to feel like an honorary Australian ( I feel your normal pain David!).

Thanks Amr,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Feb 2016, at 20:15, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> I?m actually fine with you suggesting the names directly to James as well. I suggested the NCPH list as a possible way to go, but cannot take the lead on that either right now. It?d be great to move fwd on this any way we can right now. If anyone?s willing to take the lead, please speak up.
> 
> One thought I do have is if we will be missing Ed on the call on the 29th, one of the names he listed could be placed as temporary alternate to him for that call. That way, we?d guarantee getting one of our members in on the discussion, as well as lower the number of guests we would like to invite.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm fine with that approach, Amr, but don't have the time to take the lead on it. You'll recall the CSG didn't exactly cooperate with us on the CCT appointments.
>> 
>> Over the last few days there is widening disparity within the NCPH on certain key issues. It would be good to get as many of our people there as possible.
>> 
>> I've reached out and the four individuals I've suggested are all willing to do the call. Having heard no objection and realising this nomination is a duty for Councillors, an invitation to a Council call, I was going to suggest the names to James. I'll hold off.
>> 
>> If you'd like to take over and deal with this on a NCPH basis you have my full support. I'd ask that this be done ASAP because people have schedules they need to make. I will note that I am unable to be on this call, making the maximisation of our representation even more important.
>> 
>> I stepped forward because no one was dealing with the issue and we had once selected me as the go to guy on Council CCWG stuff. Please take over (you are PC Chair for life, no....or until we get human rights into the bylaws, that damn torture thing  :) ) from me if you'd like to make this a NCPH thing, which is appropriate. I just don't have the time to engage in diplomatic niceties at the moment, give the recent implosion on the CCWG.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 21 Feb 2016, at 13:18, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ed,
>>> 
>>> My instincts on this is to try to have a dialogue with the CSG on the NCPH list about this, and perhaps try to frame the discussion as an attempt to come up with an effective NCPH team that can address the Council on the 29th. My impression is that we?re more-or-less aligned with the CSG on what we want to see coming out of the CCWG recommendations at this point.
>>> 
>>> My opinions above may very well be largely based on me not seeing the full picture. I?m sure you and the rest of the NCSG team on the CCWG know the ins and outs of this more intimately than I (and perhaps Tapani) do. I would feel happy with you all starting this discussion with the CSG folks, but please do keep it on the NCPH list.
>>> 
>>> I will note that you, Robin, Matt and Farzi should all be subscribed to that list, so should all be able to take part in a conversation there. I?m guessing Phil, Greg and SDB are also subscribed to it. Any objection to taking a stab there?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> The Council decided on its call today to hold a special meeting on February 29th to talk about the CCWG report. Thanks to the great effort of my fellow Councillors no vote will be taken during this meeting, giving us maximum leverage during the March 4th CCWG meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> As noted below,  5-7 CCWG participants from the NCPH will be asked top join the call. I'm not sure how the NCPH will select the participants, I'm hoping Tapani or Amr can work that out, but I would ask that fuel consideration be given to the following CCWG participants should they wish to join the call:
>>>> 
>>>> Avri Doria
>>>> Farzi Badii
>>>> Matt Shears
>>>> Brett Schaefer
>>>> 
>>>> Avri has been the ATRT rep to the CCWG and her 92.9% attendance record far surpasses any of our (non appointed Member) participants. Farzi is our expert on recommendation 10, perhaps the recommendation we are now most opposed to, and her attendance record of 68.9% is second of our participants who have been eligible to attend at least 2/3 of the meetings. Brett and Matt both have excellent attendance records, both have testified on the transition before Congress, and are our resident experts on the proposed structure of the new ICANN. I'll note that Robin Gross will be invited to the call as our CCWG Member, as will our six Councillors.
>>>> 
>>>> I may have missed other participants of note; if so, hopefully someone will bring them to our attention.
>>>> 
>>>> I'll leave this to Tapani or Amr ( our PC Chair for life? :) ) to sort. I just wanted to start the process to get our folks on the call.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:51 PM
>>>> To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> Subject: [council] Special Session - 29 FEB
>>>> 
>>>> Councilors -
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your effort, dedication and patience as we work through all of the issues currently on our agenda, while in parallel delivering on our responsibilities as a Chartering Organization for the CCWG-Accountablity.
>>>> 
>>>> As discussed on today?s call, we will go forward with the proposed Special Session on 29 FEB to consider and discuss the Supplemental Report from the CCWG-ACCT (expected publication: tomorrow).  On this call, we will not vote on any of the Recommendations, or the report itself.  There is no associated motion on the table.
>>>> 
>>>> Instead, we will use this opportunity to exchange views on the Report, update the Council on the ongoing work within the various SGs/Cs in preparation for Marrakesh, and highlight any problem areas or ?red flags? that have been identified in our discussions.
>>>> 
>>>> Additionally, we will invite the Appointed Members and several key Participants from the CCWG-ACCT to join our discussions.  These will include:  Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and Thomas Rickert.  I would ask that each House send along a list of 5-7 other key participants who should be invited to attend as well, with the goal of incorporating the diverse spectrum of GNSO positions, but not overloading our call.
>>>> 
>>>> Finally, we agreed to re-purpose some of our time on Saturday in Marrakesh as a Public Session of the Council.  I?ll work with the Vice Chairs and Staff to adjust our published agenda to reflect this.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks again?
>>>> 
>>>> J.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Feb 23 03:02:51 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:02:51 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN Staff Pilot Program to assist ICANN document
 development and drafting
In-Reply-To: <56CB5CCA.2040709@yorku.ca>
References: <56CB5453.3000505@yorku.ca>
	<CAH5sThnkJGThNG608k3qDQv2djUNMiHSXBbsbD=tLnmzcC8hLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56CB5CCA.2040709@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <56CBAFBB.5080600@mail.utoronto.ca>

Can we verify this, because I must say I share the concerns expressed by 
Sam and Klaus.
cheers Steph

On 2016-02-22 14:08, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Rafik,
>
> Thanks. This is why we need more information here,
> to make an informed decision in something designed to assist us.
>
> Sam
>
> /On 22/02/2016 1:43 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote://
> /
>>
>> /Hi Sam,/
>>
>> /I think WBC global was recruited to help design the program but not 
>> necessarily to provide the policy support itself. /
>>
>> /Best,/
>>
>> /Rafik /
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160222/eb62db02/attachment.html>


From dave  Tue Feb 23 06:34:54 2016
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:34:54 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Appoint Participants
In-Reply-To: <27F49855-89FC-41D0-8630-17FDEB7AEA8D@toast.net>
References: <adfd469251b34ce6afae5ef14dead044@toast.net>
	<064A86AB-5BC2-4452-9FFA-6E24F0B7B2C6@egyptig.org>
	<810CC2F4-89D0-4130-BF9C-C0626E3D5676@toast.net>
	<C8F0E4A6-B557-4504-AA95-3986355E0F28@egyptig.org>
	<27F49855-89FC-41D0-8630-17FDEB7AEA8D@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CBCD6EC5-DA00-4C28-AABB-3E10E556B7F8@davecake.net>

I?m happy with this plan, a good mix of speakers. 

As I?ve pointed out recently, I actually live in the worlds most populous time zone (by a wide margin), 24% of the worlds population in the same time zone as me, so it seems particularly problematic that ICANN is usually so bad for it. That said, I usually have it better than the other Australians (midnight for me is 2-3am for them). 

David


> On 23 Feb 2016, at 4:27 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at TOAST.NET> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr, 
> 
> If don't hear from anyone objecting to the suggested names (Avri, Farzi, Matt, Brett) or willing to take the lead on starting talks on the NCPH list I will dash the names off to James 24 hours from now. If I'm awake: calls at 4 am and 6 am highlight my night tonight. I need a new time zone: I'm starting to feel like an honorary Australian ( I feel your normal pain David!).
> 
> Thanks Amr,
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 22 Feb 2016, at 20:15, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ed,
>> 
>> I?m actually fine with you suggesting the names directly to James as well. I suggested the NCPH list as a possible way to go, but cannot take the lead on that either right now. It?d be great to move fwd on this any way we can right now. If anyone?s willing to take the lead, please speak up.
>> 
>> One thought I do have is if we will be missing Ed on the call on the 29th, one of the names he listed could be placed as temporary alternate to him for that call. That way, we?d guarantee getting one of our members in on the discussion, as well as lower the number of guests we would like to invite.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm fine with that approach, Amr, but don't have the time to take the lead on it. You'll recall the CSG didn't exactly cooperate with us on the CCT appointments.
>>> 
>>> Over the last few days there is widening disparity within the NCPH on certain key issues. It would be good to get as many of our people there as possible.
>>> 
>>> I've reached out and the four individuals I've suggested are all willing to do the call. Having heard no objection and realising this nomination is a duty for Councillors, an invitation to a Council call, I was going to suggest the names to James. I'll hold off.
>>> 
>>> If you'd like to take over and deal with this on a NCPH basis you have my full support. I'd ask that this be done ASAP because people have schedules they need to make. I will note that I am unable to be on this call, making the maximisation of our representation even more important.
>>> 
>>> I stepped forward because no one was dealing with the issue and we had once selected me as the go to guy on Council CCWG stuff. Please take over (you are PC Chair for life, no....or until we get human rights into the bylaws, that damn torture thing  :) ) from me if you'd like to make this a NCPH thing, which is appropriate. I just don't have the time to engage in diplomatic niceties at the moment, give the recent implosion on the CCWG.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On 21 Feb 2016, at 13:18, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>> 
>>>> My instincts on this is to try to have a dialogue with the CSG on the NCPH list about this, and perhaps try to frame the discussion as an attempt to come up with an effective NCPH team that can address the Council on the 29th. My impression is that we?re more-or-less aligned with the CSG on what we want to see coming out of the CCWG recommendations at this point.
>>>> 
>>>> My opinions above may very well be largely based on me not seeing the full picture. I?m sure you and the rest of the NCSG team on the CCWG know the ins and outs of this more intimately than I (and perhaps Tapani) do. I would feel happy with you all starting this discussion with the CSG folks, but please do keep it on the NCPH list.
>>>> 
>>>> I will note that you, Robin, Matt and Farzi should all be subscribed to that list, so should all be able to take part in a conversation there. I?m guessing Phil, Greg and SDB are also subscribed to it. Any objection to taking a stab there?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Council decided on its call today to hold a special meeting on February 29th to talk about the CCWG report. Thanks to the great effort of my fellow Councillors no vote will be taken during this meeting, giving us maximum leverage during the March 4th CCWG meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As noted below,  5-7 CCWG participants from the NCPH will be asked top join the call. I'm not sure how the NCPH will select the participants, I'm hoping Tapani or Amr can work that out, but I would ask that fuel consideration be given to the following CCWG participants should they wish to join the call:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Avri Doria
>>>>> Farzi Badii
>>>>> Matt Shears
>>>>> Brett Schaefer
>>>>> 
>>>>> Avri has been the ATRT rep to the CCWG and her 92.9% attendance record far surpasses any of our (non appointed Member) participants. Farzi is our expert on recommendation 10, perhaps the recommendation we are now most opposed to, and her attendance record of 68.9% is second of our participants who have been eligible to attend at least 2/3 of the meetings. Brett and Matt both have excellent attendance records, both have testified on the transition before Congress, and are our resident experts on the proposed structure of the new ICANN. I'll note that Robin Gross will be invited to the call as our CCWG Member, as will our six Councillors.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I may have missed other participants of note; if so, hopefully someone will bring them to our attention.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'll leave this to Tapani or Amr ( our PC Chair for life? :) ) to sort. I just wanted to start the process to get our folks on the call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ed
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:51 PM
>>>>> To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>> Subject: [council] Special Session - 29 FEB
>>>>> 
>>>>> Councilors -
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for your effort, dedication and patience as we work through all of the issues currently on our agenda, while in parallel delivering on our responsibilities as a Chartering Organization for the CCWG-Accountablity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As discussed on today?s call, we will go forward with the proposed Special Session on 29 FEB to consider and discuss the Supplemental Report from the CCWG-ACCT (expected publication: tomorrow).  On this call, we will not vote on any of the Recommendations, or the report itself.  There is no associated motion on the table.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Instead, we will use this opportunity to exchange views on the Report, update the Council on the ongoing work within the various SGs/Cs in preparation for Marrakesh, and highlight any problem areas or ?red flags? that have been identified in our discussions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Additionally, we will invite the Appointed Members and several key Participants from the CCWG-ACCT to join our discussions.  These will include:  Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and Thomas Rickert.  I would ask that each House send along a list of 5-7 other key participants who should be invited to attend as well, with the goal of incorporating the diverse spectrum of GNSO positions, but not overloading our call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Finally, we agreed to re-purpose some of our time on Saturday in Marrakesh as a Public Session of the Council.  I?ll work with the Vice Chairs and Staff to adjust our published agenda to reflect this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks again?
>>>>> 
>>>>> J.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From ncsg  Tue Feb 23 12:12:38 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:12:38 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN Staff Pilot Program to assist ICANN document
 development and drafting
In-Reply-To: <D2BC3C5A.4A0E1%david.olive@icann.org> <56CB5453.3000505@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <20160223101238.GC22488@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Hi Sam, all,

On Feb 22 13:32, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote:

>    Some of you will have read the message from David Olive, sent to the
>    SOAC leadership list earlier in the month, in which he outlines a Staff
>    initiative for "a new pilot program we are developing to assist ICANN
>    communities with document development and drafting." I have no idea
>    where the proposal stands at the moment, although they hoped to roll it
>    out before Marrakesh. (See full message attached).

The original message also contained a couple of attachments,
which might be useful in discussing this (attached).

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Questionnaire.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 80712 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160223/8cc9a0c9/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Doc Dev & Drafting Pilot v12.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 83384 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160223/8cc9a0c9/attachment-0003.pdf>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Feb 24 06:30:59 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:30:59 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN Staff Pilot Program to assist ICANN document
 development and drafting
In-Reply-To: <20160223101238.GC22488@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20160223101238.GC22488@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <56CD3203.5090900@mail.utoronto.ca>

Indeed the attachments are useful Tapani, thanks!.. I am inclined to 
think that ICANN could provide a useful work experience for Internet 
governance students at a senior level....That way if PhD students were 
hired as research assistants, we could have reasonable confidence they 
could write, and they understood the milieu.
cheers Stephanie

On 2016-02-23 5:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi Sam, all,
>
> On Feb 22 13:32, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote:
>
>>     Some of you will have read the message from David Olive, sent to the
>>     SOAC leadership list earlier in the month, in which he outlines a Staff
>>     initiative for "a new pilot program we are developing to assist ICANN
>>     communities with document development and drafting." I have no idea
>>     where the proposal stands at the moment, although they hoped to roll it
>>     out before Marrakesh. (See full message attached).
> The original message also contained a couple of attachments,
> which might be useful in discussing this (attached).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160223/2d06f994/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Feb 24 06:42:10 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:42:10 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN Staff Pilot Program to assist ICANN document
 development and drafting
In-Reply-To: <56CD3203.5090900@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20160223101238.GC22488@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<56CD3203.5090900@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmOQmLXpVU5qKAq7Bd0KE1Snsfthg58LU3bYzAqXLAOJQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

We can also indicate which areas for support we are interested on (by
responding to the questionnaire) . It is pilot project,  if we dont find
such support useful we can pull-out.

Best,
Rafik
On Feb 24, 2016 1:31 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Indeed the attachments are useful Tapani, thanks!.. I am inclined to think
> that ICANN could provide a useful work experience for Internet governance
> students at a senior level....That way if PhD students were hired as
> research assistants, we could have reasonable confidence they could write,
> and they understood the milieu.
> cheers Stephanie
>
> On 2016-02-23 5:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
> Hi Sam, all,
>
> On Feb 22 13:32, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote:
>
>
>    Some of you will have read the message from David Olive, sent to the
>    SOAC leadership list earlier in the month, in which he outlines a Staff
>    initiative for "a new pilot program we are developing to assist ICANN
>    communities with document development and drafting." I have no idea
>    where the proposal stands at the moment, although they hoped to roll it
>    out before Marrakesh. (See full message attached).
>
>
> The original message also contained a couple of attachments,
> which might be useful in discussing this (attached).
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160224/83dbd069/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Wed Feb 24 08:42:47 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:42:47 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

We haven't had too many nominations for the Chair position yet.

We'll obviously have to extend the nomination period, but
perhaps it'd be a good idea to consider some options here.

In case people are unwilling to volunteer because they fear
it'd be too much work, one possibility would be sharing it
with a Vice Chair. So, feel free to nominate Chair+Vice Chair
teams (or volunteer as such - self-nominations are positively
encouraged) if you think that'd work.

Also (self-)nominations for the VC position only would be welcome.

And of course feel free to comment just the idea, even if you can't
volunteer yourself. Or suggest something completely different -
maybe election by lottery? ;-)


Tapani



From avri  Thu Feb 25 09:13:14 2016
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:13:14 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org>

Hi,

If no one volunteers, perhaps the job can rotate among the members of
the PC on a pro-tem chair basis.  A month each.

Or you can put the names of all the 10 members of the PC into a hat and
pull a name out at random and then give them a unanimous vote.

just an observer trying to help.

avri


On 24-Feb-16 08:42, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We haven't had too many nominations for the Chair position yet.
>
> We'll obviously have to extend the nomination period, but
> perhaps it'd be a good idea to consider some options here.
>
> In case people are unwilling to volunteer because they fear
> it'd be too much work, one possibility would be sharing it
> with a Vice Chair. So, feel free to nominate Chair+Vice Chair
> teams (or volunteer as such - self-nominations are positively
> encouraged) if you think that'd work.
>
> Also (self-)nominations for the VC position only would be welcome.
>
> And of course feel free to comment just the idea, even if you can't
> volunteer yourself. Or suggest something completely different -
> maybe election by lottery? ;-)
>
>
> Tapani
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


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




From dave  Thu Feb 25 16:56:17 2016
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:56:17 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <987C6281-5E86-44C8-B8DA-64E36616DAFF@davecake.net>

I?m willing to help with the chairing workload. But I stress help, not do it all.

David

> On 24 Feb 2016, at 2:42 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> We haven't had too many nominations for the Chair position yet.
> 
> We'll obviously have to extend the nomination period, but
> perhaps it'd be a good idea to consider some options here.
> 
> In case people are unwilling to volunteer because they fear
> it'd be too much work, one possibility would be sharing it
> with a Vice Chair. So, feel free to nominate Chair+Vice Chair
> teams (or volunteer as such - self-nominations are positively
> encouraged) if you think that'd work.
> 
> Also (self-)nominations for the VC position only would be welcome.
> 
> And of course feel free to comment just the idea, even if you can't
> volunteer yourself. Or suggest something completely different -
> maybe election by lottery? ;-)
> 
> 
> Tapani
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Thu Feb 25 18:05:49 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:05:49 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org>
Message-ID: <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>

You would be a terrific Chair, Avri....
Steph
On 2016-02-25 2:13, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If no one volunteers, perhaps the job can rotate among the members of
> the PC on a pro-tem chair basis.  A month each.
>
> Or you can put the names of all the 10 members of the PC into a hat and
> pull a name out at random and then give them a unanimous vote.
>
> just an observer trying to help.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 24-Feb-16 08:42, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We haven't had too many nominations for the Chair position yet.
>>
>> We'll obviously have to extend the nomination period, but
>> perhaps it'd be a good idea to consider some options here.
>>
>> In case people are unwilling to volunteer because they fear
>> it'd be too much work, one possibility would be sharing it
>> with a Vice Chair. So, feel free to nominate Chair+Vice Chair
>> teams (or volunteer as such - self-nominations are positively
>> encouraged) if you think that'd work.
>>
>> Also (self-)nominations for the VC position only would be welcome.
>>
>> And of course feel free to comment just the idea, even if you can't
>> volunteer yourself. Or suggest something completely different -
>> maybe election by lottery? ;-)
>>
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Thu Feb 25 18:29:46 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:29:46 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public
	Comment
In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca>


How do we feel about this, folks?  I am concerned about the ongoing 
relevance of the GNSO.....just wondering.
cheers steph

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment
Date: 	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:44:46 +0000
From: 	Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
To: 	Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, 
cwg-stewardship at icann.org <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, Accountability 
Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
CC: 	Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>



Thanks for flagging this Grace.  I note that there is a session in 
Marrakech on this:  ?Non-PDP CCWG Principles Cross Community Working 
Group  10:45 am - 12 pm UTC?.   I fully agree with Grace that those of 
us in the  CWG Stewardship (as well as those in the CCWG Accountability) 
should be very well qualified to provided relevant input into the 
proposed framework for cross community working groups.  I am not a 
member of the cross community WG that prepared the framework, but I have 
tracked their work over the last couple years and plan to attend the 
session in Marrakech.

Chuck

*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Grace Abuhamad
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 6:15 PM
*To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
*Cc:* Mary Wong
*Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment

Dear CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and 
observers,

I?m writing to request your expert feedback for the public comment on 
the draft framework principles for cross community working groups: 
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en. 
I?ve attached the draft to the email for your convenience.

*/Why you?/*

You are the experts. You are the past, the present, and the future of 
cross community working groups at ICANN. You have survived one (or both) 
of the big IANA Stewardship Transition working groups over the past two 
years, and you probably (I hope!) have a lot to reflect upon and share.

*/What?s the point?/*

There are no agreed community-wide guidelines on the use of CCWGs, but 
they are such an _awesome_ form of multistakeholder policymaking that 
the ICANN community is increasingly reliant on CCWGs for their policy 
efforts. The CCWG-Principles has taken on the task of developing a 
uniform framework of principles intended to guide the formation, 
initiation, operations and closure of future CCWGs.



*/How much time do I have?/*

The public comment period opened on Monday this week. You have 39 days 
left, until *23 April at 23:59 UTC*. You could jot down some thoughts 
during your long plane rides to/from Marrakech, or even as you observe 
the action during the sessions!

The email to which your comments may be sent is: 
<comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16 at icann.org 
<mailto:comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16 at icann.org>>. If you 
have any questions, please contact Mary Wong (cc?ed here).

I am passionate about this work because we?ve innovated and learned so 
much from the IANA Stewardship Transition working groups, and I have had 
the privilege and opportunity to work with both groups from their 
formation. I am keen to see where the outcome of this public comment 
period takes us next, and I very much hope that you will take pride in 
designing that path forward.

?Grace



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160225/4af7e601/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship



From mariliamaciel  Thu Feb 25 19:03:04 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:03:04 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info>
	<56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2-AB0FSHiZOqN-0hBEjEiHqAWQOYYNQdwjHdt5D1cUXQ@mail.gmail.com>

Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> You would be a terrific Chair, Avri....
> Steph
>
> On 2016-02-25 2:13, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If no one volunteers, perhaps the job can rotate among the members of
>> the PC on a pro-tem chair basis.  A month each.
>>
>> Or you can put the names of all the 10 members of the PC into a hat and
>> pull a name out at random and then give them a unanimous vote.
>>
>> just an observer trying to help.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 24-Feb-16 08:42, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We haven't had too many nominations for the Chair position yet.
>>>
>>> We'll obviously have to extend the nomination period, but
>>> perhaps it'd be a good idea to consider some options here.
>>>
>>> In case people are unwilling to volunteer because they fear
>>> it'd be too much work, one possibility would be sharing it
>>> with a Vice Chair. So, feel free to nominate Chair+Vice Chair
>>> teams (or volunteer as such - self-nominations are positively
>>> encouraged) if you think that'd work.
>>>
>>> Also (self-)nominations for the VC position only would be welcome.
>>>
>>> And of course feel free to comment just the idea, even if you can't
>>> volunteer yourself. Or suggest something completely different -
>>> maybe election by lottery? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



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

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160225/81c45d57/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Feb 26 02:15:29 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:15:29 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs --
 Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkKE0FR=iv-tgLZEeJsV=6-uptGhAW+6+JTHUL6RtK8dg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Stephanie,

some history here it is process initiated by GNSO itself in 2012 following
the undue heat about the joint working group on new gTLD applicant support
between GNSO and ALAC (there were other joint WGs like the ones with SSAC
and ccNSO about Internationalized Registration  data and one about IDN ,
and they were are quite restricted).

I think for some (non-PDP) topics it makes to have other SO/AC involved.
for GNSO PDP, GNSO is setting its own working group with open membership

Best,

Rafik

2016-02-26 1:29 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

>
> How do we feel about this, folks?  I am concerned about the ongoing
> relevance of the GNSO.....just wondering.
> cheers steph
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:44:46 +0000
> From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> <cgomes at verisign.com>
> To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org> <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>,
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> CC: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> <mary.wong at icann.org>
>
>
> Thanks for flagging this Grace.  I note that there is a session in
> Marrakech on this:  ?Non-PDP CCWG Principles Cross Community Working Group
> 10:45 am - 12 pm UTC?.   I fully agree with Grace that those of us in the
>  CWG Stewardship (as well as those in the CCWG Accountability) should be
> very well qualified to provided relevant input into the proposed framework
> for cross community working groups.  I am not a member of the cross
> community WG that prepared the framework, but I have tracked their work
> over the last couple years and plan to attend the session in Marrakech.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Grace Abuhamad
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 6:15 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
> *Cc:* Mary Wong
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment
>
>
>
> Dear CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and
> observers,
>
>
>
> I?m writing to request your expert feedback for the public comment on the
> draft framework principles for cross community working groups:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en.
> I?ve attached the draft to the email for your convenience.
>
>
>
> *Why you?*
>
> You are the experts. You are the past, the present, and the future of
> cross community working groups at ICANN. You have survived one (or both) of
> the big IANA Stewardship Transition working groups over the past two years,
> and you probably (I hope!) have a lot to reflect upon and share.
>
>
>
> *What?s the point?*
>
> There are no agreed community-wide guidelines on the use of CCWGs, but
> they are such an *awesome* form of multistakeholder policymaking that the
> ICANN community is increasingly reliant on CCWGs for their policy
> efforts. The CCWG-Principles has taken on the task of developing a uniform
> framework of principles intended to guide the formation, initiation,
> operations and closure of future CCWGs.
>
>
>
> *How much time do I have?*
>
> The public comment period opened on Monday this week. You have 39 days
> left, until *23 April at 23:59 UTC*. You could jot down some thoughts
> during your long plane rides to/from Marrakech, or even as you observe the
> action during the sessions!
>
>
>
> The email to which your comments may be sent is: <
> <comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16 at icann.org>
> comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16 at icann.org>. If you have any
> questions, please contact Mary Wong (cc?ed here).
>
>
>
> I am passionate about this work because we?ve innovated and learned so
> much from the IANA Stewardship Transition working groups, and I have had
> the privilege and opportunity to work with both groups from their
> formation. I am keen to see where the outcome of this public comment period
> takes us next, and I very much hope that you will take pride in designing
> that path forward.
>
>
>
> ?Grace
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160226/5dfdc128/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Feb 26 11:43:47 2016
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:43:47 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org>
	<56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <56D01E53.2090408@acm.org>



On 25-Feb-16 18:05, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> You would be a terrific Chair, Avri.... 

I am just an observer and not qualified per the charter.

And i am sure that many people would not be happy with an accused 
'ALAC' member as chair of the NCSG PC.

But thanks, I appreciate it.

avri

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




From avri  Fri Feb 26 12:33:10 2016
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:33:10 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <56D029E6.4020207@acm.org>

Hi,

I participated in this group.  I feel good about it.  We are doing more
and more work that crosses the boundaries and are not just about gTLDs.
I believe that breaking down the silos on non gTLD work is a good thing.

I believe in having a strong and relevant GNSO, but do believe it should
remain within its mission.

avri


On 25-Feb-16 18:29, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> How do we feel about this, folks?  I am concerned about the ongoing
> relevance of the GNSO.....just wondering. 
> cheers steph
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment
> Date: 	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:44:46 +0000
> From: 	Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> To: 	Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>,
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, Accountability
> Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> CC: 	Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Thanks for flagging this Grace.  I note that there is a session in
> Marrakech on this:  ?Non-PDP CCWG Principles Cross Community Working
> Group  10:45 am - 12 pm UTC?.   I fully agree with Grace that those of
> us in the  CWG Stewardship (as well as those in the CCWG
> Accountability) should be very well qualified to provided relevant
> input into the proposed framework for cross community working groups. 
> I am not a member of the cross community WG that prepared the
> framework, but I have tracked their work over the last couple years
> and plan to attend the session in Marrakech.
>
>  
>
> Chuck
>
>  
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Grace Abuhamad
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 6:15 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
> *Cc:* Mary Wong
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment
>
>  
>
> Dear CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability members, participants,
> and observers,
>
>  
>
> I?m writing to request your expert feedback for the public comment on
> the draft framework principles for cross community working
> groups: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en.
> I?ve attached the draft to the email for your convenience. 
>
>  
>
> */Why you?/*
>
> You are the experts. You are the past, the present, and the future of
> cross community working groups at ICANN. You have survived one (or
> both) of the big IANA Stewardship Transition working groups over the
> past two years, and you probably (I hope!) have a lot to reflect upon
> and share. 
>
>  
>
> */What?s the point?/*
>
> There are no agreed community-wide guidelines on the use of CCWGs, but
> they are such an _awesome_ form of multistakeholder policymaking that
> the ICANN community is increasingly reliant on CCWGs for their policy
> efforts. The CCWG-Principles has taken on the task of developing a
> uniform framework of principles intended to guide the formation,
> initiation, operations and closure of future CCWGs. 
>
>
>
> */How much time do I have?/*
>
> The public comment period opened on Monday this week. You have 39 days
> left, until *23 April at 23:59 UTC*. You could jot down some thoughts
> during your long plane rides to/from Marrakech, or even as you observe
> the action during the sessions! 
>
>  
>
> The email to which your comments may be sent is:
> <comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16 at icann.org>. If you have
> any questions, please contact Mary Wong (cc?ed here). 
>
>  
>
> I am passionate about this work because we?ve innovated and learned so
> much from the IANA Stewardship Transition working groups, and I have
> had the privilege and opportunity to work with both groups from their
> formation. I am keen to see where the outcome of this public comment
> period takes us next, and I very much hope that you will take pride in
> designing that path forward. 
>
>  
>
> ?Grace
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From ncsg  Fri Feb 26 12:43:54 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:43:54 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2-AB0FSHiZOqN-0hBEjEiHqAWQOYYNQdwjHdt5D1cUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org>
	<56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CACpVkK2-AB0FSHiZOqN-0hBEjEiHqAWQOYYNQdwjHdt5D1cUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote:

> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member?

Yes. From NCSG charter:

"2.5.3.	NCSG?PC	Leadership

* A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
  NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis.
  - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.

* One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis."

While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply
that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair.

However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not
considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for
argument that observers would be members but not "full members",
but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.)

On the other hand it's clear that we could have several
Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen




From wjdrake  Sun Feb 28 13:25:08 2016
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 12:25:08 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs  => CCW-IG
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkKE0FR=iv-tgLZEeJsV=6-uptGhAW+6+JTHUL6RtK8dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThkKE0FR=iv-tgLZEeJsV=6-uptGhAW+6+JTHUL6RtK8dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com>

Hi

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 01:15, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Stephanie,
> 
> some history here it is process initiated by GNSO itself in 2012 following the undue heat about the joint working group on new gTLD applicant support between GNSO and ALAC (there were other joint WGs like the ones with SSAC and ccNSO about Internationalized Registration  data and one about IDN , and they were are quite restricted). 

Yes there was quite the unpleasant brouhaha within the GNSO about the applicant support group, which led to call to define criteria and procedures for CCWGs.
> 
> I think for some (non-PDP) topics it makes to have other SO/AC involved. for GNSO PDP, GNSO is setting its own working group with open membership

Sure, but the question is in what form.  Which brings me to question that?s been percolating for awhile and may finally get discussed in Marrakech: the CCW-IG was initially set up after the 2013 BA meeting to provide a written input to the NETmundial meeting.  Since then it has drifted with no ability to work on common texts of any kind (due to resistance from various biz actors we know), and indeed no ability to have a coherent discussion of this or other matters.  By default its sole activities have turned into a) pressing Nigel and Tarek to explain what they say in intergovernmental settings; and b) planning the public IG sessions, which have turned into MAG-like escapades with agenda control games (one guess who) being played out on weekly phone calls typically involving less than a dozen people. 

As the NCSG ?participant? on the CCWIG I?m inclined to think it should be wound down, or turned into a working party.  If people interested in the broader IG landscape want a place to talk about its relevance to ICANN, interface with staff who rep ICANN in intergovernmental spaces, and monkey around micromanaging the public IG session, fine, by why does it need to be a chartered CCWG with all the constraints that implies?  If it was a coalition of the willing, the group might actually able to say or do something, as the HR group has...

Unfortunately I can?t attend the F2F meeting where this will be discussed https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-ccwg-ig because there?s a public NomCom meeting scheduled at the same time (as is the GNSO-Non-PDP CCWG Principles Cross Community Working Group) but if there?s any sense of the group to convey I can do it in writing, or one of our others people could--- Marilia, Stephanie and Pranesh are NCUC participants, Cintra and Rudi are NPOC participants, and Rafik?s a co-chair.  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275 

Anyone have any thoughts or preferences in this regard?

Bill




From aelsadr  Mon Feb 29 15:34:33 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:34:33 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info>
	<56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CACpVkK2-AB0FSHiZOqN-0hBEjEiHqAWQOYYNQdwjHdt5D1cUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <FA0F6CE5-A39D-4640-A8CC-7D0B7E4E41F3@egyptig.org>

Hi,

OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week:

Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s).

You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know.

We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition.

If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
>> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member?
> 
> Yes. From NCSG charter:
> 
> "2.5.3.	NCSG?PC	Leadership
> 
> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
>  NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis.
>  - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.
> 
> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis."
> 
> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply
> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair.
> 
> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not
> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for
> argument that observers would be members but not "full members",
> but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.)
> 
> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several
> Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mshears  Mon Feb 29 15:36:26 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:36:26 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <FA0F6CE5-A39D-4640-A8CC-7D0B7E4E41F3@egyptig.org>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org>
	<56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CACpVkK2-AB0FSHiZOqN-0hBEjEiHqAWQOYYNQdwjHdt5D1cUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<FA0F6CE5-A39D-4640-A8CC-7D0B7E4E41F3@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <56D4495A.1090202@cdt.org>

Hi Amr - thanks.  To whom/what address are these nominations supposed to 
be sent?  Self nominations I assume are acceptable?

Matthew

On 2/29/2016 1:34 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week:
>
> Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s).
>
> You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know.
>
> We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition.
>
> If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member?
>> Yes. From NCSG charter:
>>
>> "2.5.3.	NCSG?PC	Leadership
>>
>> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
>>   NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis.
>>   - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.
>>
>> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis."
>>
>> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply
>> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair.
>>
>> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not
>> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for
>> argument that observers would be members but not "full members",
>> but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.)
>>
>> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several
>> Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help.
>>
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.


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




From aelsadr  Mon Feb 29 15:41:54 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:41:54 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public
	Comment
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkKE0FR=iv-tgLZEeJsV=6-uptGhAW+6+JTHUL6RtK8dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThkKE0FR=iv-tgLZEeJsV=6-uptGhAW+6+JTHUL6RtK8dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F122DCDA-27D7-4FC8-A57D-13220E5813B5@egyptig.org>

Hi,

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 2:15 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Stephanie,
> 
> some history here it is process initiated by GNSO itself in 2012 following the undue heat about the joint working group on new gTLD applicant support between GNSO and ALAC (there were other joint WGs like the ones with SSAC and ccNSO about Internationalized Registration  data and one about IDN , and they were are quite restricted). 
> 
> I think for some (non-PDP) topics it makes to have other SO/AC involved. for GNSO PDP, GNSO is setting its own working group with open membership

I stress Rafik?s use of the word ?some?. There are also non-PDP topics that are still within the remit of the GNSO, and not the broader community. The most common of those are WGs that recommend amendments to the GNSO operating procedures and working group guidelines. Of course, that means that anyone (from any ICANN SO/AC and beyond) may join in the working group, but that would be a non-PDP working group chartered by the GNSO Council.

On the other hand, having a standard framework for how CCWGs are constituted, and how they function is IMHO a good thing. It makes them more predictable, and informs us (and the broader community) of what to expect when one is chartered and used. I would rather have that than have to guess.

Thanks.

Amr


From aelsadr  Mon Feb 29 15:43:28 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:43:28 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <56D4495A.1090202@cdt.org>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info>
	<56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CACpVkK2-AB0FSHiZOqN-0hBEjEiHqAWQOYYNQdwjHdt5D1cUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<FA0F6CE5-A39D-4640-A8CC-7D0B7E4E41F3@egyptig.org>
	<56D4495A.1090202@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <2A32668F-56D6-47C6-9505-316AE5FFC7A1@egyptig.org>

Hi Matt,

Nominations should be sent to this email list, and yes?, self nominations are more than welcome.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr - thanks.  To whom/what address are these nominations supposed to be sent?  Self nominations I assume are acceptable?
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 2/29/2016 1:34 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week:
>> 
>> Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s).
>> 
>> You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know.
>> 
>> We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition.
>> 
>> If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member?
>>> Yes. From NCSG charter:
>>> 
>>> "2.5.3.	NCSG?PC	Leadership
>>> 
>>> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
>>>  NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis.
>>>  - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.
>>> 
>>> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis."
>>> 
>>> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply
>>> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair.
>>> 
>>> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not
>>> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for
>>> argument that observers would be members but not "full members",
>>> but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.)
>>> 
>>> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several
>>> Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> -- 
> 
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
> 
> CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 




From egmorris1  Mon Feb 29 16:31:33 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:31:33 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections
In-Reply-To: <FA0F6CE5-A39D-4640-A8CC-7D0B7E4E41F3@egyptig.org>
References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org>
	<B6C32649-AB5B-4D14-94FC-3A18234773D2@egyptig.org>
	<20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info>
	<56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CACpVkK2-AB0FSHiZOqN-0hBEjEiHqAWQOYYNQdwjHdt5D1cUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<FA0F6CE5-A39D-4640-A8CC-7D0B7E4E41F3@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <F8A90155-0FAA-496A-9752-E5F9E22E436F@toast.net>

Hi everybody,

It's time to reboot our policy committee and fortunately we have great people who can do it!


I am very proud to nominate Marillia Maciel as Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee. I'm so excited by this nomination. The PC is something we've had trouble with over the years and Marilia has the perfect skill set to make it both operational and effective. She knows the wide range of issues involved, she knows the personalities and she knows how to manage people and priorities. I hope she will accept this nomination.

She'll need help from all of us though. I hereby pledge to up my production of public comments and to mentor new members who want to help do the same. I hope other PC members, from both the NPOC and the NCUC, will pitch in and help us up our production of public comments in the coming year.

In a more formal vein, though, I've noticed on list two PC members who are willing to help in a formal way. Let's give Marilia all the help she can undoubtedly use. 

I wish to nominate both Matthew Shears and David Cake for the position of Vice Chairs of the Policy Committee. David brings the experience that comes with being both the former VC of the GNSO Council and Chair of the NCUC. Matt brings a comparatively fresher perspective to the role but his intelligence, diplomacy and hard work have made him a key member of our PC and community in recent times.

Marilia, Matt and David - a team that can make our policy committee an effective and key part of the NCSG's advocacy for noncommercial users at ICANN. Let's hope they accept these nominations and we can come to Marrakech and hit the ground running!

Best,

Ed



> On 29 Feb 2016, at 07:31, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week:
> 
> Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s).
> 
> You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know.
> 
> We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition.
> 
> If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote:
>> 
>>> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member?
>> 
>> Yes. From NCSG charter:
>> 
>> "2.5.3.    NCSG?PC    Leadership
>> 
>> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
>> NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis.
>> - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role.
>> 
>> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis."
>> 
>> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply
>> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair.
>> 
>> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not
>> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for
>> argument that observers would be members but not "full members",
>> but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.)
>> 
>> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several
>> Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


From aelsadr  Mon Feb 29 16:53:33 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:53:33 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review
	WG
References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E1E082987@Exchange.sierracorporation.com>
Message-ID: <07A12605-BCBD-4881-BE2C-D1542055E9EF@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Following up on the topic of the RPMs review again. Fellow Councillors will have seen this email from Phil proposing a motion to adopt a charter for the PDP WG.

Negotiations on the Council sub-team did not turn out well at all, as you will have gathered. As Phil reports, the sub-team did not achieve consensus, and the charter remains unchanged in that regard. Let me try to convey my perspective of what?s going on.

First, we have to assume that we are the only group within the GNSO that is not in a rush to get a new round of new gTLDs going. The contracted parties, naturally, have an interest in doing this, and the BC and IPC seem to have an interest in applications for new brand gTLDs. There is concern among all of them that a review of the UDRP has the potential to take years, which would mean if that goes first, it will delay the process for a subsequent round of new gTLDs. The dependancy of the PDP for the new gTLDs subsequent procedures on this one?s review of the RPMs is the major concern.

During the sub-team calls, I?ve had to defend the NCSG?s desire of a UDRP review preceding the review of the RPMs for the new gTLD a number of times, but have also always tried to keep the discussion on the process to review input, rather than the substantive issue. My argument was that the NCSG input hadn?t received the due consideration by the community, as it was not part of the preliminary issues report, which was subject to public comment. We used to have reply periods to public comments, but that is not the case any more.

At this point, the NCSG input has been considered by:

1. Policy staff, in their review of the public comments, and preparation of the final issues report. Staff did note that other options for methods to tackle this PDP were provided, but recommended to proceed with the current two-phased approach. Apart from our input, there was input from the WIPO and INTA recommending that no review of the UDRP be conducted at all, and that the GNSO should limit its review to the new gTLD RPMs.

2. A sub-team of the GNSO Council limited to councillors from the NCSG, IPC and BC.

This is the language I finally proposed as alternative language in the charter under ?Mission and Scope?:

> This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One will focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. However, because additional approaches beyond those initially noted in the Preliminary Issue Report had been suggested as part of public comments to that report, the Working Group is requested to perform the following task during the development of its initial Work Plan: consider whether or not reversing Phases One and Two, such that the review of the UDRP takes place during Phase One, is a preferable approach. If there is consensus (as determined by the Working Group chair(s) in consultation with the GNSO Council liaison) to proceed in this manner, the Working Group shall submit a request to amend its Charter to the GNSO Council, who shall consider whether or not to grant the request in light of information it considers relevant, including the progress of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team and the GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. In the absence of consensus to change the two-phased approach, the Working Group shall proceed with the two-phased approach already in place. 

This was basically an attempt of mine to ask for the WG to consider the NCSG input, while respecting the input provided by other groups. After considerable debate that was going nowhere, I was hoping this would make the proposal less unappealing to the BC and IPC. They didn?t budge. I suspect that CPH has no interest in budging either. A repeated argument by the IPC was that the NCSG input was being considered by the GNSO Council, and no further consideration is necessary. I don?t agree with this.

What we can do at this point is suggest changes to the charter to the GNSO Council in response to Phil?s motion (below). What would happen then is that the Council would vote on the two versions of the charter (the one we suggest vs. the current draft), with a simple majority of each house required to support either one. I don?t believe we would win this vote. As I said, unless I?m missing something, we have no support within the GNSO on this.

Following this vote, a vote in response to the motion to adopt the charter would take place requiring a very low voting threshold to pass (1/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of one house).

I am certainly open to suggestion on how to proceed, but now the ball is in the full Council?s court. My suggestion is to proceed with suggesting the language I had suggested to the sub-team. I don?t believe we will manage to get this passed, but it is an option. Furthermore, to be honest, if we do somehow pass this on Council, I don?t believe the PDP WG will agree to making the charter change that we are asking for after it is discussed at that level. I?m offering what I believe to be a realistic assessment following about a month of debating this issue.

Since this discussion began, we did get two minor wins:

1. We moved the list of issues to be discussed by the WG (including NCSG?s inputs in our comment) from an annex of the issue report to the charter itself. This was certainly a good thing, although possibly not crucial. The NCSG input was captured accurately in the staff report, and would have been in scope of the PDP under the first scenario, although it may have taken a little bit of a debate to have it considered.

2. This language was added to the background of the PDP in the charter to stress that the purpose of the PDP is not limited to the protection of trademarks:

As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names. <>

Again?, this is a good thing, but given how the STI group?s final recommendations are phrased, we would have (possibly after another debate on the WG) this part pertaining to protection of legitimate registrations also be given its due respect.

The one change that was truly significant (reversal of the two phases) is the one we didn?t get.

I apologize for the length of this email, but thought to try to keep you all as informed as possible on what?s going on.

Would very much welcome the thoughts of others.

Thanks.

Amr

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Subject: [council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG
> Date: February 29, 2016 at 2:32:50 AM GMT+2
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: "Mary Wong (mary.wong at icann.org)" <mary.wong at icann.org>
> 
> Councilors:
>  
> On behalf of the subgroup which met twice this past week to discuss the best way to conduct a PDP on the review of all RPMs in all gTLDs, I am pleased to forward for your consideration updated versions of the Motion and draft Charter for same. I am hereby proposing them in order to meet the deadline for items to be considered by the Council in Marrakech.
>  
> The Motion has been altered since the version that we adopted at the last Council meeting to include a reference to our subgroup.
>  
> The Charter has been altered to include a new clause in the second sentence of the first paragraph under ?Background?, as follows (new language in Bold):
>  
> As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs).
>  
> That language was offered by Amr and was deemed non-controversial by members of the subgroup.
>  
> The subgroup was unable to reach consensus to include draft Charter language proposed by Amr to subsection (a) of the Mission and Scope portion of the Charter. That language would have delegated to the WG the decision as to whether the two-phased approach should start first with review of new gTLD RPMs or of the UDRP. However, there was general consensus among subgroup members that, as the rationale for such delegation of decision-making was that some public comments had taken positions not included within the three staff options contained in the Preliminary Issues Report, the WG should, if Council does not decide scope and priorities, be free to consider any public comment suggestions beyond the staff options ? which would include the comments of WIPO and INTA that the UDRP should not undergo any review at all.
>  
> It will be up to Amr and other supporters of altering the Charter to decide whether they wish to offer such a decisional delegation amendment to the draft Charter when we meet in Marrakech.
>  
> Let me know if any of you have questions.
>  
> Safe travel to Marrakech, and best regards,
> Philip
>  
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160229/c7216c70/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO-Updated Motion - Chartering of RPM WG - 28 Feb 2016.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19179 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160229/c7216c70/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160229/c7216c70/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO-Updated Draft Charter for RPM PDP - 26 Feb 2016.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 56466 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160229/c7216c70/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160229/c7216c70/attachment-0005.html>