From egmorris1 Mon Jan 4 04:49:16 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 21:49:16 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Development of a GNSO responser to the CCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal Message-ID: <9799646e6080449d9e71c41296f20c71@toast.net> Hi everybody, I wanted to give everybody a quick update as to what we're doing on Council in developing a GNSO response to the 3rd draft proposal of the CCWG-Accountability project. Later today a subgroup of Councillors (consisting of James Bladel (Registrars), Keith Drazek (Registries), Paul McGrady (IPC), Phil Corwin (BC) and myself) will begin to develop the template of a GNSO response. It will be a synthesis of all public comments received from GNSO member Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Attached please find a staff developed compendium of these comments. If upon review you notice any specific errors or omissions please let me know as soon as possible. In light of the CCWG Charter we on Council will be considering the proposal on a recommendation by recommendation basis. As of now, we do not anticipate having a vote on the package as a whole. We anticipate having this initial draft completed by January 7th. This will allow time for consultation with the respective GNSO Constituency and Stakeholder Groups. I will, of course, get that draft to everyone on this list as soon as it is completed. We will be having an extraordinary meeting of the GNSO Council at 12:00 UTC on January 14th to discuss the Proposal and our draft response. It is anticipated that we will be having a final vote, with our response adopting any changes made as a result of the call on the 14th, on the Proposal during the regularly scheduled Council call at 21:00 UTC on January 21st. It's going to be a very busy month for everyone involved with the Accountability effort, both on Council and off. If there is anything I can do to clarify or otherwise help with your understanding of the Proposal, Council procedures or anything else having to do with the CCWG (or, for that matter, anything else coming before Council) please let me know. As always, I'm happy to help as best I can. Thanks for your consideration. Kind Regards, Ed Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCWG Accountability SG C Comments .pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 387627 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Mon Jan 4 11:08:09 2016 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:08:09 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Development of a GNSO responser to theCCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal References: <9799646e6080449d9e71c41296f20c71@toast.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A571@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Good luck and keep us informed. I cross my fingers that the political will and the readiness to reach rough consensus prevails. So much has been achieved already. And many thanks for your work. wolfgang -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: PC-NCSG im Auftrag von Edward Morris Gesendet: Mo 04.01.2016 03:49 An: pc-ncsg Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Development of a GNSO responser to theCCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal Hi everybody, I wanted to give everybody a quick update as to what we're doing on Council in developing a GNSO response to the 3rd draft proposal of the CCWG-Accountability project. Later today a subgroup of Councillors (consisting of James Bladel (Registrars), Keith Drazek (Registries), Paul McGrady (IPC), Phil Corwin (BC) and myself) will begin to develop the template of a GNSO response. It will be a synthesis of all public comments received from GNSO member Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Attached please find a staff developed compendium of these comments. If upon review you notice any specific errors or omissions please let me know as soon as possible. In light of the CCWG Charter we on Council will be considering the proposal on a recommendation by recommendation basis. As of now, we do not anticipate having a vote on the package as a whole. We anticipate having this initial draft completed by January 7th. This will allow time for consultation with the respective GNSO Constituency and Stakeholder Groups. I will, of course, get that draft to everyone on this list as soon as it is completed. We will be having an extraordinary meeting of the GNSO Council at 12:00 UTC on January 14th to discuss the Proposal and our draft response. It is anticipated that we will be having a final vote, with our response adopting any changes made as a result of the call on the 14th, on the Proposal during the regularly scheduled Council call at 21:00 UTC on January 21st. It's going to be a very busy month for everyone involved with the Accountability effort, both on Council and off. If there is anything I can do to clarify or otherwise help with your understanding of the Proposal, Council procedures or anything else having to do with the CCWG (or, for that matter, anything else coming before Council) please let me know. As always, I'm happy to help as best I can. Thanks for your consideration. Kind Regards, Ed Morris From egmorris1 Tue Jan 5 05:03:57 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 22:03:57 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Report on Council subgroup meeting on CCWG-Accountability Message-ID: <64d919b91ae24fabb2c2f69b5f63f68b@toast.net> Hi everyone. Just wanted to give an update on the Council subgroup meeting on the CCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal, held earlier tonight. The meeting went well. We will be reporting back to the CCWG with three categorical responses: General Support, Limited Support with some opposition and No support. Although we only went through the first three recommendations on the call I think it is significant that we are categorising recommendation 1 as "limited support" despite the fact that the NCSG and NCUC were the only groups in opposition. Linkage was effectively made between recommendations 1 and 11. Inspection rights were highlighted in our responses to recommendations 2 and 3 and had broad support. Of note, we will be discussing Inspection and the Board's less than enthusiastic position thereof on the CCWG call this Thursday at 19:00 UTC. I do believe there is a good chance that recommendation 11 will nee classified as 'no support', although 'limited support' is still a possibility. We will be dividing the work between us during the next few days and will have a full proposal ready for the Council call on January 14th. Best, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Tue Jan 12 11:45:27 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:45:27 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Public Comments: Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group References: Message-ID: <0F1725FD-E2A2-49F3-9D03-7B073C8A0B98@toast.net> Do we have any views on this? Seems to be bottom up (allow countries to request regional reassignment) and rational at first read. As much as I would like to impose myself on Mexico and forcefully reunite it with North America I guess that should be the Mexicans decision. :) I'm happy to write up a short general statement of support so the WG members know someone read and considered their work and appreciates their effort and output if, in fact, we are OK with it. Ed Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: 12 January 2016 at 08:42:10 GMT > To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" > Subject: [council] Public Comments: Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group > > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en > Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group > > Follow Updates > Open Date:23 Dec 2015 23:59 UTC > > Close Date:24 Apr 2016 23:59 UTC > > Staff Report Due:9 May 2016 23:59 UTC > > Comments close in 103 Days > > Contents > > Brief Overview > Submit Comment to Forum : geo-regions-23dec15 at icann.org > Comments Forum : http://forum.icann.org/lists/geo-regions-23dec15/ > Section I: Description, Explanation & Purpose > Section II: Background > Section III: Relevant Resources > Section IV: Additional Information > Section V: Reports > Staff Contact > Brief Overview > > Purpose: The cross-community Geographic Regions Review Working Group has produced its Final Report in which it proposes a series of recommendations regarding the ongoing application of the organization?s geographic regions framework. The ICANN Board is interested in further community reaction to those recommendations and has instructed the Staff to open and manage a public comment period of at least 120 days to give the community an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposals and provide any additional comments on the working group recommendations. > > Current Status: Community feedback is requested concerning the Working Group recommendations. > > Next Steps: Upon completion of the public comment period, staff will summarize and forward any community input to the ICANN Board of Directors. > > Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose > > The cross-community Geographic Regions Review Working Group has produced its Final Report in which it proposes a series of recommendations regarding the ongoing application of the organization?s geographic regions framework. The ICANN Board is interested in further community reaction to those recommendations and has instructed the Staff to open and manage a public comment period of at least 120 days to give the community an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposals and provide any additional comments on the working group recommendations. > > The Working Group?s Final Report provides an extensive series of conclusions, proposals and recommendations including: > > The Working Group concludes that the general principle of geographic diversity is valuable and should be preserved. > Application of the geographic diversity principles must be more rigorous, clear and consistent. > Adjusting the number of ICANN geographic regions is not currently practical. > No other International Regional Structures offer useful options for ICANN. > ICANN must formally adopt and maintain its own unique Geographic Regions Framework. > The Community wants to minimize any changes to the current structure. > ICANN must acknowledge the sovereignty and right of self-determination of states to let them choose their region of allocation. > ICANN communities have flexibly applied geographic diversity principles over the years. While the Board should remain strictly subject to the current framework, flexibility should be preserved for other structures. > ?Special Interest Groups? or ?Cross-Regional Sub-Groups? offer new diversity opportunities. > Implementation mechanisms and processes must be developed by Staff; and > The Board must preserve its oversight and future review opportunities. > The comment period will give individuals and community groups an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposals and provide any additional comments on the working group recommendations. > > Section II: Background > > The ICANN Board chartered a cross-community working group to (1) identify the different purposes for which ICANN?s Geographic Regions are used; (2) determine whether the uses of ICANN?s Geographic Regions (as currently defined, or at all) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. > > Over the course of its deliberations, the Working Group (1) reviewed the underlying history, objectives and general principles of ICANN?s Geographic Regions Framework, (2) identified the various applications and functions to which the regions framework has been applied by existing structures and the ICANN staff; and (3) engaged the ICANN community in an extensive collaborative dialogue about issues and potential solutions to maintain and potentially expand the value of the geographic regions framework for the entire community. > > The Working Group concluded its work and presented its Final Report recommendations to the Chair of the ICANN Board on 4 November 2015. The Working Group recommended that the Board direct staff to manage a public comment forum period to give the community an opportunity to review and evaluate the recommendations and share comments with the Board before it begins its assessment of and deliberations on the recommendations. The Board agreed. > > Section III: Relevant Resources > > Final Report by the Geographic Regions Review Working Group [EN] [PDF, 409 KB] > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/geo-regions-wg-31oct15-en.pdf > > [AR] [PDF, 283 KB] > > [ES] [PDF, 377 KB] > > [FR] [PDF, 331 KB] > > [PT] [PDF, 313 KB] > > [RU] [PDF, 323 KB] > > [ZH] [PDF, 763 KB] > > Staff Contact > > Robert Hoggarth > robert.hoggarth at icann.org > > Kind regards, > Glen > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Jan 14 22:42:40 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:42:40 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft Comment Summary & Analysis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56980840.30105@mail.utoronto.ca> Colleagues, I know we are busy, but I feel I have to respond to this wretched WHOIS conflicts with law mess yet again. Can someone explain to me what happened to the NCSG comments, did we never send them, or what? I note that they listed a spam letter but not our comments on the official comments page, and I thought in the end we got them in or were going to beg forbearance for being late. Either way, they dont mention my dissenting appendix, so I shall join Christopher in expressing my indignation etc etc.... Cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Fwd: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft Comment Summary & Analysis Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:19:52 +0100 From: Christopher Wilkinson To: Stephanie Perrin , Carlton Samuels , HOLLY RAICHE CC: Alan Greenberg , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Good afternoon: How do we propose to respond to this? I note that one has to get to page 12 before any of the At Large points are raised. The document concludes: << The comments do not appear to support any significant changes to the current Whois Conflicts Procedure.>> Sic. For my part, I do not accept that the 2005 policy is based on a 'consensus' nor that my Appendix is a 'minority opinion' (In haste, with many other obligations in the next few days ) CW Begin forwarded message: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comments Summary on IAG Initial Report Whois Conflicts Procedure final.doc Type: application/msword Size: 142336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Fri Jan 15 15:03:03 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 08:03:03 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested Message-ID: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> Chair Amr, all, I need some guidance from the PC on the following issue so I can properly represent our views on Council and on the Council CCWG sub-team: Do we support requiring ICANN to keep its headquarters in California? If so, should it be almost impossible to change this requirement or just pretty hard? Thanks for weighing in. I can argue both sides and really am ambivalent. It would be helpful to me to know what those on the PC think. Thanks for considering, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy Fri Jan 15 15:08:34 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 08:08:34 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested In-Reply-To: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> References: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> Message-ID: <5698EF52.9070704@kathykleiman.com> Hi Ed, Tx for asking. I think keeping ICANN's headquarters in California is a critical element for acceptance by the US Congress and government. Best, Kathy On 1/15/2016 8:03 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > Chair Amr, all, > I need some guidance from the PC on the following issue so I can > properly represent our views on Council and on the Council CCWG sub-team: > Do we support requiring ICANN to keep its headquarters in California? > If so, should it be almost impossible to change this requirement or > just pretty hard? > Thanks for weighing in. I can argue both sides and really am > ambivalent. It would be helpful to me to know what those on the PC think. > Thanks for considering, > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears Fri Jan 15 15:15:16 2016 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:15:16 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested In-Reply-To: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> References: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> Message-ID: <5698F0E4.90600@cdt.org> Yes to keeping the corporate and business ICANN with its contractual relationships in California. Whether the locus of the policy-making/IANA functions need to stay in California is less clear... No one has yet come up with a credible option to having ICANN anywhere else so I don't see a near term alternative. It should be very hard/but not impossible to change this (it has many implications). On 15/01/2016 13:03, Edward Morris wrote: > Chair Amr, all, > I need some guidance from the PC on the following issue so I can > properly represent our views on Council and on the Council CCWG sub-team: > Do we support requiring ICANN to keep its headquarters in California? > If so, should it be almost impossible to change this requirement or > just pretty hard? > Thanks for weighing in. I can argue both sides and really am > ambivalent. It would be helpful to me to know what those on the PC think. > Thanks for considering, > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Fri Jan 15 15:41:08 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:41:08 -0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested In-Reply-To: <5698F0E4.90600@cdt.org> References: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> <5698F0E4.90600@cdt.org> Message-ID: Hi Ed, I agree with Kathy that trying to change it would be a deal breaker. But I think that the fairest solution is to leave the organisation and the community in the years to come as free as possible to make decisions, including about headquarter. I would be against making an explicit request to keep the headquarters in CA and/or including barriers to make a change in the future. Thanks Mar?lia On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Yes to keeping the corporate and business ICANN with its contractual > relationships in California. Whether the locus of the policy-making/IANA > functions need to stay in California is less clear... No one has yet come > up with a credible option to having ICANN anywhere else so I don't see a > near term alternative. It should be very hard/but not impossible to change > this (it has many implications). > > > On 15/01/2016 13:03, Edward Morris wrote: > > Chair Amr, all, > > > I need some guidance from the PC on the following issue so I can properly > represent our views on Council and on the Council CCWG sub-team: > > > Do we support requiring ICANN to keep its headquarters in California? > > If so, should it be almost impossible to change this requirement or just > pretty hard? > > > Thanks for weighing in. I can argue both sides and really am ambivalent. > It would be helpful to me to know what those on the PC think. > > Thanks for considering, > > Ed > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -- > > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987 > > > This > email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. > www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Fri Jan 15 16:08:13 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:08:13 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested In-Reply-To: <5698F0E4.90600@cdt.org> References: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> <5698F0E4.90600@cdt.org> Message-ID: <20160115140812.GA19516@tarvainen.info> Yes, as much as I'd like to move the HQ to at least somewhere with a decent climate like Alaska, for practical purposes I agree it'd definitely be more than "pretty hard", more like somewhere between "really, really hard" and "practically impossible" to move away from California. On general principles it'd be nice to have at least theoretical possibility open for moving it, but whether that'd be worth fighting for, I don't know. Tapani On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:15:16PM +0000, Matthew Shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote: > > Yes to keeping the corporate and business ICANN with its contractual > relationships in California. Whether the locus of the policy-making/IANA > functions need to stay in California is less clear... No one has yet come > up with a credible option to having ICANN anywhere else so I don't see a > near term alternative. It should be very hard/but not impossible to change > this (it has many implications). > > On 15/01/2016 13:03, Edward Morris wrote: > >Chair Amr, all, > >I need some guidance from the PC on the following issue so I can properly > >represent our views on Council and on the Council CCWG sub-team: > >Do we support requiring ICANN to keep its headquarters in California? > >If so, should it be almost impossible to change this requirement or just > >pretty hard? > >Thanks for weighing in. I can argue both sides and really am ambivalent. > >It would be helpful to me to know what those on the PC think. > >Thanks for considering, > >Ed > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >PC-NCSG mailing list > >PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- > > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology > mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 -- Tapani Tarvainen From egmorris1 Fri Jan 15 16:34:30 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:34:30 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT Message-ID: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> Hi everybody, Sorry to bother you again. The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to aggressively represent our members. Should we send a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of age diversity of selectees. I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is it the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. Best, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bc-cct-to-chehade-schneider-11jan16-en.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 211440 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Fri Jan 15 16:35:26 2016 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:35:26 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested In-Reply-To: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> References: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> Message-ID: <569903AE.70904@acm.org> Hi, Remaining a California Corp is one of the sacred cows. Any mention of moving it brings rapid response from the business oriented voices and the claim that without this the Us congress would never accept and thus NTIA could not approve. I think it is unfortunate, don't support it, but think of it as a battle that isn't worth fighting because it can't be won at this point in time, I tried arguing against it at an ealrier point and got nowhere. At some future date, after ICANN vassalage to the US Gov't ends it may be possible to think about this and then deal with the bylaws if necessary. avri On 15-Jan-16 08:03, Edward Morris wrote: > Chair Amr, all, > > > I need some guidance from the PC on the following issue so I can > properly represent our views on Council and on the Council CCWG sub-team: > > > Do we support requiring ICANN to keep its headquarters in California? > > If so, should it be almost impossible to change this requirement or > just pretty hard? > > > Thanks for weighing in. I can argue both sides and really am > ambivalent. It would be helpful to me to know what those on the PC think. > > Thanks for considering, > > Ed > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From mariliamaciel Fri Jan 15 16:41:38 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:41:38 -0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> Message-ID: H Ed, I think we should send a letter along the lines you proposed. Even if it just becomes an argument for the chairs to object any expansion on the grounds that if they do every group will present requests. Worth trying. Thanks for raising. Mar?lia On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi everybody, > > Sorry to bother you again. > > The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another > commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. > Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. > > NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. > > Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process > that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to > aggressively represent our members. > > Should we send a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack > of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack > of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon > the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of > age diversity of selectees. > > I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is it the EC or > PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented > on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. > > Best, > > Ed > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears Fri Jan 15 16:47:17 2016 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:47:17 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> Message-ID: <56990675.7080907@cdt.org> Agree. On 15/01/2016 14:41, Marilia Maciel wrote: > H Ed, > > I think we should send a letter along the lines you proposed. Even if > it just becomes an argument for the chairs to object any expansion on > the grounds that if they do every group will present requests. Worth > trying. > > Thanks for raising. > Mar?lia > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Edward Morris > wrote: > > Hi everybody, > Sorry to bother you again. > The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet > another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing > gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is > attached. > NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. > Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the > process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our > responsibility to aggressively represent our members. > Should we send a similar letter citing both gender diversity and > the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with > the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the > stronger candidate based upon the underrepresentation both of the > noncommercial community and the lack of age diversity of selectees. > I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is it the > EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously > underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. > Best, > Ed > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Fri Jan 15 16:54:40 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:54:40 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> Message-ID: <20160115145439.GA22111@tarvainen.info> Hi Ed, I agree on both counts: don't really like this kinds of process bypass in principle, but if BC is doing it, we should too. As for EC vs. PC, I'd tend to think PC would be more appropriate (without digging into our charter). Tapani On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:34:30AM -0500, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > Hi everybody, > > Sorry to bother you again. > > The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another > commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. > Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. > > NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. > > Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process > that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to > aggressively represent our members. > > Should we send a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack > of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack > of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon > the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of > age diversity of selectees. > > I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is it the EC or > PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented > on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. > > Best, > > Ed > > > From Stefania.Milan Fri Jan 15 17:13:06 2016 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:13:06 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <20160115145439.GA22111@tarvainen.info> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net>, <20160115145439.GA22111@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi Ed, thanks for pointing this out. Gender balance/representativity should be a concern at the onset (i.e. when you select representatives), not an excuse to get away with expansions. Pointing out the process bypasses should then in principle granted to everyone would probably be a strong-enough argument stefi ________________________________________ Da: PC-NCSG per conto di Tapani Tarvainen Inviato: venerd? 15 gennaio 2016 15.54 A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCT Hi Ed, I agree on both counts: don't really like this kinds of process bypass in principle, but if BC is doing it, we should too. As for EC vs. PC, I'd tend to think PC would be more appropriate (without digging into our charter). Tapani On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:34:30AM -0500, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > Hi everybody, > > Sorry to bother you again. > > The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another > commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. > Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. > > NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. > > Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process > that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to > aggressively represent our members. > > Should we send a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack > of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack > of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon > the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of > age diversity of selectees. > > I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is it the EC or > PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented > on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. > > Best, > > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From kathy Fri Jan 15 17:59:53 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:59:53 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> Message-ID: <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If the BC can do it, we should too... Best, K On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi everybody, > Sorry to bother you again. > The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet > another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender > diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. > NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. > Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the > process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our > responsibility to aggressively represent our members. > Should we send a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the > lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on > the lack of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger > candidate based upon the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial > community and the lack of age diversity of selectees. > I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is it the EC > or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously > underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. > Best, > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Fri Jan 15 18:04:42 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:04:42 -0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Thanks for this reflection, Kathy. Not getting Jeremy was the main reason of our real frustration, I think. Let's stay true to that. M On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT - a > real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If the BC can do > it, we should too... > Best, > K > > > On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > Sorry to bother you again. > > The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another > commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. > Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. > > NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. > > Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process > that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to > aggressively represent our members. > > Should we send a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack > of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack > of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon > the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of > age diversity of selectees. > > I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is it the EC or > PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented > on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. > > Best, > > Ed > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Jan 15 18:06:46 2016 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 01:06:46 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested In-Reply-To: <569903AE.70904@acm.org> References: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> <569903AE.70904@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi , I agree with Avri and I thought that many of recommendations were designed assuming california law. Best, Rafik 2016-01-15 23:35 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > Remaining a California Corp is one of the sacred cows. Any mention of > moving it brings rapid response from the business oriented voices and > the claim that without this the Us congress would never accept and thus > NTIA could not approve. > > I think it is unfortunate, don't support it, but think of it as a battle > that isn't worth fighting because it can't be won at this point in time, > I tried arguing against it at an ealrier point and got nowhere. At some > future date, after ICANN vassalage to the US Gov't ends it may be > possible to think about this and then deal with the bylaws if necessary. > > avri > > On 15-Jan-16 08:03, Edward Morris wrote: > > Chair Amr, all, > > > > > > I need some guidance from the PC on the following issue so I can > > properly represent our views on Council and on the Council CCWG sub-team: > > > > > > Do we support requiring ICANN to keep its headquarters in California? > > > > If so, should it be almost impossible to change this requirement or > > just pretty hard? > > > > > > Thanks for weighing in. I can argue both sides and really am > > ambivalent. It would be helpful to me to know what those on the PC think. > > > > Thanks for considering, > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Fri Jan 15 18:10:04 2016 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:10:04 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested In-Reply-To: <5698F0E4.90600@cdt.org> References: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> <5698F0E4.90600@cdt.org> Message-ID: <884D4CC5-7774-473B-8F2F-98D9AAA95D3A@gmail.com> change is inconceivable at present BD > On Jan 15, 2016, at 14:15, Matthew Shears wrote: > > > Yes to keeping the corporate and business ICANN with its contractual relationships in California. Whether the locus of the policy-making/IANA functions need to stay in California is less clear... No one has yet come up with a credible option to having ICANN anywhere else so I don't see a near term alternative. It should be very hard/but not impossible to change this (it has many implications). > > On 15/01/2016 13:03, Edward Morris wrote: >> Chair Amr, all, >> >> >> I need some guidance from the PC on the following issue so I can properly represent our views on Council and on the Council CCWG sub-team: >> >> >> Do we support requiring ICANN to keep its headquarters in California? >> >> If so, should it be almost impossible to change this requirement or just pretty hard? >> >> >> Thanks for weighing in. I can argue both sides and really am ambivalent. It would be helpful to me to know what those on the PC think. >> >> Thanks for considering, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- > > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology > mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 > This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. > www.avast.com _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Fri Jan 15 18:23:05 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:23:05 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Kathy, What's the hook? Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If we send another female they probably won't change anything or they could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too many men... Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was correct and taking the female? Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If the BC can do it, we should too... > Best, > K > >> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> ? >> Sorry to bother you again. >> ? >> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. >> ? >> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. >> ? >> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to aggressively represent our members. >> ? >> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of age diversity of selectees. >> ? >> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. >> ? >> Best, >> ? >> Ed >> ? >> ? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Jan 15 20:46:50 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:46:50 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <56993E9A.6080902@mail.utoronto.ca> who are they putting forward? KIran Manchuravil? SP On 2016-01-15 11:23, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi Kathy, > > What's the hook? > > Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come > up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... > > My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If > we send another female they probably won't change anything or they > could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too > many men... > > Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or > that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was > correct and taking the female? > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > >> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT - >> a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If the >> BC can do it, we should too... >> Best, >> K >> >> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >>> Hi everybody, >>> ? >>> Sorry to bother you again. >>> ? >>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet >>> another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing >>> gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is >>> attached. >>> ? >>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. >>> ? >>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the >>> process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our >>> responsibility to aggressively represent our members. >>> ? >>> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender diversity and >>> the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the >>> BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the >>> stronger candidate based upon the underrepresentation both of the >>> noncommercial community and the lack of age diversity of selectees. >>> ? >>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it the >>> EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously >>> underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. >>> ? >>> Best, >>> ? >>> Ed >>> ? >>> ? >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: From egmorris1 Fri Jan 15 21:22:41 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:22:41 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <56993E9A.6080902@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> <56993E9A.6080902@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, On a bus - brief answer. Just check the attachment on my problem am post. It has all the details of the BC proposal. Thanks, Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Jan 2016, at 18:47, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > who are they putting forward?? KIran Manchuravil? > SP > >> On 2016-01-15 11:23, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi Kathy, >> >> What's the hook? >> >> Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... >> >> My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If we send another female they probably won't change anything or they could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too many men... >> >> Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was correct and ? taking the female? >> >> Ed? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >>> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If the BC can do it, we should too... >>> Best, >>> K >>> >>>> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>> Hi everybody, >>>> ??? >>>> Sorry to bother you again. >>>> ??? >>>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. >>>> ??? >>>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. >>>> ??? >>>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to aggressively represent our members. >>>> ??? >>>> Should we send ??? a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of age diversity of selectees. >>>> ??? >>>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ??? it the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. >>>> ??? >>>> Best, >>>> ??? >>>> Ed >>>> ??? >>>> ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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: From lanfran Sat Jan 16 05:43:17 2016 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 22:43:17 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested In-Reply-To: <569903AE.70904@acm.org> References: <6c6d9d527c0e4f129b977495300d2a01@toast.net> <569903AE.70904@acm.org> Message-ID: <5699BC55.6090406@yorku.ca> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Sat Jan 16 11:15:10 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:15:10 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> I'm afraid Ed is right here: we don't have a good case for pushing Jeremy at this point, but if we advocate Stacie we might succeed in either getting her in or blocking a BC candidate. Would someone have the time to write it up? Tapani On Jan 15 16:23, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > Hi Kathy, > > What's the hook? > > Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... > > My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If we send another female they probably won't change anything or they could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too many men... > > Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was correct and taking the female? > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > > > I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If the BC can do it, we should too... > > Best, > > K > > > >> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > >> Hi everybody, > >> ? > >> Sorry to bother you again. > >> ? > >> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. > >> ? > >> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. > >> ? > >> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to aggressively represent our members. > >> ? > >> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of age diversity of selectees. > >> ? > >> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. > >> ? > >> Best, > >> ? > >> Ed > >> ? > >> ? From stephanie.perrin Sat Jan 16 19:43:57 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:43:57 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> I think we have an excellent case for Jeremy.....show me the other consumer advocates on the list. Stacy is very green to be thrown into this fight if you ask me. She may be excellent but this is going to be heavy hitting, I dont think it is quite fair when we have noone there besides Carlos and possibly Carlton to support her. Stephanie On 2016-01-16 4:15, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > I'm afraid Ed is right here: we don't have a good case for > pushing Jeremy at this point, but if we advocate Stacie > we might succeed in either getting her in or blocking > a BC candidate. > > Would someone have the time to write it up? > > Tapani > > On Jan 15 16:23, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > >> Hi Kathy, >> >> What's the hook? >> >> Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... >> >> My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If we send another female they probably won't change anything or they could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too many men... >> >> Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was correct and taking the female? >> >> Ed >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> >>> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If the BC can do it, we should too... >>> Best, >>> K >>> >>>> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>> Hi everybody, >>>> ? >>>> Sorry to bother you again. >>>> ? >>>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is attached. >>>> ? >>>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. >>>> ? >>>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to aggressively represent our members. >>>> ? >>>> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of age diversity of selectees. >>>> ? >>>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful. >>>> ? >>>> Best, >>>> ? >>>> Ed >>>> ? >>>> ? > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From lanfran Sat Jan 16 19:50:09 2016 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:50:09 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <569A82D1.9060108@yorku.ca> Having attended a meeting or two of this group early on I strongly agree that there is a need for heavy hitters advocating the interests of consumers here. All the discussion I heard was around optimal business strategies, and business protection. Sam L. On 16/01/2016 12:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I think we have an excellent case for Jeremy.....show me the other > consumer advocates on the list. Stacy is very green to be thrown into > this fight if you ask me. She may be excellent but this is going to > be heavy hitting, I dont think it is quite fair when we have noone > there besides Carlos and possibly Carlton to support her. > Stephanie > > On 2016-01-16 4:15, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> I'm afraid Ed is right here: we don't have a good case for >> pushing Jeremy at this point, but if we advocate Stacie >> we might succeed in either getting her in or blocking >> a BC candidate. >> >> Would someone have the time to write it up? >> >> Tapani >> >> On Jan 15 16:23, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: >> >>> Hi Kathy, >>> >>> What's the hook? >>> >>> Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come >>> up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... >>> >>> My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If >>> we send another female they probably won't change anything or they >>> could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too >>> many men... >>> >>> Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or >>> that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was >>> correct and taking the female? >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT >>>> - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If >>>> the BC can do it, we should too... >>>> Best, >>>> K >>>> >>>>> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>>> Hi everybody, >>>>> ? >>>>> Sorry to bother you again. >>>>> ? >>>>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet >>>>> another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing >>>>> gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is >>>>> attached. >>>>> ? >>>>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. >>>>> ? >>>>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the >>>>> process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our >>>>> responsibility to aggressively represent our members. >>>>> ? >>>>> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender >>>>> diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. >>>>> we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe >>>>> Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the >>>>> underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the >>>>> lack of age diversity of selectees. >>>>> ? >>>>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it >>>>> the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are >>>>> seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is >>>>> successful. >>>>> ? >>>>> Best, >>>>> ? >>>>> Ed >>>>> ? >>>>> ? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 From avri Sat Jan 16 19:56:59 2016 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:56:59 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <569A846B.5050003@acm.org> Any chance he could be added as a expert? avri On 16-Jan-16 12:43, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I think we have an excellent case for Jeremy.....show me the other > consumer advocates on the list. Stacy is very green to be thrown into > this fight if you ask me. She may be excellent but this is going to > be heavy hitting, I dont think it is quite fair when we have noone > there besides Carlos and possibly Carlton to support her. > Stephanie > > On 2016-01-16 4:15, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> I'm afraid Ed is right here: we don't have a good case for >> pushing Jeremy at this point, but if we advocate Stacie >> we might succeed in either getting her in or blocking >> a BC candidate. >> >> Would someone have the time to write it up? >> >> Tapani >> >> On Jan 15 16:23, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: >> >>> Hi Kathy, >>> >>> What's the hook? >>> >>> Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come >>> up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... >>> >>> My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If >>> we send another female they probably won't change anything or they >>> could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too >>> many men... >>> >>> Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or >>> that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was >>> correct and taking the female? >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT >>>> - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If >>>> the BC can do it, we should too... >>>> Best, >>>> K >>>> >>>>> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>>> Hi everybody, >>>>> ? >>>>> Sorry to bother you again. >>>>> ? >>>>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet >>>>> another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing >>>>> gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is >>>>> attached. >>>>> ? >>>>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. >>>>> ? >>>>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the >>>>> process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our >>>>> responsibility to aggressively represent our members. >>>>> ? >>>>> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender >>>>> diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. >>>>> we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe >>>>> Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the >>>>> underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the >>>>> lack of age diversity of selectees. >>>>> ? >>>>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it >>>>> the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are >>>>> seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is >>>>> successful. >>>>> ? >>>>> Best, >>>>> ? >>>>> Ed >>>>> ? >>>>> ? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 stephanie.perrin Sat Jan 16 20:01:05 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:01:05 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <569A846B.5050003@acm.org> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> <569A846B.5050003@acm.org> Message-ID: <569A8561.8050209@mail.utoronto.ca> Good idea.... how do we do that...same deal, wrtie a letter I guess... we can do a copy job of theirs.... SP On 2016-01-16 12:56, Avri Doria wrote: > Any chance he could be added as a expert? > > avri > > > On 16-Jan-16 12:43, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> I think we have an excellent case for Jeremy.....show me the other >> consumer advocates on the list. Stacy is very green to be thrown into >> this fight if you ask me. She may be excellent but this is going to >> be heavy hitting, I dont think it is quite fair when we have noone >> there besides Carlos and possibly Carlton to support her. >> Stephanie >> >> On 2016-01-16 4:15, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> I'm afraid Ed is right here: we don't have a good case for >>> pushing Jeremy at this point, but if we advocate Stacie >>> we might succeed in either getting her in or blocking >>> a BC candidate. >>> >>> Would someone have the time to write it up? >>> >>> Tapani >>> >>> On Jan 15 16:23, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Kathy, >>>> >>>> What's the hook? >>>> >>>> Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come >>>> up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... >>>> >>>> My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If >>>> we send another female they probably won't change anything or they >>>> could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too >>>> many men... >>>> >>>> Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or >>>> that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was >>>> correct and taking the female? >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT >>>>> - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If >>>>> the BC can do it, we should too... >>>>> Best, >>>>> K >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>>>> Hi everybody, >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Sorry to bother you again. >>>>>> ? >>>>>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet >>>>>> another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing >>>>>> gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is >>>>>> attached. >>>>>> ? >>>>>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the >>>>>> process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our >>>>>> responsibility to aggressively represent our members. >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender >>>>>> diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. >>>>>> we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe >>>>>> Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the >>>>>> underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the >>>>>> lack of age diversity of selectees. >>>>>> ? >>>>>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it >>>>>> the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are >>>>>> seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is >>>>>> successful. >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> ? >>>>>> ? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From egmorris1 Sat Jan 16 20:17:47 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <569A846B.5050003@acm.org> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> <569A846B.5050003@acm.org> Message-ID: I'm going to take this as a "no" to attempting to combat the BC attempt to subvert the approved progress and get one of their members selected on the basis of gender diversity. Feel free to write to Steve and Thomas and tell them they screwed up ideologically in the initial selection. Good luck with that. I will bluntly state that one of the problems with Jeremy's application is his paperwork wasn't in order by the deadline (I don't know why: it doesn't really matter) and his motivation statement was IMHO quite poor in comparison to many others. Compare it to those selected, such as Carlos. Were I a neutral, I would not have chosen him on the basis of the quality of his application. Yes, he has the background and the knowledge and the skills to be a superior CCT member. It's a shame his application did not demonstrate that. I have no idea why anyone would respond to my initial post by saying let's nominate Jeremy. My post was a specific proposal to counter the BC effort. If they want to open the door to adding women to balance the gender composition of the CCT I wanted a female candidate from our community to be considered along with another BC candidate. Jeremy is male. Frankly, I viewed our proposed letter as more of an effort to block an additional CSG member from being chosen for CCT as it was an effort to actually an effort to get one of ours on. Chose two women or chose none. I'll fully support anyone who wants to write a letter to Steve and Thomas suggesting that Jeremy should be added to the CCT for reasons of ideological diversity or as an expert. In my view, that would be a complete waste of time but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. If we do nothing and the CSG gets a female member added due to diversity this PC will have once again failed our membership on this entire CCT selection process. So be it. I'm only 1 of 11. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Avri Doria" Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 5:57 PM To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCT Any chance he could be added as a expert? avri On 16-Jan-16 12:43, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I think we have an excellent case for Jeremy.....show me the other > consumer advocates on the list. Stacy is very green to be thrown into > this fight if you ask me. She may be excellent but this is going to > be heavy hitting, I dont think it is quite fair when we have noone > there besides Carlos and possibly Carlton to support her. > Stephanie > > On 2016-01-16 4:15, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> I'm afraid Ed is right here: we don't have a good case for >> pushing Jeremy at this point, but if we advocate Stacie >> we might succeed in either getting her in or blocking >> a BC candidate. >> >> Would someone have the time to write it up? >> >> Tapani >> >> On Jan 15 16:23, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: >> >>> Hi Kathy, >>> >>> What's the hook? >>> >>> Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come >>> up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... >>> >>> My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If >>> we send another female they probably won't change anything or they >>> could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too >>> many men... >>> >>> Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or >>> that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was >>> correct and taking the female? >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT >>>> - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If >>>> the BC can do it, we should too... >>>> Best, >>>> K >>>> >>>>> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>>> Hi everybody, >>>>> ? >>>>> Sorry to bother you again. >>>>> ? >>>>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet >>>>> another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing >>>>> gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is >>>>> attached. >>>>> ? >>>>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. >>>>> ? >>>>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the >>>>> process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our >>>>> responsibility to aggressively represent our members. >>>>> ? >>>>> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender >>>>> diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. >>>>> we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe >>>>> Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the >>>>> underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the >>>>> lack of age diversity of selectees. >>>>> ? >>>>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it >>>>> the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are >>>>> seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is >>>>> successful. >>>>> ? >>>>> Best, >>>>> ? >>>>> Ed >>>>> ? >>>>> ? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sat Jan 16 20:25:11 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> <569A846B.5050003@acm.org> Message-ID: <569A8B07.7090603@mail.utoronto.ca> Calm down Ed, we are just looking at it from a different perspective, that of them ignoring proven consumer advocacy experience. I agree his application was weak, but I doubt that his performance would be. We have yet to figure out why they did not receive his material.....an interesting question. I don't actually like playing the gender card, but that is just me. I do feel we should let Stacie hang around ICANN a while before throwing her in off the deep end. cheers Steph On 2016-01-16 13:17, Edward Morris wrote: > I'm going to take this as a "no" to attempting to combat the BC > attempt to subvert the approved progress and get one of their members > selected on the basis of gender diversity. > Feel free to write to Steve and Thomas and tell them they screwed up > ideologically in the initial selection. Good luck with that. I will > bluntly state that one of the problems with Jeremy's application is > his paperwork wasn't in order by the deadline (I don't know why: it > doesn't really matter) and his motivation statement was IMHO quite > poor in comparison to many others. Compare it to those selected, such > as Carlos. Were I a neutral, I would not have chosen him on the basis > of the quality of his application. Yes, he has the background and the > knowledge and the skills to be a superior CCT member. It's a shame his > application did not demonstrate that. > I have no idea why anyone would respond to my initial post by saying > let's nominate Jeremy. My post was a specific proposal to counter the > BC effort. If they want to open the door to adding women to balance > the gender composition of the CCT I wanted a female candidate from our > community to be considered along with another BC candidate. Jeremy is > male. Frankly, I viewed our proposed letter as more of an effort to > block an additional CSG member from being chosen for CCT as it was an > effort to actually an effort to get one of ours on. Chose two women or > chose none. > I'll fully support anyone who wants to write a letter to Steve and > Thomas suggesting that Jeremy should be added to the CCT for reasons > of ideological diversity or as an expert. In my view, that would be a > complete waste of time but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. If we do > nothing and the CSG gets a female member added due to diversity this > PC will have once again failed our membership on this entire CCT > selection process. So be it. I'm only 1 of 11. > Best, > Ed > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Avri Doria" > *Sent*: Saturday, January 16, 2016 5:57 PM > *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCT > Any chance he could be added as a expert? > > avri > > > On 16-Jan-16 12:43, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I think we have an excellent case for Jeremy.....show me the other > > consumer advocates on the list. Stacy is very green to be thrown into > > this fight if you ask me. She may be excellent but this is going to > > be heavy hitting, I dont think it is quite fair when we have noone > > there besides Carlos and possibly Carlton to support her. > > Stephanie > > > > On 2016-01-16 4:15, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> I'm afraid Ed is right here: we don't have a good case for > >> pushing Jeremy at this point, but if we advocate Stacie > >> we might succeed in either getting her in or blocking > >> a BC candidate. > >> > >> Would someone have the time to write it up? > >> > >> Tapani > >> > >> On Jan 15 16:23, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Kathy, > >>> > >>> What's the hook? > >>> > >>> Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come > >>> up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... > >>> > >>> My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If > >>> we send another female they probably won't change anything or they > >>> could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too > >>> many men... > >>> > >>> Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or > >>> that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was > >>> correct and taking the female? > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT > >>>> - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If > >>>> the BC can do it, we should too... > >>>> Best, > >>>> K > >>>> > >>>>> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > >>>>> Hi everybody, > >>>>> ? > >>>>> Sorry to bother you again. > >>>>> ? > >>>>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet > >>>>> another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing > >>>>> gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is > >>>>> attached. > >>>>> ? > >>>>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. > >>>>> ? > >>>>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the > >>>>> process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our > >>>>> responsibility to aggressively represent our members. > >>>>> ? > >>>>> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender > >>>>> diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. > >>>>> we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe > >>>>> Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the > >>>>> underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the > >>>>> lack of age diversity of selectees. > >>>>> ? > >>>>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it > >>>>> the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are > >>>>> seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is > >>>>> successful. > >>>>> ? > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> ? > >>>>> Ed > >>>>> ? > >>>>> ? > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Sat Jan 16 20:44:35 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:44:35 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: <569A8B07.7090603@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> <569A846B.5050003@acm.org> <569A8B07.7090603@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <20160116184435.GB1610@tarvainen.info> Hi Stephanie, While I don't like the gender card much either, now that BC has played it already, should we just let them get away with it? I can't see any effective alternative countermove to offering our own female candidate, however much we might prefer Jeremy. Trying to play with Jeremy's lost/delayed paperwork does not make for a strong hand in this game, I'm afraid, and saying there's no strong consumer advocate in the group may even be counterproductive. But I've been wrong before, and won't stop you or anybody else from trying to restart the fight for Jeremy. Tapani On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 01:25:11PM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > Calm down Ed, we are just looking at it from a different perspective, that > of them ignoring proven consumer advocacy experience. I agree his > application was weak, but I doubt that his performance would be. We have > yet to figure out why they did not receive his material.....an interesting > question. > I don't actually like playing the gender card, but that is just me. I do > feel we should let Stacie hang around ICANN a while before throwing her in > off the deep end. > cheers Steph > > On 2016-01-16 13:17, Edward Morris wrote: > >I'm going to take this as a "no" to attempting to combat the BC attempt to > >subvert the approved progress and get one of their members selected on the > >basis of gender diversity. > >Feel free to write to Steve and Thomas and tell them they screwed up > >ideologically in the initial selection. Good luck with that. I will > >bluntly state that one of the problems with Jeremy's application is his > >paperwork wasn't in order by the deadline (I don't know why: it doesn't > >really matter) and his motivation statement was IMHO quite poor in > >comparison to many others. Compare it to those selected, such as Carlos. > >Were I a neutral, I would not have chosen him on the basis of the quality > >of his application. Yes, he has the background and the knowledge and the > >skills to be a superior CCT member. It's a shame his application did not > >demonstrate that. > >I have no idea why anyone would respond to my initial post by saying let's > >nominate Jeremy. My post was a specific proposal to counter the BC effort. > >If they want to open the door to adding women to balance the gender > >composition of the CCT I wanted a female candidate from our community to > >be considered along with another BC candidate. Jeremy is male. Frankly, I > >viewed our proposed letter as more of an effort to block an additional CSG > >member from being chosen for CCT as it was an effort to actually an effort > >to get one of ours on. Chose two women or chose none. > >I'll fully support anyone who wants to write a letter to Steve and Thomas > >suggesting that Jeremy should be added to the CCT for reasons of > >ideological diversity or as an expert. In my view, that would be a > >complete waste of time but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. If we do > >nothing and the CSG gets a female member added due to diversity this PC > >will have once again failed our membership on this entire CCT selection > >process. So be it. I'm only 1 of 11. > >Best, > >Ed > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >*From*: "Avri Doria" > >*Sent*: Saturday, January 16, 2016 5:57 PM > >*To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > >*Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCT > >Any chance he could be added as a expert? > > > >avri > > > > > >On 16-Jan-16 12:43, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> I think we have an excellent case for Jeremy.....show me the other > >> consumer advocates on the list. Stacy is very green to be thrown into > >> this fight if you ask me. She may be excellent but this is going to > >> be heavy hitting, I dont think it is quite fair when we have noone > >> there besides Carlos and possibly Carlton to support her. > >> Stephanie > >> > >> On 2016-01-16 4:15, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >>> I'm afraid Ed is right here: we don't have a good case for > >>> pushing Jeremy at this point, but if we advocate Stacie > >>> we might succeed in either getting her in or blocking > >>> a BC candidate. > >>> > >>> Would someone have the time to write it up? > >>> > >>> Tapani > >>> > >>> On Jan 15 16:23, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Kathy, > >>>> > >>>> What's the hook? > >>>> > >>>> Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come > >>>> up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but... > >>>> > >>>> My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If > >>>> we send another female they probably won't change anything or they > >>>> could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too > >>>> many men... > >>>> > >>>> Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or > >>>> that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was > >>>> correct and taking the female? > >>>> > >>>> Ed > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>> > >>>>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT > >>>>> - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If > >>>>> the BC can do it, we should too... > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> K > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > >>>>>> Hi everybody, > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> Sorry to bother you again. > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet > >>>>>> another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing > >>>>>> gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is > >>>>>> attached. > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties. > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the > >>>>>> process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our > >>>>>> responsibility to aggressively represent our members. > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender > >>>>>> diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. > >>>>>> we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe > >>>>>> Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the > >>>>>> underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the > >>>>>> lack of age diversity of selectees. > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it > >>>>>> the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are > >>>>>> seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is > >>>>>> successful. > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> Ed > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> ? From avri Sat Jan 16 22:01:50 2016 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 15:01:50 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCT In-Reply-To: References: <64b77818cde6478fa8ff025eb5e7df44@toast.net> <56991779.3070101@kathykleiman.com> <20160116091509.GA9985@roller.tarvainen.info> <569A815D.8030200@mail.utoronto.ca> <569A846B.5050003@acm.org> Message-ID: <569AA1AE.1040504@acm.org> On 16-Jan-16 13:17, Edward Morris wrote: > I'm only 1 of 11. i am only 0 of 11, so feel free to ignore my suggestion. If gender diversity is the issue then another woman, even from the BC is a good solution. If expertise and political perspective is the issue, then doing something to help Jeremy makes sense. Unless of course we have a female expert with his sort of organizational strength behind them whose application was rejected. If it just competition with the BC, then I don't have anything to suggest. avri avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From kathy Mon Jan 18 21:13:12 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:13:12 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of work coming onto the GNSO table. Message-ID: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Mon Jan 18 21:15:50 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:15:50 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of work coming onto the GNSO table. In-Reply-To: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com> References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <569D39E6.2000008@mail.utoronto.ca> I agree. Steph On 2016-01-18 14:13, 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: From kathy Tue Jan 19 04:59:58 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 21:59:58 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of work coming onto the GNSO table. In-Reply-To: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com> References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue Jan 19 14:52:18 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:52:18 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of work coming onto the GNSO table. In-Reply-To: <569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com> References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com> <569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: 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 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 Tue Jan 19 17:17:28 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:17:28 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of work coming onto the GNSO table. In-Reply-To: References: <569D3948.5060800@kathykleiman.com> <569DA6AE.6000208@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <569E5388.50803@kathykleiman.com> 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 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 Wed Jan 20 00:07:14 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:07:14 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 References: Message-ID: FYI... An updated agenda for Thursday's Council call. Ed Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: 19 January 2016 at 21:52:50 GMT > To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" > Subject: [council] Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 > > Dear Councillors, > > Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016. > This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures, approved and updated on 24 June 2015. > > For convenience: > ? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. > ? An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. > > Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC > http://tinyurl.com/zjkmew8 > > 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 23:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart Friday 22 January > > GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast > To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. > ___________________________________________ > > Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) > 1.1 ? Roll call > 1.2 ? Updates to Statements of Interest > 1.3 ? Review/amend agenda. > 1.4 ? Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: > > Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 2016 > > Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) > 2.1 ? Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List > Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) > > Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION ? Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) > This PDP had been requested by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN?s implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Consideration of this item was deferred from the 17 December meeting. Here the Council will review the Working Group?s Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it. > 4.1 ? Presentation of the motion (James Bladel) > 4.2 ? Discussion > 4.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House) > > Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION ? Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes) > In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO?s policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. During its meeting on 17 December, the Council initiated the PDP but deferred consideration of the Charter for the PDP Working Group to this meeting. Here the Council will review the revised charter for adoption. > 5.1 ? Presentation of the motion (Donna Austin) > 5.2 ? Discussion > 5.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) > > Item 6: Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 minutes) > In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 11 January 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to the review Rights Protection Mechanisms in the new gTLDs and, in a subsequent, second phase, review the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the review topics are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter. > 6.1 ? Presentation of the motion (Amr Elsadr) > 6.2 ? Discussion > 6.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) > > Item 7: Vote on motion ? Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes) > > In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. > In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015. The comment period closed on 21 December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. > > Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) ? the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue ? announced after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention. > In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this response to the CCWG-Accountability. > 7.1 ? Presentation of the motion (James Bladel) > 7.2 ? Discussion > 7.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) > > Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion ? Marrakesh Meeting Planning (10 minutes) > During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakesh and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council. > 8.1 ? Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) > 8.2 ? Discussion > 8.3 ? Next steps > > Item 9: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) > > _________________________________ > Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) > 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: > a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. > b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. > c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. > d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. > e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. > f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. > g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. > h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. > i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, > j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. > k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. > l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." > > Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) > 4.4.1 Applicability > Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. > a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); > b. Approve a PDP recommendation; > c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; > d. Fill a Council position open for election. > 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. > 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. > 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) > > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 > Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 > San Jos?, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 15:00 > Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 15:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 > Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 19:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00 > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 > Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 > Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 23:00 > Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+1DST 05:00 next day > Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day > Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 next day > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com > http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > Thank you. > Kind regards, > Glen > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Jan 22 02:59:01 2016 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:59:01 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [reconsideration request] Reconsideration Request from Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, another good reason to work on ICANN accountability. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: reconsideration at icann.org Date: 2016-01-22 9:52 GMT+09:00 Subject: Re: [reconsideration request] Reconsideration Request from Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group To: Steve DelBianco Cc: Edward Morris , Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Phil Corwin 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" Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:00 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: Edward Morris , Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Phil Corwin 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 Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:15 PM To: "reconsideration at icann.org" Cc: Edward Morris , Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Phil Corwin 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: From egmorris1 Fri Jan 22 03:30:49 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:30:49 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: Re: [reconsideration request] Reconsideration Request from Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group Message-ID: Hi everyone, We've received a response from the Board Governance Committee on our joint reconsideration request with the BC concerning the .CAT, .PRO and .TRAVEL RAA renewals. The Board response was due on November 13th. It was received today, because complying with its Bylaws requirement to respond within 30 days was "impractical". I'll let everyone read the response for themselves. A monopoly imposes conditions on a customer, the customer agrees and refuses to complain out of fear of the power of the monopolist. A third party intervenes but is unable to access the "privileged" documentation that would prove abuse of monopoly powers which, in this case, the monopolist controls access too. In abstract terms that is what is going on here. I'd like to pursue this further, file for a CEP and document access through a DIDP combined with an Ombudsman's request for both documentation as well as complaining about the Board being unable to get its job done on time. I don't believe the BC wants to take this further but I will check and get back to everyone. Best, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "reconsideration at icann.org" Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:01 AM To: "Steve DelBianco" Cc: "Edward Morris" , "Rafik Dammak" , "Phil Corwin" 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" Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:00 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: Edward Morris , Rafik Dammak , Phil Corwin 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-c onstituency-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 Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:15 PM To: "reconsideration at icann.org" Cc: Edward Morris , Rafik Dammak , Phil Corwin 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: From stephanie.perrin Fri Jan 22 03:35:13 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:35:13 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: Re: [reconsideration request] Reconsideration Request from Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56A18751.4050303@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks Ed! Ask me what I think about the "practicality" of responding to the CCWG report in the timeframe allowed.... will review cheers steph On 2016-01-21 20:30, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi everyone, > We've received a response from the Board Governance Committee on our > joint reconsideration request with the BC concerning the .CAT, .PRO > and .TRAVEL RAA renewals. The Board response was due on November 13th. > It was received today, because complying with its Bylaws requirement > to respond within 30 days was "impractical". > I'll let everyone read the response for themselves. A monopoly imposes > conditions on a customer, the customer agrees and refuses to complain > out of fear of the power of the monopolist. A third party intervenes > but is unable to access the "privileged" documentation that would > prove abuse of monopoly powers which, in this case, the monopolist > controls access too. In abstract terms that is what is going on here. > I'd like to pursue this further, file for a CEP and document access > through a DIDP combined with an Ombudsman's request for both > documentation as well as complaining about the Board being unable to > get its job done on time. I don't believe the BC wants to take this > further but I will check and get back to everyone. > Best, > Ed Morris > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "reconsideration at icann.org" > *Sent*: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:01 AM > *To*: "Steve DelBianco" > *Cc*: "Edward Morris" , "Rafik Dammak" > , "Phil Corwin" > *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 " > > > Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:00 PM > To: Steve DelBianco > > Cc: Edward Morris >, > Rafik Dammak >, > Phil Corwin > > 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 > > Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:15 PM > To: "reconsideration at icann.org " > > > Cc: Edward Morris >, > Rafik Dammak >, > Phil Corwin > > 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) > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Fri Jan 22 03:39:24 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:39:24 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Response to Third Draft Report Message-ID: <4083f9d8b7e2440581611a130d6be19d@toast.net> Hi everybody, Attached please find the proposed GNSO response to the third draft report of the CCWG-Accountability. It's not perfect but I do think it's pretty good. We beat back some attempts by commercial interests to weaken our response and other attempts to privilege intellectual property interests at the expense of free speech and an open internet. Barring objection it should be sent to the CCWG co-chairs later today (Friday). Best, Ed Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: adraft.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 33456 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kathy Fri Jan 22 04:24:19 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:24:19 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Response to Third Draft Report In-Reply-To: <4083f9d8b7e2440581611a130d6be19d@toast.net> References: <4083f9d8b7e2440581611a130d6be19d@toast.net> Message-ID: <56A192D3.5070907@kathykleiman.com> Tx you, Ed, and everyone who worked on this draft and protecting our rights and civil liberties. Kathy On 1/21/2016 8:39 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi everybody, > Attached please find the proposed GNSO response to the third draft > report of the CCWG-Accountability. > It's not perfect but I do think it's pretty good. We beat back some > attempts by commercial interests to weaken our response and other > attempts to privilege intellectual property interests at the expense > of free speech and an open internet. > Barring objection it should be sent to the CCWG co-chairs later today > (Friday). > Best, > Ed Morris > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears Fri Jan 22 11:30:36 2016 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:30:36 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Response to Third Draft Report In-Reply-To: <56A192D3.5070907@kathykleiman.com> References: <4083f9d8b7e2440581611a130d6be19d@toast.net> <56A192D3.5070907@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <56A1F6BC.3090503@cdt.org> Yes - many thanks Ed and all. Very helpful and very clear as to where the support and divergences lie. Matthew On 22/01/2016 02:24, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Tx you, Ed, and everyone who worked on this draft and protecting our > rights and civil liberties. > Kathy > > On 1/21/2016 8:39 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> Attached please find the proposed GNSO response to the third draft >> report of the CCWG-Accountability. >> It's not perfect but I do think it's pretty good. We beat back some >> attempts by commercial interests to weaken our response and other >> attempts to privilege intellectual property interests at the expense >> of free speech and an open internet. >> Barring objection it should be sent to the CCWG co-chairs later today >> (Friday). >> Best, >> Ed Morris >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Jan 27 14:56:29 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:56:29 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] link for mentoring chat group Message-ID: <56A8BE7D.9090107@mail.utoronto.ca> Just a reminder that we have this little mentoring group already started, noone is using it. cheers steph Hello, I?ve started a group on Skype where we chat, share and collaborate using instant messages, voice and video calls for free. Just click https://join.skype.com/gjm2Bo8cKL5s to join now - you don?t need to get Skype if you?re on a computer, simply join as a guest. Speak soon New to Skype? Visit www.skype.com to find out more. From mshears Thu Jan 28 11:55:18 2016 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:55:18 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] gTLD Auctions In-Reply-To: <56A9E3CE.2030905@lisse.NA> References: <56A9E3CE.2030905@lisse.NA> Message-ID: <56A9E586.1060701@cdt.org> https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults Who are our reps on the auction proceeds WG/process? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus