From maryam.bakoshi  Mon Jul  4 17:19:45 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 14:19:45 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle Poll for Trello Training
Message-ID: <D3A02E29.2119E%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>

Dear all,

Thank to you everyone who has completed the doodle poll below.

Please kindly fill in the doodle poll TODAY if you haven?t done so, to enable us schedule the call.

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

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

From: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> on behalf of Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>
Date: Monday, 27 June 2016 at 15:03
To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>, Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org<mailto:niels at article19.org>>, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle Poll for Trello Training

Dear all,

Please complete the doodle poll below by Sunday 03 July 2016, to help us schedule a date and time for Trello Training ? this is to help us in tracking Public comments and Policy Development Processes.

http://doodle.com/poll/b7tdiygbtm7nb3xn


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

Email:  maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160704/22f0c4dd/attachment.html>


From mshears  Mon Jul  4 17:24:33 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:24:33 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle Poll for Trello Training
In-Reply-To: <D3A02E29.2119E%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
References: <D3A02E29.2119E%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
Message-ID: <52528bd0-c818-b2b5-6998-6083e1a49ead@cdt.org>

Yes, please do try and attend and please do sign up to Trello - thanks!


On 04/07/2016 15:19, Maryam Bakoshi wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thank to you everyone who has completed the doodle poll below.
>
> Please kindly fill in the doodle poll *TODAY* if you haven?t done so, 
> to enable us schedule the call.
>
> Many thanks,
> -- 
>
> Maryam Bakoshi
>
> Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
> Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>
> Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
>
> Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
>
>
> From: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org 
> <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> on behalf of Maryam Bakoshi 
> <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>
> Date: Monday, 27 June 2016 at 15:03
> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>, 
> Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org <mailto:niels at article19.org>>, 
> Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle Poll for Trello Training
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please complete the doodle poll below by *Sunday 03 July 2016,* to 
> help us schedule a date and time for Trello Training ? this is to help 
> us in tracking Public comments and Policy Development Processes.
>
> http://doodle.com/poll/b7tdiygbtm7nb3xn
>
>
> Many thanks,
> -- 
>
> Maryam Bakoshi
>
> Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
> Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>
> Mobile: +44 7737 698036
>
> Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160704/d7fbabdd/attachment.html>


From mshears  Mon Jul  4 17:45:55 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:45:55 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI AoI consultation
Message-ID: <d3e6e33e-c122-1664-ed4b-0634ec7c65b8@cdt.org>

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en

Important one for those of us who have been pushing for a PTI that has 
some measure of independence and separability.

Matthew


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




From mshears  Tue Jul  5 01:22:36 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 23:22:36 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of
 Incorporation?
In-Reply-To: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
Message-ID: <7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>

Dear all

I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our members 
and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier through Trello and 
spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG should comment on the 
issues related to GPI, as stated in the proposed draft text here in this 
google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1

I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any 
others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise. Please comment 
directly in the google doc.

The restated articles are here:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf

The full consultation details can be found here:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en

Thanks for your contributions.

Matthew



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of 
Incorporation?
Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
CC: 	Accountability Cross Community 
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>



Thomas,

As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity of 
the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list last 
Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global public 
interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call. 
Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility 
that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up 
multi-stakeholder process.

I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of Samantha's 
text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public interest shall 
be determined by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive 
bottom-up multistakeholder community process consistent with the mission 
set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._

I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is 
determined.

I understand that this would be more controversial and not necessarily 
legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be clearer if 
"organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized and 
incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted.

Best,

Brett

__________

On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net 
<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:

> Dear all,
> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had 
> safe trips back home.
>
> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last telco 
> and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the list and 
> all of us would then consider further whether or not all concerns have 
> been removed.
>
> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime.
>
> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I would 
> now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with a CCWG 
> comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until 20.00 UTC 
> on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient traction to 
> be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a comment on that basis.
>
> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the draft 
> either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments there 
> might be based on the approach described above.
>
> Thanks and kind regards,
> Thomas
>
> ---
> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BrettSchaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National 
Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD 
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160704/5f0a15e7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



From t.tropina  Tue Jul  5 15:39:45 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:39:45 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
 of Incorporation?
In-Reply-To: <7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <6ed2f5b6-155a-7ad8-62f6-25524304ebc8@mpicc.de>

Hi Matt,

thanks for taking the initiative! I suggested some changes to the doc,
not related to the substance. Feel free to reject them. I fully support
the comment.

Warm regards

Tanya


On 05/07/16 00:22, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our
> members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier through
> Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG should
> comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the proposed draft
> text here in this google doc:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
>
> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any
> others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please
> comment directly in the google doc.
>
> The restated articles are here:
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
>
> The full consultation details can be found here:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
>
> Thanks for your contributions.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of
> Incorporation?
> Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
> From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
> CC: 	Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Thomas,
>
> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity of
> the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list last
> Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global public
> interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call.
> Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility
> that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up
> multi-stakeholder process. 
>
> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of
> Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public
> interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community through
> an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process consistent
> with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._
>
> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is
> determined. 
>
> I understand that this would be more controversial and not necessarily
> legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be clearer if
> "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized and
> incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted. 
>
> Best,
>
> Brett
>
> __________
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had
>> safe trips back home. 
>>
>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last
>> telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the
>> list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all
>> concerns have been removed.
>>
>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime. 
>>
>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I
>> would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with a
>> CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until
>> 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient
>> traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a comment
>> on that basis.  
>>
>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the draft
>> either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments there
>> might be based on the approach described above.
>>
>> Thanks and kind regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>> ---
>> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BrettSchaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160705/38564f57/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jul  6 05:03:31 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 22:03:31 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
 of Incorporation?
In-Reply-To: <7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>

I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as 
anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.

Stephanie


On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our 
> members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier through 
> Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG should 
> comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the proposed draft 
> text here in this google doc:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
>
> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any 
> others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise. Please 
> comment directly in the google doc.
>
> The restated articles are here:
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
>
> The full consultation details can be found here:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
>
> Thanks for your contributions.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of 
> Incorporation?
> Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
> From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
> CC: 	Accountability Cross Community 
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Thomas,
>
> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity of 
> the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list last 
> Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global public 
> interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call. 
> Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility 
> that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up 
> multi-stakeholder process.
>
> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of 
> Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public 
> interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community through 
> an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process consistent 
> with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._
>
> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is 
> determined.
>
> I understand that this would be more controversial and not necessarily 
> legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be clearer if 
> "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized and 
> incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted.
>
> Best,
>
> Brett
>
> __________
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had 
>> safe trips back home.
>>
>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last 
>> telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the 
>> list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all 
>> concerns have been removed.
>>
>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime.
>>
>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I 
>> would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with a 
>> CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until 
>> 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient 
>> traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a comment 
>> on that basis.
>>
>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the draft 
>> either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments there 
>> might be based on the approach described above.
>>
>> Thanks and kind regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>> ---
>> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BrettSchaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National 
> Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD 
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160705/faf85227/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Wed Jul  6 13:33:42 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:33:42 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training | Wednesday 06 July
 2016 | 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <b32718036f7449b7b426160a04233c73@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training on Wednesday 06 July 2016 at 13:00 UTC


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


Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/h7drzt4


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 23:00
Tokyo: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 22:00
Beijing: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 21:00
Moscow: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 16:00
New Delhi: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 18:30
Paris: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 15:00
Buenos Aires: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 10:00
New York: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 09:00
Los Angeles: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 06:00



Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: NCSG

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

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


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


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


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


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/607f2ab7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6627 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/607f2ab7/attachment-0001.ics>


From maryam.bakoshi  Wed Jul  6 15:02:43 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:02:43 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training |
 Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <dbf179949fa3435cba5f49bc168ec778@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,

Please find below participation details for NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training on Wednesday 06 July 2016 at 13:00 UTC

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

Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/h7drzt4

Time in some other locations:

Sydney: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 23:00
Tokyo: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 22:00
Beijing: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 21:00
Moscow: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 16:00
New Delhi: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 18:30
Paris: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 15:00
Buenos Aires: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 10:00
New York: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 09:00
Los Angeles: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 06:00

Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: NCSG


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



Dial in numbers:
Country


Toll Numbers

Freephone/
Toll Free Number




ARGENTINA




0800-777-0519<tel:0800-777-0519>


AUSTRALIA


ADELAIDE:


61-8-8121-4842


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


BRISBANE:


61-7-3102-0944


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


CANBERRA:


61-2-6100-1944


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


MELBOURNE:


61-3-9010-7713


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


PERTH:


61-8-9467-5223


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


SYDNEY:


61-2-8205-8129


1-800-657-260


AUSTRIA



43-1-92-81-113


0800-005-259


BELGIUM



32-2-400-9861


0800-3-8795


BRAZIL




0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>


CHILE




1230-020-2863


CHINA


CHINA A:


86-400-810-4789


10800-712-1670


CHINA


CHINA B:


86-400-810-4789


10800-120-1670


COLOMBIA




01800-9-156474


CZECH REPUBLIC



420-2-25-98-56-64


800-700-177


DENMARK



45-7014-0284


8088-8324


ESTONIA




800-011-1093


FINLAND



358-9-5424-7162


0-800-9-14610


FRANCE


LYON:


33-4-26-69-12-85


080-511-1496


FRANCE


MARSEILLE:


33-4-86-06-00-85


080-511-1496


FRANCE


PARIS:


33-1-70-70-60-72


080-511-1496


GERMANY



49-69-2222-20362


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


GREECE



30-80-1-100-0687


00800-12-7312


HONG KONG



852-3001-3863


800-962-856


HUNGARY




06-800-12755


INDIA


INDIA A:



000-800-852-1268


INDIA


INDIA B:



000-800-001-6305


INDIA


INDIA C:



1800-300-00491


INDONESIA




001-803-011-3982


IRELAND



353-1-246-7646


1800-992-368


ISRAEL




1-80-9216162


ITALY


MILAN:


39-02-3600-6007


800-986-383


JAPAN


OSAKA:


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


0066-33-132439


JAPAN


TOKYO:


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


0066-33-132439


LATVIA




8000-3185


LUXEMBOURG



352-27-000-1364


MALAYSIA




1-800-81-3065


MEXICO




001-866-376-9696


NETHERLANDS



31-20-718-8588


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


NEW ZEALAND



64-9-970-4771


0800-447-722


NORWAY



47-21-590-062


800-15157


PANAMA




011-001-800-5072065


PERU




0800-53713


PHILIPPINES



63-2-858-3716


POLAND




00-800-1212572


PORTUGAL




8008-14052


RUSSIA




8-10-8002-0144011


SAUDI ARABIA




800-8-110087


SINGAPORE



65-6883-9230


800-120-4663


SLOVAK REPUBLIC



421-2-322-422-25


SOUTH AFRICA




080-09-80414


SOUTH KOREA



82-2-6744-1083


00798-14800-7352


SPAIN



34-91-414-25-33


800-300-053


SWEDEN



46-8-566-19-348


0200-884-622


SWITZERLAND



41-44-580-6398


0800-120-032


TAIWAN



886-2-2795-7379


00801-137-797


THAILAND




001-800-1206-66056


UNITED KINGDOM


BIRMINGHAM:


44-121-210-9025


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


GLASGOW:


44-141-202-3225


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


LEEDS:


44-113-301-2125


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


LONDON:


44-20-7108-6370


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


MANCHESTER:


44-161-601-1425


0808-238-6029


URUGUAY




000-413-598-3421


USA



1-517-345-9004


866-692-5726


VENEZUELA




0800-1-00-3702


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

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

Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/ab9061b3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6676 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/ab9061b3/attachment-0001.ics>


From Stefania.Milan  Wed Jul  6 15:23:46 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:23:46 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training |
 Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <dbf179949fa3435cba5f49bc168ec778@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <dbf179949fa3435cba5f49bc168ec778@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB52137B2ED0DC5425EE9746FF73A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

hi Maryam, all
unfortunately I won't be able to join us as a key meeting for the future of my team has been rescheduled to coincide with this call :-(
WIll it be recorded?
stefania


________________________________________
Da: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Inviato: mercoled? 6 luglio 2016 14.02.43
A: PC-NCSG; Ayden F?rdeline; Niels ten Oever; MPSV; Poncelet Ileleji
Oggetto: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training | Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC
Quando: mercoled? 6 luglio 2016 15.00-16.00.
Dove: Adobe Connect  - NCSG

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training on Wednesday 06 July 2016 at 13:00 UTC


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


Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/h7drzt4


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 23:00
Tokyo: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 22:00
Beijing: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 21:00
Moscow: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 16:00
New Delhi: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 18:30
Paris: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 15:00
Buenos Aires: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 10:00
New York: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 09:00
Los Angeles: Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 06:00



Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: NCSG

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

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


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


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


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


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

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



From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jul  6 16:31:22 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:31:22 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training |
 Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <dbf179949fa3435cba5f49bc168ec778@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <dbf179949fa3435cba5f49bc168ec778@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <786527e2-eb4c-12d7-c6fb-14d404e1df40@mail.utoronto.ca>

The adobe connect is open.  Are we meeting or not for the Trello training?

cheers Stephanie


On 2016-07-06 8:02, Maryam Bakoshi wrote:
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/df9ab6cf/attachment.html>


From kathy  Wed Jul  6 16:33:15 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:33:15 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training |
 Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <786527e2-eb4c-12d7-c6fb-14d404e1df40@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <dbf179949fa3435cba5f49bc168ec778@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<786527e2-eb4c-12d7-c6fb-14d404e1df40@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <36cdc422-80a6-25f6-d1dd-9688e398d9a5@kathykleiman.com>

It looks like it was scheduled at 6:30am Eastern, and then canceled at 
8am Eastern.  Maryam, can you help us understand?

Tx, Kathy


On 7/6/2016 9:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> The adobe connect is open.  Are we meeting or not for the Trello training?
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
>
> On 2016-07-06 8:02, Maryam Bakoshi wrote:
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/0fe5ebe1/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Wed Jul  6 16:34:51 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:34:51 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training |
 Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <786527e2-eb4c-12d7-c6fb-14d404e1df40@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <dbf179949fa3435cba5f49bc168ec778@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<786527e2-eb4c-12d7-c6fb-14d404e1df40@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <D3A2C71C.214BB%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>

Dear Stephanie,

My apologies, we had to cancel the meeting as the time was too short.

I will send a new doodle poll for next week.


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

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

From: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
Date: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 14:31
To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training | Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC


The adobe connect is open.  Are we meeting or not for the Trello training?

cheers Stephanie

On 2016-07-06 8:02, Maryam Bakoshi wrote:



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/fa4bb885/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jul  6 16:35:35 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:35:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training |
 Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <D3A2C71C.214BB%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
References: <dbf179949fa3435cba5f49bc168ec778@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<786527e2-eb4c-12d7-c6fb-14d404e1df40@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<D3A2C71C.214BB%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
Message-ID: <62c45565-9da2-472b-eee0-de21e28479d4@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks Maryam!

SP


On 2016-07-06 9:34, Maryam Bakoshi wrote:
> Dear Stephanie,
>
> My apologies, we had to cancel the meeting as the time was too short.
>
> I will send a new doodle poll for next week.
>
>
> Many thanks,
> -- 
>
> Maryam Bakoshi
>
> Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
> Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>
> Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
>
> Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
>
>
> From: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org 
> <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Date: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 14:31
> To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" 
> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training 
> | Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC
>
> The adobe connect is open.  Are we meeting or not for the Trello training?
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
>
> On 2016-07-06 8:02, Maryam Bakoshi wrote:
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/8593f4ef/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Wed Jul  6 16:36:08 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:36:08 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training |
 Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <36cdc422-80a6-25f6-d1dd-9688e398d9a5@kathykleiman.com>
References: <dbf179949fa3435cba5f49bc168ec778@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<786527e2-eb4c-12d7-c6fb-14d404e1df40@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<36cdc422-80a6-25f6-d1dd-9688e398d9a5@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <D3A2C794.214C1%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>

Dear Kathy,

Yes that?s correct. We had to cancel as we thought the time the announcement was made, was too short notice.
Please accept my apologies.

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

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

From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 14:33
To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training | Wednesday 06 July 2016 | 13:00 UTC


It looks like it was scheduled at 6:30am Eastern, and then canceled at 8am Eastern.  Maryam, can you help us understand?

Tx, Kathy

On 7/6/2016 9:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

The adobe connect is open.  Are we meeting or not for the Trello training?

cheers Stephanie

On 2016-07-06 8:02, Maryam Bakoshi wrote:



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




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/13f8ce96/attachment-0001.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Wed Jul  6 17:37:55 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:37:55 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New Doodle Poll for Trello Training
Message-ID: <D3A2D650.214DF%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>

Dear all,

Thank you to everyone that completed the last doodle poll. Unfortunately the call today was cancelled due to timing concerns, please accept my apologies for that.

Please find a new doodle poll to allow us schedule a call for the Trello Training. This doodle poll will close Sunday 11:59 PM UTC.

http://doodle.com/poll/sx9c99wg7b6bs2vs

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

Email:  maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/a519a193/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Wed Jul  6 17:58:48 2016
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:58:48 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New Doodle Poll for Trello Training
In-Reply-To: <D3A2D650.214DF%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
References: <D3A2D650.214DF%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>
Message-ID: <d5155cb4-9561-affc-664f-6ae3b5d7ff76@yorku.ca>

/I would like to add that there are also a lot of Trello training 
resources online.//
//Just search on "Trello training".//
////
//Sam//
///


On 7/6/2016 10:37 AM, Maryam Bakoshi wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thank you to everyone that completed the last doodle poll. 
> Unfortunately the call today was cancelled due to timing concerns, 
> please accept my apologies for that.
>
> Please find a new doodle poll to allow us schedule a call for the 
> Trello Training. This doodle poll will close *_Sunday 11:59 PM UTC._*
> *_
> _*
> http://doodle.com/poll/sx9c99wg7b6bs2vs
>
> Many thanks,
> -- 
>
> Maryam Bakoshi
>
> Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
> Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
>
> Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
>
> Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/d2afbd33/attachment.html>


From mshears  Wed Jul  6 20:49:27 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:49:27 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
 of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT
In-Reply-To: <18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
	<18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>

Hi all,

Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments. However 
there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has there been 
a great deal of interest.

The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final draft 
text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure that it 
is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process or calling 
for consensus.

One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I 
welcome your thoughts.

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

Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN Articles 
of Incorporation - 6 July 2016.




Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated 
Articles of Incorporation .


One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of 
Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and 
reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.


However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global 
public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the 
language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .


Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our highlighting):


(ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the 
functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all 
levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the 
bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to 
ascertain the global public interestand that those processes are 
accountable and transparent;


However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:


... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the 
fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by 
no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, 
except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the charitable and public 
purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global 
public interest in the operational stability of the Internet, as such 
global public interest may be determined from time to time by the 
multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up 
multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set 
forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).


The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way 
reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws. 
The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest 
will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy 
development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global 
public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a 
multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be 
addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined from 
time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall be 
determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to bring the 
AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.


We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of 
the restated Articles of Incorporation.

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

Thanks.

Matthew



On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as 
> anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.
>
> Stephanie
>
>
> On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our 
>> members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier through 
>> Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG should 
>> comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the proposed draft 
>> text here in this google doc:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
>>
>> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any 
>> others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please 
>> comment directly in the google doc.
>>
>> The restated articles are here:
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
>>
>> The full consultation details can be found here:
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
>>
>> Thanks for your contributions.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of 
>> Incorporation?
>> Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
>> From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>> To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
>> CC: 	Accountability Cross Community 
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity 
>> of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list 
>> last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global 
>> public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call. 
>> Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility 
>> that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up 
>> multi-stakeholder process.
>>
>> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of 
>> Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public 
>> interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community 
>> through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process 
>> consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the 
>> Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._
>>
>> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is 
>> determined.
>>
>> I understand that this would be more controversial and not 
>> necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be 
>> clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized 
>> and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Brett
>>
>> __________
>>
>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had 
>>> safe trips back home.
>>>
>>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last 
>>> telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the 
>>> list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all 
>>> concerns have been removed.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime.
>>>
>>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I 
>>> would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with 
>>> a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until 
>>> 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient 
>>> traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a comment 
>>> on that basis.
>>>
>>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the draft 
>>> either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments there 
>>> might be based on the approach described above.
>>>
>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> ---
>>> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> BrettSchaefer
>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National 
>> Security and Foreign Policy
>> The Heritage Foundation
>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>> 202-608-6097
>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD 
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/19702bca/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Wed Jul  6 21:31:50 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:31:50 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
 of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT
In-Reply-To: <de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
	<18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>,
	<de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <7DDBCFB6-41C4-43D8-A7A3-746E82E2281E@EUI.eu>

i hope you received my mail Matt. I m in, but also happy to submit as individuals if need be. thanks much, stefania

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 6, 2016, at 19:50, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:


Hi all,

Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments.  However there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has there been a great deal of interest.

The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final draft text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure that it is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process or calling for consensus.

One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I welcome your thoughts.

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

Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN Articles of Incorporation - 6 July 2016.




Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated Articles of Incorporation .


One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.


However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .


Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our highlighting):


(ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent;


However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:


... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).


The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws. The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall be determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to bring the AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.

We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of the restated Articles of Incorporation.

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

Thanks.

Matthew


On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.

Stephanie

On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:

Dear all

I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the proposed draft text here in this google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1

I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please comment directly in the google doc.

The restated articles are here:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf

The full consultation details can be found here:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en

Thanks for your contributions.

Matthew


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of Incorporation?
Date:   Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
From:   Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
To:     Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>
CC:     Accountability Cross Community <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>


Thomas,

As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call. Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up multi-stakeholder process.

I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: as such the global public interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).

I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is determined.

I understand that this would be more controversial and not necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted.

Best,

Brett

__________

On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:

Dear all,
it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had safe trips back home.

We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all concerns have been removed.

Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime.

With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a comment on that basis.

In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments there might be based on the approach described above.

Thanks and kind regards,
Thomas

---
rickert.net<http://rickert.net>

________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>


________________________________
[Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

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





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





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



--

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


________________________________
[Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

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


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

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/dd3d32ba/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Jul  6 22:17:14 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:17:14 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
 of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT
In-Reply-To: <de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
	<18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <38da8bc8-120a-c990-c1ca-a33b3fc1e6fb@apc.org>

Hi,

Just an observer mind you, but if you can collect a sufficient number of
PC members saying ok now, i think you can send it as NCSG.

I recommend you ship it as NCSG.

The other option is send it as personal and follow up tomorrow with and
NCSG note saying we support it.

But the first option is better.

avri




On 06-Jul-16 13:49, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments. 
> However there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has
> there been a great deal of interest. 
>
> The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final
> draft text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure
> that it is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process
> or calling for consensus. 
>
> One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I
> welcome your thoughts.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN
> Articles of Incorporation - 6 July 2016.
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated
> Articles of Incorporation .
>
>
> One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of
> Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and
> reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.
>
>
> However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global
> public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the
> language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .
>
>
> Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our
> highlighting):
>
>
> (ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting
> the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at
> all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that
> the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to
> ascertain the global public interestand that those processes are
> accountable and transparent;
>
>
> However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:
>
>
> ... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of
> the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks,
> owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation
> shall, except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the charitable
> and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and
> promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of
> the Internet, as such global public interest may be determined from
> time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive
> bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the
> mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).
>
>
> The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way
> reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws.
> The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest
> will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy
> development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global
> public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a
> multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be
> addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined
> from time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall be
> determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to bring
> the AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.
>
>
> We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of
> the restated Articles of Incorporation.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as
>> anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>>
>> On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our
>>> members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier
>>> through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG
>>> should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the
>>> proposed draft text here in this google doc:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
>>>
>>> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any
>>> others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please
>>> comment directly in the google doc.
>>>
>>> The restated articles are here:
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
>>>
>>> The full consultation details can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
>>>
>>> Thanks for your contributions.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of
>>> Incorporation?
>>> Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
>>> From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>>> To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
>>> CC: 	Accountability Cross Community
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas,
>>>
>>> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity
>>> of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list
>>> last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global
>>> public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call.
>>> Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility
>>> that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up
>>> multi-stakeholder process. 
>>>
>>> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of
>>> Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public
>>> interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community
>>> through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process
>>> consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the
>>> Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._
>>>
>>> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is
>>> determined. 
>>>
>>> I understand that this would be more controversial and not
>>> necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be
>>> clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized
>>> and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted. 
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>> __________
>>>
>>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had
>>>> safe trips back home. 
>>>>
>>>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last
>>>> telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the
>>>> list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all
>>>> concerns have been removed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime. 
>>>>
>>>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I
>>>> would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with
>>>> a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until
>>>> 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient
>>>> traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a
>>>> comment on that basis.  
>>>>
>>>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the
>>>> draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments
>>>> there might be based on the approach described above.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> BrettSchaefer
>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>>> Security and Foreign Policy
>>> The Heritage Foundation
>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>>> Washington, DC 20002
>>> 202-608-6097
>>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> -- 
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From avri  Wed Jul  6 22:18:44 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:18:44 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
 of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT
In-Reply-To: <7DDBCFB6-41C4-43D8-A7A3-746E82E2281E@EUI.eu>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
	<18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
	<7DDBCFB6-41C4-43D8-A7A3-746E82E2281E@EUI.eu>
Message-ID: <d767bbee-567f-8761-6d02-389885251155@apc.org>


btw, if you send it with a list of names, you can append mine.

avri



On 06-Jul-16 14:31, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> i hope you received my mail Matt. I m in, but also happy to submit as
> individuals if need be. thanks much, stefania
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 6, 2016, at 19:50, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments. 
>> However there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has
>> there been a great deal of interest. 
>>
>> The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final
>> draft text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure
>> that it is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process
>> or calling for consensus. 
>>
>> One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I
>> welcome your thoughts.
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN
>> Articles of Incorporation - 6 July 2016.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated
>> Articles of Incorporation .
>>
>>
>> One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of
>> Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and
>> reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.
>>
>>
>> However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global
>> public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the
>> language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .
>>
>>
>> Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our
>> highlighting):
>>
>>
>> (ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting
>> the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at
>> all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that
>> the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to
>> ascertain the global public interestand that those processes are
>> accountable and transparent;
>>
>>
>> However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:
>>
>>
>> ... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of
>> the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks,
>> owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the
>> Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the
>> charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government
>> and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability
>> of the Internet, as such global public interest may be determined
>> from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an
>> inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying
>> out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).
>>
>>
>> The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way
>> reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws.
>> The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest
>> will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy
>> development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global
>> public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a
>> multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be
>> addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined
>> from time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall
>> be determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to
>> bring the AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.
>>
>>
>> We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of
>> the restated Articles of Incorporation.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>
>>> I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as
>>> anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our
>>>> members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier
>>>> through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG
>>>> should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the
>>>> proposed draft text here in this google doc:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
>>>>
>>>> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any
>>>> others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please
>>>> comment directly in the google doc.
>>>>
>>>> The restated articles are here:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The full consultation details can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your contributions.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>> Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of
>>>> Incorporation?
>>>> Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
>>>> From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>>>> To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
>>>> CC: 	Accountability Cross Community
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity
>>>> of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the
>>>> list last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the
>>>> global public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20
>>>> call. Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the
>>>> possibility that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom
>>>> up multi-stakeholder process. 
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of
>>>> Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public
>>>> interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community
>>>> through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process
>>>> consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the
>>>> Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._
>>>>
>>>> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI
>>>> is determined. 
>>>>
>>>> I understand that this would be more controversial and not
>>>> necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be
>>>> clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or
>>>> "organized and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters
>>>> was inserted. 
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Brett
>>>>
>>>> __________
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had
>>>>> safe trips back home. 
>>>>>
>>>>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last
>>>>> telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the
>>>>> list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all
>>>>> concerns have been removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime. 
>>>>>
>>>>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I
>>>>> would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns
>>>>> with a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours
>>>>> (until 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get
>>>>> ssufficient traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will
>>>>> prepare a comment on that basis.  
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the
>>>>> draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments
>>>>> there might be based on the approach described above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> BrettSchaefer
>>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>>>> Security and Foreign Policy
>>>> The Heritage Foundation
>>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>>>> Washington, DC 20002
>>>> 202-608-6097
>>>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> --------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>  
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in
> reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the
> sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact
> the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From ncsg  Wed Jul  6 22:23:32 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:23:32 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
 of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT
In-Reply-To: <38da8bc8-120a-c990-c1ca-a33b3fc1e6fb@apc.org>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
	<18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
	<38da8bc8-120a-c990-c1ca-a33b3fc1e6fb@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20160706192332.GA7322@tarvainen.info>

Yes. No need for full consensus on the PC.

And one vote in favour from me.

Tapani

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 03:17:14PM -0400, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just an observer mind you, but if you can collect a sufficient number of
> PC members saying ok now, i think you can send it as NCSG.
> 
> I recommend you ship it as NCSG.
> 
> The other option is send it as personal and follow up tomorrow with and
> NCSG note saying we support it.
> 
> But the first option is better.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 06-Jul-16 13:49, matthew shears wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments. 
> > However there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has
> > there been a great deal of interest. 
> >
> > The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final
> > draft text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure
> > that it is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process
> > or calling for consensus. 
> >
> > One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I
> > welcome your thoughts.
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN
> > Articles of Incorporation - 6 July 2016.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated
> > Articles of Incorporation .
> >
> >
> > One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of
> > Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and
> > reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.
> >
> >
> > However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global
> > public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the
> > language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .
> >
> >
> > Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our
> > highlighting):
> >
> >
> > (ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting
> > the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at
> > all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that
> > the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to
> > ascertain the global public interestand that those processes are
> > accountable and transparent;
> >
> >
> > However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:
> >
> >
> > ... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of
> > the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks,
> > owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation
> > shall, except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the charitable
> > and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and
> > promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of
> > the Internet, as such global public interest may be determined from
> > time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive
> > bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the
> > mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).
> >
> >
> > The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way
> > reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws.
> > The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest
> > will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy
> > development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global
> > public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a
> > multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be
> > addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined
> > from time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall be
> > determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to bring
> > the AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.
> >
> >
> > We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of
> > the restated Articles of Incorporation.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> >
> > On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>
> >> I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as
> >> anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.
> >>
> >> Stephanie
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear all
> >>>
> >>> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our
> >>> members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier
> >>> through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG
> >>> should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the
> >>> proposed draft text here in this google doc:
> >>>
> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
> >>>
> >>> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any
> >>> others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please
> >>> comment directly in the google doc.
> >>>
> >>> The restated articles are here:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
> >>>
> >>> The full consultation details can be found here:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your contributions.
> >>>
> >>> Matthew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >>> Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of
> >>> Incorporation?
> >>> Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
> >>> From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> >>> To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
> >>> CC: 	Accountability Cross Community
> >>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thomas,
> >>>
> >>> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity
> >>> of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list
> >>> last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global
> >>> public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call.
> >>> Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility
> >>> that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up
> >>> multi-stakeholder process. 
> >>>
> >>> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of
> >>> Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public
> >>> interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community
> >>> through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process
> >>> consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the
> >>> Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._
> >>>
> >>> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is
> >>> determined. 
> >>>
> >>> I understand that this would be more controversial and not
> >>> necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be
> >>> clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized
> >>> and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted. 
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Brett
> >>>
> >>> __________
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had
> >>>> safe trips back home. 
> >>>>
> >>>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last
> >>>> telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the
> >>>> list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all
> >>>> concerns have been removed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime. 
> >>>>
> >>>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I
> >>>> would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with
> >>>> a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until
> >>>> 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient
> >>>> traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a
> >>>> comment on that basis.  
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the
> >>>> draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments
> >>>> there might be based on the approach described above.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks and kind regards,
> >>>> Thomas
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
> >>>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> BrettSchaefer
> >>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> >>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> >>> Security and Foreign Policy
> >>> The Heritage Foundation
> >>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> >>> Washington, DC 20002
> >>> 202-608-6097
> >>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >>>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD
> >>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
> >>>
> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> > -- 
> >
> > --------------
> > Matthew Shears
> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> > + 44 771 2472987



From t.tropina  Wed Jul  6 23:02:25 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:02:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
 of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT
In-Reply-To: <20160706192332.GA7322@tarvainen.info>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
	<18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
	<38da8bc8-120a-c990-c1ca-a33b3fc1e6fb@apc.org>
	<20160706192332.GA7322@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <4264960e-b257-4b15-8d4a-32d3df0c7db6@mpicc.de>

Matt, count one vote from me, too. As you know I had a look at the doc
and I am comfortable with the final version you sent us!

Thanks for your efforts!

Cheers

Tanya


On 06/07/16 21:23, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Yes. No need for full consensus on the PC.
>
> And one vote in favour from me.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 03:17:14PM -0400, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just an observer mind you, but if you can collect a sufficient number of
>> PC members saying ok now, i think you can send it as NCSG.
>>
>> I recommend you ship it as NCSG.
>>
>> The other option is send it as personal and follow up tomorrow with and
>> NCSG note saying we support it.
>>
>> But the first option is better.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06-Jul-16 13:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments. 
>>> However there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has
>>> there been a great deal of interest. 
>>>
>>> The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final
>>> draft text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure
>>> that it is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process
>>> or calling for consensus. 
>>>
>>> One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I
>>> welcome your thoughts.
>>>
>>> ----------------------
>>>
>>> Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN
>>> Articles of Incorporation - 6 July 2016.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated
>>> Articles of Incorporation .
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of
>>> Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and
>>> reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global
>>> public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the
>>> language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our
>>> highlighting):
>>>
>>>
>>> (ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting
>>> the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at
>>> all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that
>>> the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to
>>> ascertain the global public interestand that those processes are
>>> accountable and transparent;
>>>
>>>
>>> However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:
>>>
>>>
>>> ... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of
>>> the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks,
>>> owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation
>>> shall, except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the charitable
>>> and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and
>>> promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of
>>> the Internet, as such global public interest may be determined from
>>> time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive
>>> bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the
>>> mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).
>>>
>>>
>>> The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way
>>> reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws.
>>> The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest
>>> will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy
>>> development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global
>>> public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a
>>> multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be
>>> addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined
>>> from time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall be
>>> determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to bring
>>> the AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.
>>>
>>>
>>> We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of
>>> the restated Articles of Incorporation.
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as
>>>> anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our
>>>>> members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier
>>>>> through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG
>>>>> should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the
>>>>> proposed draft text here in this google doc:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
>>>>>
>>>>> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any
>>>>> others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please
>>>>> comment directly in the google doc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The restated articles are here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> The full consultation details can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your contributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>> Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of
>>>>> Incorporation?
>>>>> Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
>>>>> From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>>>>> To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
>>>>> CC: 	Accountability Cross Community
>>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas,
>>>>>
>>>>> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity
>>>>> of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list
>>>>> last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global
>>>>> public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call.
>>>>> Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility
>>>>> that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up
>>>>> multi-stakeholder process. 
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of
>>>>> Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public
>>>>> interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community
>>>>> through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process
>>>>> consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the
>>>>> Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is
>>>>> determined. 
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that this would be more controversial and not
>>>>> necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be
>>>>> clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized
>>>>> and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Brett
>>>>>
>>>>> __________
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had
>>>>>> safe trips back home. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last
>>>>>> telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the
>>>>>> list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all
>>>>>> concerns have been removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I
>>>>>> would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with
>>>>>> a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until
>>>>>> 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient
>>>>>> traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a
>>>>>> comment on that basis.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the
>>>>>> draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments
>>>>>> there might be based on the approach described above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> BrettSchaefer
>>>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>>>>> Security and Foreign Policy
>>>>> The Heritage Foundation
>>>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>>>>> Washington, DC 20002
>>>>> 202-608-6097
>>>>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD
>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>>>>
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> --------------
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From Stefania.Milan  Wed Jul  6 23:42:28 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:42:28 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft
 Articles of Incorporation?
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521D300E65848E539FD1540F7390@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>,
	<6ed2f5b6-155a-7ad8-62f6-25524304ebc8@mpicc.de>,
	<DB3PR05MB521D300E65848E539FD1540F7390@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <9CED2245-57E8-49EE-B539-1DC8E18267CF@EUI.eu>

hi matt this is what i sent yday. apparently my messages dont get thru thePC list...

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu<mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>>
Date: July 5, 2016 at 21:12:27 GMT+2
To: "pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of Incorporation?

Hi Matt, thanks for taking the initiative and prompting us to react. I went through the document and agree with Tatiana's suggestions; I only added a few changes. I wonder, however, whether there is a wording we might directly opposed to the "from time to time" (rather than simply proposing to get rid of it). But I am no native speaker, and have no actual suggestion, so I supposed it can go as it is.
Thanks again, Stefania



________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> per conto di Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de<mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>>
Inviato: marted? 5 luglio 2016 14.39.45
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of Incorporation?

Hi Matt,

thanks for taking the initiative! I suggested some changes to the doc, not related to the substance. Feel free to reject them. I fully support the comment.

Warm regards

Tanya

On 05/07/16 00:22, matthew shears wrote:

Dear all

I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the proposed draft text here in this google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1

I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please comment directly in the google doc.

The restated articles are here:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf

The full consultation details can be found here:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en

Thanks for your contributions.

Matthew


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of Incorporation?
Date:   Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
From:   Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>><mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
To:     Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>
CC:     Accountability Cross Community <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>


Thomas,

As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call. Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up multi-stakeholder process.

I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: as such the global public interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).

I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is determined.

I understand that this would be more controversial and not necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted.

Best,

Brett

__________

On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net><mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:

Dear all,
it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had safe trips back home.

We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all concerns have been removed.

Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime.

With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a comment on that basis.

In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments there might be based on the approach described above.

Thanks and kind regards,
Thomas

---
rickert.net<http://rickert.net><http://rickert.net>

________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>


________________________________
[Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

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





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



The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/66b44bc3/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Wed Jul  6 23:51:46 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:51:46 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] test
Message-ID: <0D3C1196-EB84-4EA9-A3DE-B091EE7164CF@EUI.eu>

apparently my mails don't go thru the list...if you spot this, can you notify me? thanks! stefi

Sent from my iPhone

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



From egmorris1  Thu Jul  7 00:52:17 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:52:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
	of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT
In-Reply-To: <de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
	<18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <98458C3F-119E-4833-8869-79CD515BBC2E@toast.net>

Hi everyone,

I oppose submission of this comment.

'Shall' has a very specific definitional quality in California law and I would be very concerned it would be read by an IRP or court to require not only creation of a hard definition of GPI (which I oppose) but for it  to arguably be done on a regular or periodic basis. 'May' gives the community added flexibility and does not, in my opinion, create a possibility that the GPI could be established in other ways opposed by the community. To those who believe otherwise please give an example of where this is positively stated in
the Bylaws or AoI. It isn't.

Neither definition is perfect but the current proposal in my view is better than the proposed substitution.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 18:50, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments.  However there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has there been a great deal of interest.  
> The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final draft text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure that it is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process or calling for consensus.  
> One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I welcome your thoughts.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN Articles of Incorporation - 6 July 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated Articles of Incorporation .
> 
> One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.
> 
> However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .
> 
> Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our highlighting):
> 
> (ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent;
> 
> However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:
> 
> ... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet, as such global public interest may be determined from         time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).
> 
> The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws. The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall be determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to bring the AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.
> 
> We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of the restated Articles of Incorporation.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks.
> Matthew
> 
> 
>> On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.
>> 
>> Stephanie
>> 
>>> On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>> 
>>> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the proposed draft text here in this google doc:
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
>>> 
>>> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please comment directly in the google doc.
>>> 
>>> The restated articles are here:
>>> 
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
>>> The full consultation details can be found here:
>>> 
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your contributions.
>>> Matthew
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of Incorporation?
>>> Date:	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
>>> From:	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>>> To:	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
>>> CC:	Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> 
>>> Thomas,
>>> 
>>> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call. Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up multi-stakeholder process. 
>>> 
>>> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: as such the global public interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).
>>> 
>>> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is determined. 
>>> 
>>> I understand that this would be more controversial and not necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted. 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Brett
>>> 
>>> __________
>>> 
>>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had safe trips back home. 
>>>> 
>>>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all concerns have been removed.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime. 
>>>> 
>>>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a comment on that basis.  
>>>> 
>>>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments there might be based on the approach described above.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>>> Thomas
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> rickert.net
>>> Brett Schaefer
>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
>>> The Heritage Foundation
>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>>> Washington, DC 20002
>>> 202-608-6097
>>> heritage.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    	
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>>> www.avast.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> -- 
> 
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
> 
> 
>   			 			
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/f3377534/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Thu Jul  7 01:02:11 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:02:11 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
 of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT
In-Reply-To: <98458C3F-119E-4833-8869-79CD515BBC2E@toast.net>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
	<18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
	<98458C3F-119E-4833-8869-79CD515BBC2E@toast.net>
Message-ID: <60aab5b2-1afd-b5fc-c54d-8c269b0836be@cdt.org>

Ed,

These comments were just submitted.   If you insist I will call them back.

The issue is "may" associated with "from time to time" - not just the 
"may".   In the other instancies (the other times) who detemines GPI?

And whether we like it or not there is a langauge inconsistency between 
the Bylaws and AoI.

Matthew


On 06/07/2016 22:52, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I oppose submission of this comment.
>
> 'Shall' has a very specific definitional quality in California law and 
> I would be very concerned it would be read by an IRP or court to 
> require not only creation of a hard definition of GPI (which I oppose) 
> but for it  to arguably be done on a regular or periodic basis. 'May' 
> gives the community added flexibility and does not, in my opinion, 
> create a possibility that the GPI could be established in other ways 
> opposed by the community. To those who believe otherwise please give 
> an example of where this is positively stated in
> the Bylaws or AoI. It isn't.
>
> Neither definition is perfect but the current proposal in my view is 
> better than the proposed substitution.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 6 Jul 2016, at 18:50, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org 
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments.  
>> However there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has 
>> there been a great deal of interest.
>>
>> The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final 
>> draft text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure 
>> that it is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process 
>> or calling for consensus.
>>
>> One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I 
>> welcome your thoughts.
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN 
>> Articles of Incorporation - 6 July 2016.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated 
>> Articles of Incorporation .
>>
>>
>> One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of 
>> Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and 
>> reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.
>>
>>
>> However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global 
>> public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the 
>> language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .
>>
>>
>> Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our 
>> highlighting):
>>
>>
>> (ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting 
>> the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at 
>> all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that 
>> the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to 
>> ascertain the global public interestand that those processes are 
>> accountable and transparent;
>>
>>
>> However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:
>>
>>
>> ... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of 
>> the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, 
>> owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the 
>> Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the 
>> charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government 
>> and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability 
>> of the Internet, as such global public interest may be determined 
>> from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an 
>> inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying 
>> out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).
>>
>>
>> The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way 
>> reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws. 
>> The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest 
>> will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy 
>> development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global 
>> public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a 
>> multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be 
>> addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined 
>> from time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall 
>> be determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to 
>> bring the AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.
>>
>>
>> We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of 
>> the restated Articles of Incorporation.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>
>>> I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as 
>>> anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our 
>>>> members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier 
>>>> through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG 
>>>> should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the 
>>>> proposed draft text here in this google doc:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1
>>>>
>>>> I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any 
>>>> others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please 
>>>> comment directly in the google doc.
>>>>
>>>> The restated articles are here:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The full consultation details can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your contributions.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>> Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of 
>>>> Incorporation?
>>>> Date: 	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000
>>>> From: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>>>> To: 	Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
>>>> CC: 	Accountability Cross Community 
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity 
>>>> of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the 
>>>> list last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the 
>>>> global public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 
>>>> call. Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the 
>>>> possibility that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom 
>>>> up multi-stakeholder process.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of 
>>>> Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: _as such the global public 
>>>> interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community 
>>>> through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process 
>>>> consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the 
>>>> Corporation (?*Bylaws*?)._
>>>>
>>>> I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI 
>>>> is determined.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that this would be more controversial and not 
>>>> necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be 
>>>> clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or 
>>>> "organized and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters 
>>>> was inserted.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Brett
>>>>
>>>> __________
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had 
>>>>> safe trips back home.
>>>>>
>>>>> We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last 
>>>>> telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the 
>>>>> list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all 
>>>>> concerns have been removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I 
>>>>> would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns 
>>>>> with a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours 
>>>>> (until 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get 
>>>>> ssufficient traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will 
>>>>> prepare a comment on that basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the 
>>>>> draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments 
>>>>> there might be based on the approach described above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> BrettSchaefer
>>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National 
>>>> Security and Foreign Policy
>>>> The Heritage Foundation
>>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>>>> Washington, DC 20002
>>>> 202-608-6097
>>>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>> https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD 
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> --------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/97701c65/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Thu Jul  7 02:30:53 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:30:53 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles
	of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT
In-Reply-To: <60aab5b2-1afd-b5fc-c54d-8c269b0836be@cdt.org>
References: <51046444-83CA-4FE0-A6E6-1E2875AA71F4@heritage.org>
	<7137a9df-ddd5-ad6a-9464-ccfce0d6562c@cdt.org>
	<18779cc8-cbf4-ef03-efb4-a7d0eac26505@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<de511ba1-c351-434e-2a19-bfb3a0aadd13@cdt.org>
	<98458C3F-119E-4833-8869-79CD515BBC2E@toast.net>
	<60aab5b2-1afd-b5fc-c54d-8c269b0836be@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <b821b24147f34a108d355dd350b91798@toast.net>

HI Matt,
  
 I won't insist on a recall as I'm the only opposition I've seen in the NCSG. As you're aware a similar statement has been at least delayed and will not be submitted on time by the CCWG-ACCT group. Of interest, there is a clear divide there between North American lawyers, who have no problem with the proposed AoI, and non American lawyers who perhaps think in a different way than the American lawyers who drafted these American legal documents which create an Amerrican public benefit corporation organised under American law. Greg Shatan and I agree on very little. We agree on this.
  
 "Time to time" is an often used term in the construction of corporate governance documents. It should be viewed as an oppositional statement to "periodic" or "regularly scheduled" events. "May" indicates optional. "Shall" is required. "Shall" in the absence of "time to time" indicates to me a requirement to establish a GPI (something I'm opposed to; I'm a big fan of not creating a hard GPI definition. The NCSG has traditionally been split on this issue, but I'm certainly far from alone in my stance) and that definition itself could be challenged in an IRP if not regularly updated given the proposed absence of a qualifier such as "time to time".  Whether such a challenge would succeed is impossible to determine at this point but it certainly passes the "laugh test".
  
 Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation have different purposes and use different language forms and terms. I see no inconsistency between the two proposed texts. In both cases BUMP is to be used to define GPI if GPI is to be defined. In the NCSG statement 'shall' makes defining GPI a requirement and, thus, the proposed change to the AoI is itself inconsistent with the Bylaws (if indeed that is what you are after). If the proposed change is accepted do we then need to suggest changing the Bylaws to make it consistent with the revised AoI which then requires ('shall') BUMP creation of a GPI definition?
  
 Here's the good news: if there is any legally significant difference between the two documents the Secretary of State of California will reject both when they are filed. I'm confident the proposed text would have no trouble getting approval from the Secretary. I'm not so sure about text that includes the NCSG proposed revisions.
  
 Ed
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 11:02 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of Incorporation? FINAL TEXT   

Ed,  

These comments were just submitted.   If you insist I will call them back.   

The issue is "may" associated with "from time to time" - not just the "may".   In the other instancies (the other times) who detemines GPI?  

And whether we like it or not there is a langauge inconsistency between the Bylaws and AoI.  

Matthew    On 06/07/2016 22:52, Edward Morris wrote:
  Hi everyone,
  
 I oppose submission of this comment.
  
 'Shall' has a very specific definitional quality in California law and I would be very concerned it would be read by an IRP or court to require not only creation of a hard definition of GPI (which I oppose) but for it  to arguably be done on a regular or periodic basis. 'May' gives the community added flexibility and does not, in my opinion, create a possibility that the GPI could be established in other ways opposed by the community. To those who believe otherwise please give an example of where this is positively stated in
 the Bylaws or AoI. It isn't.
  
 Neither definition is perfect but the current proposal in my view is better than the proposed substitution.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Jul 2016, at 18:50, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
 

Hi all,  

Some of the PC have kindly looked at the text and made comments.  However there was no call for consensus on this (my mistake) not has there been a great deal of interest.   

The deadline for filing is tonight 23:59 UTC.  Below is the final draft text.  I feel this is important to file - however I am not sure that it is possible to do so as NCSG due to not following the process or calling for consensus.   

One option would be for individuals of the NCSG PC to sign on.  I welcome your thoughts.  

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

   

Contribution to the public comment on the Draft Restated ICANN Articles of Incorporation - 6 July 2016. 

  

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated Articles of Incorporation .    

One of the purposes of reviewing and restating of the Articles of Incorporation (AoI) is to ensure that they are consistent with and reflect the intent and purpose of the new Bylaws.    

However, we found one particular issue related to the issue of global public interest or GPI where the restated AoI do not reflect the language nor the intent of the new Bylaws .    

Section 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii) of the new bylaws states (our highlighting):    

(ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent;    

However, Article 2 of the the restated Articles of Incorporation states:    

... In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 4 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet, as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation ("Bylaws").    

The language in the restated AoI is far from adequate and in no way reflects the intent of the CCWG plan as expressed in  the new Bylaws. The new Bylaws are designed to ensure that the global public interest will be ascertained through bottom-up multistakeholder policy development processes. To the contrary, in the restated AoI, global public interest "may be determined from time to time" through a multistakeholder community process.  This inconsistency should be addressed in the restated AoI through replacing "may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community..." with "shall be determined by the multistakeholder community..!" if we are to bring the AoI in conformity with the Bylaws.  
We look forward to this issue being addressed in the final version of the restated Articles of Incorporation.  

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

Thanks.  

Matthew  

     On 06/07/2016 03:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

I made a few grammaticals, likely am late for the train.  Showing as anonymous.  Thanks for doing this, it is a very important point.    

Stephanie      On 2016-07-04 18:22, matthew shears wrote:

Dear all  

I would draw your attention to the message below from one of our members and to the proposed comments I had circulated earlier through Trello and spearately.  At a minimum I believe that NCSG should comment on the issues related to GPI, as stated in the proposed draft text here in this google doc:  

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0L_c5vCdksJ9TVzfCDoN5OesxJLiRmLwyqQtdLBdrY/edit?pref=2&pli=1  

I look foward to your comments on this particular point and on any others related to the restated AoI you may wish to raise.  Please comment directly in the google doc.  

The restated articles are here:  

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-25may16-en.pdf  

The full consultation details can be found here:  

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-restated-articles-incorporation-2016-05-27-en  

Thanks for your contributions.  

Matthew  

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 
 	 		 			Subject:	  			Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public comment on draft Articles of Incorporation?	  		 
  			Date:	  			Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:42:05 +0000	  		 
  			From:	  			Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>	  		 
  			To:	  			Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>	  		 
  			CC:	  			Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>	  		

 Thomas,
  
 As stated in our public comment, I am concerned about the ambiguity of the AoI text on the global public interest. As I sent to the list last Sunday, I do not believe that Samantha's new text on the global public interest addresses the concerns raised in the June 20 call. Specifically, that the proposed phrasing leaves open the possibility that the GPI could at times be determined by non-bottom up multi-stakeholder process. 
  
 I suggest that the CCWG request the following text instead of Samantha's text circulated last Sunday: as such the global public interest shall be determined by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process consistent with the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation ("Bylaws").
  
 I believe that this text would remove any ambiguity about how GPI is determined. 
  
 I understand that this would be more controversial and not necessarily legally necessary, but I think that the AoI would be clearer if "organized" were replaced by "incorporated" or "organized and incorporated" and the location of the headquarters was inserted. 
   
 Best,
  
 Brett

__________

On Jul 4, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
 
   Dear all,
 it was good to see many of you in Helsinki and I hope that you had safe trips back home. 
  
 We discussed the draft Articles of Incorporation during our last telco and agreed that Sam would send additional information to the list and all of us would then consider further whether or not all concerns have been removed.
  
 Thanks to Sam for providing more information in the meantime. 
  
 With the end of the public comment period approaching rapidly, I would now like those of you who think we should raise concerns with a CCWG comment to write to the list within the next 24 hours (until 20.00 UTC on July 5th). Should any concerns raised get ssufficient traction to be considered a CCWG position, we will prepare a comment on that basis.  
  
 In any case, we will issue a brief CCWG comment supporting the draft either unconditionally or with any additional CCWG comments there might be based on the approach described above.

Thanks and kind regards,
 Thomas
  ---
 rickert.net
  

    

----------------------------------------
 Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002 
202-608-6097
heritage.org    _______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ar94B3IW62RuD

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

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
			www.avast.com 				  		

         

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

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

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

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
			www.avast.com 				  		

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

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

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
			www.avast.com 				  		

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/fcb9bbcf/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Thu Jul  7 02:55:41 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:55:41 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for
	Public	Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC)
Message-ID: <848d935872084985b793be66c8e44967@toast.net>

 
 Hello everyone,
  
 I'm forwarding an email from Holly Gregory, independent counsel to the CCWG, that was sent moments ago to the CCWG list.
  
 Section 2 of her email deals with the 'may' 'shall' and 'time to time' issue and roughly agrees with the analysis I earlier provided when expressing my opposition to the NCSG statement.
  
 Although I won't call for a recall of the NCSG comment by myself, if other PC members, after reading the legal opinion of the attorney hired by the community to represent the community, wish to call for the comment to be recalled I would support such a recall. I should note that if Ms. Gregory disagreed with my views I would follow her advice and disregard my own on this matter  because she, not me or any of you,  is the person with the skills and expertise in this topical area. I find it usually benefits me to follow my lawyers advice. Others may wish to consider doing the same (or not).  
  
 Best, 
  
 Ed 
  
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 12:36 AM
To: "Thomas Rickert" <thomas at rickert.net>, "mathieu.weill at afnic.fr" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, "leonfelipe at sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Cc: "Sidley ICANN CCWG" <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, "ICANN at adlercolvin.com" <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for Public Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC)   

Dear Thomas, Mathieu, Leon, and CCWG -Accountability Members and Participants:    

   

Here are our comments on the draft public comment that Thomas circulated late this afternoon.  Please consider our edits which we provide in bold blue.  Our comments are provided in red.    

   

1. Article 1 - Future v. further laws   

   

1.1. Text from the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation: "Any reference in these Articles to the Code shall include the corresponding provisions of any further United States tax code."   

   

1.2. Issue: The use of the word "further" instead of "future" appears to be a typographical error, and if unaddressed would raise concern to many in the CCWG-Accountability as leaving the door to unintended consequences.   

   

1.3. Recommendation:  Replace "further" with "future"   

   

   

2. Article 2 - May v. Shall on global public interest   

   

2.1.  Text from the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation: ", the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 54 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv), as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation ("Bylaws").   

   

2.2. Issue: Concerns were raised regarding the use of the term "may."  Some felt this did not properly implement the recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability on this topic which include:   

   

2.2.1. CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 1, para 51: The Articles of Incorporation will be amended to clarify that the global public interest will be determined through a bottom-up, multistakeholder process.   

2.2.2. CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 5, para 153 (core values) 2: Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent.   

   

2.3. Recommendation: The CCWG-Accountability would request that counsel review the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation to ensure these properly implement its recommendations in this matter.   

   

We respectfully disagree with comment 2 and recommend that it be deleted. From a legal drafting perspective, the word "may" is appropriate in this context, specifically as it is used in the phrase "may be determined from time to time" which indicates that the determination is made based on when the need for a determination arises. Use of "may"  in this context does not suggest that someone other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right.   

   

3.   We agree with Thomas' proposal to delete the comment on Article 2 regarding the use of the word "organized."   This is a legal document and "organized"  is the appropriate term.    

We have conferred with Adler, and they have confirmed that they have no further comments.    

Kind regards,   

Holly  

   

HOLLY J. GREGORY
Partner and Co-Chair, Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
+1 212 839 5853
holly.gregory at sidley.com  

     

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 6:02 PM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for Public Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC) 

    

I agree we should let Holly and Rosemary chime in with their view.    

  

I would just note the following:   

  

- We agree on the first point. 

  

- With respect to the second point - we are making reference to our report and ask the drafters to ensure that this is adequately covered. Therefore, there should not be the risk of going beyond the recommendations our group has made. In my view, we could fix the concerns some of you raised by reframing the Issues paragraph as follows: 

  

"Issue: Concerns were raised regarding use of the term "may". Some felt this did not properly implement the recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability on this topic which include:" 

  

This tweak would remove reference to the word "shall" and just request the lawyers to double-check whether our recommendations are covered.     

  

- On the third point: Greg put additional information on the record showing that the language is not ambiguous. This could be pointed to if need be. Thus, we could potentially drop that point.  

  

I have attached an updated version.  

  

Please note that our comment shall encourage the drafters to take a second look at the document based on our feedback. If concerns are raised or language is perceived to be unclear, that is something we can and should raise. I trust that the legal teams have good reason for why they framed things as they did in the draft we now comment on. Still, the perception that some have justifies that these concerns are being brought up and reviewed.  

  

We will now let the discussion go on and file our comment a bit late. I am sure it will still be taken into account. 

  

Thanks and kind regards, 

Thomas 

  

    

  

Am 06.07.2016 um 23:44 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>: 

      

I also agree with Edward that we benefit by letting the retained pros come on to the field and kick the ball around with the rest of us. 

    

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:    

I agree with Greg for the exact reasons he has cited. Legal language has a structure and definitional quality all it's own and I would be very hesitant to submit this comment without having first run it by our counsel. My experience and education causes me to agree with Greg's analysis and I would urge caution in approaching this matter in a less than thorough manner. This is a legal document very specific to California law and I would be uncomfortable submitting something that has not yet been vetted by our legal team. 

  

Best, 

  

Ed Morris 

  

  

Sent from my iPhone 

On 6 Jul 2016, at 21:51, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote: 

It's unfortunate that we don't have time to run this by our counsel, as I would be interested in their views.  Here are mine. 

  

I would recommend against filing these comments. 

  

FIRST, I disagree with the second point raised.  Substituting "shall" for "may" would incorrectly imply that there is a requirement that a determination of the global public interest must take place.  We have not asked for such a requirement and we have not specified any such requirement, which would render this statement nebulous, ambiguous and undefined.  As currently drafted, if a determination of the global public interest takes place it will be done by the multistakeholder community using a bottom-up multistakeholder process, but there is (properly) no language requiring that such a determination be made. 

  

If anyone believes that Final Recommendation 1, para 51 requires the initiation of a process to determine the global public interest, that should either be a part of Work Stream 2 or a huge implementation item for Work Stream 1.  As far as I can see, it is neither -- which further proves that changing "may" to "shall" goes beyond the recommendations of the CCWG. 

  

SECOND, I also disagree with the third point raised. "Organized" is commonly used in Articles of Incorporation (indeed, in some states, such as Massachusetts, a non-profit corporation files Articles of Organization rather than Articles of Incorporation).  As our counsel pointed out on the last call, the California official form for Articles of Incorporation uses the term "organized." (See attached)  It is a best practice to stick closely to the official language provided by the jurisdiction -- here it is "organized."  This is demonstrated in model California Articles of Incorporation prepared by Public Counsel, a pro bono law firm, and available online (see attached or http://www.publiccounsel.org/publications?id=0059).  It would be far preferable if we were to accept the clarification that "organized" is what's used in this circumstance, rather than to recommend a change that is at best meaningless and at worst creates the potential for confusion (since one always looks for meaning in any change, and confusion could fill the void created by the meaninglessness of this change).  To paraphrase Shakespeare, I don't think the confusion is in the document, it is in ourselves (or at least in some of us) -- and it would be better for us to adjust our understanding of the document, rather than to adjust the document to suit our misunderstanding. 

  

Of course, the language of the CCWG comment is relatively undemanding -- we only ask that "counsel" (whose counsel?  ICANN's?) or "the drafters" (why the difference?) review the language.  We do not justify our quasi-recommendations of changes, other than by saying that we are confused by the word "organized" and by demonstrating that we are confused about what is permissive and what is required. 

  

Frankly, I'm far from sure that this comment is widely supported, other than by apathy or lack of time.  I think it would be a mistake for either of these two recommendations (?) to be adopted, and I hope that counsel/the drafters, upon further review, let the original drafting stand. 

  

The only thing I agree with is the trivial change from "further" to "future," which at least does not make matters worse.  This is hardly worth a comment by itself. 

  

In sum, I reiterate that I would recommend against filing these comments. 

  

Best regards, 

  

Greg 

    

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:    

I agree.  This is a legal document, and we should have the benefit of counsel on this. 

  

Greg 

      

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:36 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote: 

While not able to certify anything, if there are issues that our counsel see I think its important that they are raised. 

  

-James 

  

From:  <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com>
Date: Wednesday 6 July 2016 at 20:32
To: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, "leonfelipe at sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for Public Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC) 

  

  

Dear Co-Chairs and CCWG-Accountability Members and Participants,  Please let us know if you want Sidley and/or Adler to comment on this before you post it.  We will not do so unless instructed to.  Holly  

   

HOLLY J. GREGORY
Partner and Co-Chair, Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
+1 212 839 5853
holly.gregory at sidley.com  

    

From:  accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:27 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Comment for Public Consultation on Articles of Incorporation (AOC) 

     

All, 

  

Please find attached the draft comment to the ICANN public consultation on the Articles of Incorporation from the leadership. 

  

These comments are based on the questions raised during the CCWG meeting on the AOC and in consideration of Sam Eisner's response to those questions. 

  

Please respond to the list ASAP if you have comments as this public consultation closes in a few hours. 

  

Bernard Turcotte 

ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG Co-Chairs. 

  

  

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

**************************************************************************************************** 

  

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community  

  

  

<arts-pb.pdf> 

<Form_Articles.doc> 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 

  

  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/cd74c4b7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 507 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/cd74c4b7/attachment-0003.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG-Comments on Draft New ICANN Articles of Incorporation.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 139743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/cd74c4b7/attachment-0004.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attachment 3
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160706/cd74c4b7/attachment-0005.obj>


From egmorris1  Thu Jul  7 17:15:20 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:15:20 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] RZERC charter - comment?
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB2408AB1C2A20F56D7FDEB7E0A13B0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CACpVkK2Yr-zVWDdJpUsvBr9zEZ0dtcaRq=RF++ViZb=XxfAc_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<FD35AFE9-6713-474C-A01B-6D63F62ED3EA@gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2XKdUQg8+fsxKt=y+-6=cDYVWAsy5jknxq475ctvtMnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR07MB2408AB1C2A20F56D7FDEB7E0A13B0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <3D77B002-AFCA-46F3-9C56-D61206A3F644@toast.net>

Hi everyone,

I just moved Milton's proposed co

> On 7 Jul 2016, at 15:09, Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU> wrote:
> 
> Marilia and member of NCSG and the policy committee:
>  
> Here are my proposed comments. I think it would be much more effective if these comments were filed timely by NCSG rather than by me as an individual. Therefore I will refrain from filing them. If NCSG runs into a snag and is unable to do so, please warn me and I will file them individually.
>  
> ====
> Comments of the NCSG on the Draft RZERC Charter
>  
> The RZERC is a consultative committee with powers to
>  - Propose architectural and operational changes to the DNS root zone (RZ).
> - Engage expertise and conduct community consultations on RZ Evolution  issues
> - Consult with ICANN in the development of an RFP for RZ maintainer, and help evaluate proposals if needed
> - Initiate a public consultation process on operational and architectural changes that might impose potential risk to the security, stability, or resiliency of the root system
>  
> With the exception of 2 minor changes, we approve of the purpose, scope and composition of the committee. The two changes are:
>  
> 1) For the sake of clarity, and to avoid mission creep in the future, all references to the "root zone" should be modified to say "DNS root zone."
>  
> 2) The composition of the RZERC excludes end users. We recommend the addition of one representative from the NCPH of the GNSO.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160707/8c5ed1cc/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Thu Jul  7 17:19:37 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:19:37 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RZERC charter - comment?
References: <BY2PR07MB2408AB1C2A20F56D7FDEB7E0A13B0@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <23F86887-DEF0-4722-A64A-EBEAE0508BD7@toast.net>

Hi everyone,

I'm moving Milton's proposed public comment to the PC list and would like to indicate my support for submission of this comment as a NCSG comment. I note the deadline for submission is this Sunday July 10th.

Thanks Milton for this fine work.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at GATECH.EDU>
> Date: 7 July 2016 at 15:06:21 BST
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: RZERC charter - comment?
> Reply-To: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at GATECH.EDU>
> 
> Marilia and member of NCSG and the policy committee:
>  
> Here are my proposed comments. I think it would be much more effective if these comments were filed timely by NCSG rather than by me as an individual. Therefore I will refrain from filing them. If NCSG runs into a snag and is unable to do so, please warn me and I will file them individually.
>  
> ====
> Comments of the NCSG on the Draft RZERC Charter
>  
> The RZERC is a consultative committee with powers to
>  - Propose architectural and operational changes to the DNS root zone (RZ).
> - Engage expertise and conduct community consultations on RZ Evolution  issues
> - Consult with ICANN in the development of an RFP for RZ maintainer, and help evaluate proposals if needed
> - Initiate a public consultation process on operational and architectural changes that might impose potential risk to the security, stability, or resiliency of the root system
>  
> With the exception of 2 minor changes, we approve of the purpose, scope and composition of the committee. The two changes are:
>  
> 1) For the sake of clarity, and to avoid mission creep in the future, all references to the "root zone" should be modified to say "DNS root zone."
>  
> 2) The composition of the RZERC excludes end users. We recommend the addition of one representative from the NCPH of the GNSO.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160707/b73f5c66/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Jul  7 17:39:51 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:39:51 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for consensus: RZERC charter comment - deadline 9th
	July
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3e77drRfuY13uyA0mto44XyDzasd_JATT329qoVdSNyw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear PC colleagues,

We have an open public comment regarding the charter of the root zone
evolution review committee (RZEC). Milton put together a draft response.
Could you please take a look and share your views until July 9th 23:00 UTC?
The text is short and too the point (see below). If there are no
objections, we will present it as a contribution from NCSG.

For further information, please see:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-rzerc-charter-2016-06-10-en

Thank you!
Marilia



On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Marilia and member of NCSG and the policy committee:
>
>
>
> Here are my proposed comments. I think it would be much more effective if
> these comments were filed timely by NCSG rather than by me as an
> individual. Therefore I will refrain from filing them. If NCSG runs into a
> snag and is unable to do so, please warn me and I will file them
> individually.
>
>
>
> ====
>
> Comments of the NCSG on the Draft RZERC Charter
>
>
>
> The RZERC is a consultative committee with powers to
>
>  - Propose architectural and operational changes to the DNS root zone (RZ).
>
> - Engage expertise and conduct community consultations on RZ Evolution
>  issues
>
> - Consult with ICANN in the development of an RFP for RZ maintainer, and
> help evaluate proposals if needed
>
> - Initiate a public consultation process on operational and architectural
> changes that might impose potential risk to the security, stability, or
> resiliency of the root system
>
>
>
> With the exception of 2 minor changes, we approve of the purpose, scope
> and composition of the committee. The two changes are:
>
>
>
> 1) For the sake of clarity, and to avoid mission creep in the future, all
> references to the "root zone" should be modified to say "DNS root zone."
>
>
>
> 2) The composition of the RZERC excludes end users. We recommend the
> addition of one representative from the NCPH of the GNSO.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160707/243b4bc9/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Fri Jul  8 00:08:16 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 21:08:16 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for consensus: RZERC charter comment - deadline
 9th	July
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3e77drRfuY13uyA0mto44XyDzasd_JATT329qoVdSNyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK3e77drRfuY13uyA0mto44XyDzasd_JATT329qoVdSNyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB52174EA1078294FB2364C53F73B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear Milton, dear Marilia
thanks for composing and forwarding this to the PC.
I am in favor of submitting it as NCSG, especially in reference to point 2).
Thanks much, Stefania
________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Inviato: gioved? 7 luglio 2016 16.39.51
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Cc: Mueller, Milton L
Oggetto: [PC-NCSG] Call for consensus: RZERC charter comment - deadline 9th     July

Dear PC colleagues,

We have an open public comment regarding the charter of the root zone evolution review committee (RZEC). Milton put together a draft response. Could you please take a look and share your views until July 9th 23:00 UTC? The text is short and too the point (see below). If there are no objections, we will present it as a contribution from NCSG.

For further information, please see: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-rzerc-charter-2016-06-10-en

Thank you!
Marilia



On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
Marilia and member of NCSG and the policy committee:

Here are my proposed comments. I think it would be much more effective if these comments were filed timely by NCSG rather than by me as an individual. Therefore I will refrain from filing them. If NCSG runs into a snag and is unable to do so, please warn me and I will file them individually.

====
Comments of the NCSG on the Draft RZERC Charter

The RZERC is a consultative committee with powers to
 - Propose architectural and operational changes to the DNS root zone (RZ).
- Engage expertise and conduct community consultations on RZ Evolution  issues
- Consult with ICANN in the development of an RFP for RZ maintainer, and help evaluate proposals if needed
- Initiate a public consultation process on operational and architectural changes that might impose potential risk to the security, stability, or resiliency of the root system

With the exception of 2 minor changes, we approve of the purpose, scope and composition of the committee. The two changes are:

1) For the sake of clarity, and to avoid mission creep in the future, all references to the "root zone" should be modified to say "DNS root zone."

2) The composition of the RZERC excludes end users. We recommend the addition of one representative from the NCPH of the GNSO.


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 t.tropina  Fri Jul  8 13:53:29 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:53:29 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for consensus: RZERC charter comment - deadline
 9th July
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB52174EA1078294FB2364C53F73B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CACpVkK3e77drRfuY13uyA0mto44XyDzasd_JATT329qoVdSNyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB3PR05MB52174EA1078294FB2364C53F73B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <6a50d4af-11a6-ddba-4503-064b1c08b372@mpicc.de>


+ 1 for submission from me

Cheers
Tanya

On 07/07/16 23:08, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> Dear Milton, dear Marilia
> thanks for composing and forwarding this to the PC.
> I am in favor of submitting it as NCSG, especially in reference to point 2).
> Thanks much, Stefania
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Inviato: gioved? 7 luglio 2016 16.39.51
> A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Cc: Mueller, Milton L
> Oggetto: [PC-NCSG] Call for consensus: RZERC charter comment - deadline 9th     July
>
> Dear PC colleagues,
>
> We have an open public comment regarding the charter of the root zone evolution review committee (RZEC). Milton put together a draft response. Could you please take a look and share your views until July 9th 23:00 UTC? The text is short and too the point (see below). If there are no objections, we will present it as a contribution from NCSG.
>
> For further information, please see: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-rzerc-charter-2016-06-10-en
>
> Thank you!
> Marilia
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
> Marilia and member of NCSG and the policy committee:
>
> Here are my proposed comments. I think it would be much more effective if these comments were filed timely by NCSG rather than by me as an individual. Therefore I will refrain from filing them. If NCSG runs into a snag and is unable to do so, please warn me and I will file them individually.
>
> ====
> Comments of the NCSG on the Draft RZERC Charter
>
> The RZERC is a consultative committee with powers to
>  - Propose architectural and operational changes to the DNS root zone (RZ).
> - Engage expertise and conduct community consultations on RZ Evolution  issues
> - Consult with ICANN in the development of an RFP for RZ maintainer, and help evaluate proposals if needed
> - Initiate a public consultation process on operational and architectural changes that might impose potential risk to the security, stability, or resiliency of the root system
>
> With the exception of 2 minor changes, we approve of the purpose, scope and composition of the committee. The two changes are:
>
> 1) For the sake of clarity, and to avoid mission creep in the future, all references to the "root zone" should be modified to say "DNS root zone."
>
> 2) The composition of the RZERC excludes end users. We recommend the addition of one representative from the NCPH of the GNSO.
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mshears  Fri Jul  8 14:50:41 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:50:41 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of
 Incorporation to July 13
In-Reply-To: <ec7fd7a1-e03d-2025-9315-b890faa33a61@cdt.org>
References: <ec7fd7a1-e03d-2025-9315-b890faa33a61@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <c7396c49-9ed6-a0c7-3e54-8f5c13f46d7b@cdt.org>

Dear all

Following some extensive e-mailing in the last hours of the public 
comment on the CCWG list about the need for more time, ICANN has agreed 
to extend this deadline to _July 13_.  I filed the attached just before 
the deadline, then received the mail from Ed, followed the last minute 
exchanges on the CCWG list and then saw that the deadline had been 
extended.  I did not confirm submission as a result, so the attached 
comment was _not_ filed.

There has been some to-ing and fro-ing on the CCWG list as Ed noted in 
his mail.  The CCWG's outside counsel is comfortable with the use of 
"may from time to time" for example.  They state in a mail to the CCWG: 
"From a legal drafting perspective, the word ?may? is appropriate in 
this context, specifically as it is used in the phrase ?may be 
determined from time to time? which indicates that the determination is 
made based on when the need for a determination arises. Use of ?may?  in 
this context does not suggest that someone other than the 
multistakeholder community has a decision right."  Personally, I would 
normally be fine with the CCWG out side counsel's findings but in this 
case I still have concerns.  To elaborate:

The CCWG in its final proposal stated the following (my highlighting and 
underlining):

    CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 1, para 51: The Articles of
    Incorporation will be amended _to clarify_ that*the global public
    interest will be determined through a bottom-up, multistakeholder
    process*.

    CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 5, para 153 (core values)
    2: Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting
    the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet
    at all levels of policy development and decision-making *to ensure
    that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is
    used to ascertain the global public interest *and that those
    processes are accountable and transparent.

These two statements above are pretty clear.  The statement in para 51 
is definitive using the word "will"; the statement in para 153 
reinforces that through the use of the word "ensure".

It would seem to me that the restated AoI does not reflect the language 
above (which is a different matter than whether or not the "may" is an 
appropriate legal term).  In my view the proposed AoI langauge goes 
further than clarifying and in so doing dilutes the language in para 51 
above:

    Text from the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation: ?, the
    Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 54 hereof, pursue
    the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of
    government and promoting the global public interest in the
    operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the
    assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain
    universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and
    overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet
    Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing
    functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name
    system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for
    determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are
    added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the
    authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in
    any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i)
    through (iv), *as such global public interest may be determined from
    time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive
    bottom-up multistakeholder community process*, by carrying out the
    mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?*Bylaws*?).

In the attached NCSG I added a comment suggesting using the specific 
language from paras 51 and 153 as a replacement for the language in the 
restated AoI.  I think this would be the simplest appraoch and also 
remain consistent with what we as the CCWG and broader community have 
agreed.

We can still file the attached.  But I feel further discussion is 
warranted on this matter in the PC.

Your thoughts are very welcome.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	NCSG comment on restated AoI
Date: 	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:57:49 +0100
From: 	matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
To: 	comments-draft-restated-articles-incorporation-27may16 at icann.org



Please see attached.

Matthew Shears
NCSG - PC


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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160708/6b0c1df9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG contribution to restated ICANN AoI.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 196143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160708/6b0c1df9/attachment-0001.pdf>


From egmorris1  Fri Jul  8 16:24:31 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:24:31 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of
	Incorporation to July 13
In-Reply-To: <c7396c49-9ed6-a0c7-3e54-8f5c13f46d7b@cdt.org>
References: <ec7fd7a1-e03d-2025-9315-b890faa33a61@cdt.org>
	<c7396c49-9ed6-a0c7-3e54-8f5c13f46d7b@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <279d661e79b140389d15f1e794366d40@toast.net>

Hi Matt,
  
 I don't agree that the Bylaws and the AoI are inconsistent with each other.
  
 Articles and Bylaws have different purposes and functions. The Articles state that the GPI can be determined by the community through BUMP if it so desires. That's general and flexible, as Articles of Incorporation should be. The Bylaws are more specific, as Bylaws should be, ensuring that BUMP is used to ensure GPI. Nowhere, though, is it mandated that the GPI must be determined, just that if it is done so BUMP must be used. This is the same in both the Articles and the Bylaws.
  
 One note about hierarchy: the Articles are the superior legal instrument and Bylaws need to conform to it, not the other way around.  We're actually doing things a bit backwards here in the transition proposals.
  
 I am opposed to using the word "shall" in any context here as is offered in the proposed NCSG statement. "Shall" requires establishment of a GPI and that is not faithful to either the proposed Articles or the Bylaws. Legally it would open up questions of timing and legitimacy of the validity of any definition ( what would an IRP consider a minimum acceptable definition, if the community is required to establish one?) and opens the question as how to proceed in parts of the Articles and Bylaws  mentioning GPI if the BUMP is unable to agree on a GPI definition in a timely manner. 
  
 I have no problem in supporting the Articles as written. As counsel has written "From a legal drafting perspective, the word "may" is appropriate in this context, specifically as used in the phrase "may be determined from time to time" which indicates that the determination is made based on when the need for a determination arises. Use of "may" in this context does not suggest that someone other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right".
  
 This opinion was supported by both Sidley and Austin and Adler and Colvin, the two law firms engaged by the CCWG, both of which have a fiduciary obligation to act faithfully and in the best interest of this community. I believe they have done so here.
  
 The NCSG proposal is a solution to a problem that does not exist. In fact, by proposing to require community determination of the GPI through use of the word "shall" it creates a number of potential problems that the current formula does not risk. The proposed Articles are superior to the NCSG proposal and as such I do not support submission of the proposed statement on behalf of the NCSG.
  
 Thanks for all of your hard work on this, Matt. Although I do agree with our lawyers that we don't have any real problem here, I do appreciate your concern and perceptions and appreciate your effort in bringing them to the attention of all of us.
  
 Respectfully,
  
 Ed Morris
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org>
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 12:51 PM
To: "PC-NCSG" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of Incorporation to July 13   

Dear all  

Following some extensive e-mailing in the last hours of the public comment on the CCWG list about the need for more time, ICANN has agreed to extend this deadline to July 13.  I filed the attached just before the deadline, then received the mail from Ed, followed the last minute exchanges on the CCWG list and then saw that the deadline had been extended.  I did not confirm submission as a result, so the attached comment was not filed.  

There has been some to-ing and fro-ing on the CCWG list as Ed noted in his mail.  The CCWG's outside counsel is comfortable with the use of "may from time to time" for example.  They state in a mail to the CCWG: "From a legal drafting perspective, the word "may" is appropriate in this context, specifically as it is used in the phrase "may be determined from time to time" which indicates that the determination is made based on when the need for a determination arises. Use of "may"  in this context does not suggest that someone other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right."  Personally, I would normally be fine with the CCWG out side counsel's findings but in this case I still have concerns.  To elaborate:  

The CCWG in its final proposal stated the following (my highlighting and underlining):   

CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 1, para 51: The Articles of Incorporation will be amended to clarify that the global public interest will be determined through a bottom-up, multistakeholder process.   

CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 5, para 153 (core values) 2: Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent.    

These two statements above are pretty clear.  The statement in para 51 is definitive using the word "will"; the statement in para 153 reinforces that through the use of the word "ensure".  

It would seem to me that the restated AoI does not reflect the language above (which is a different matter than whether or not the "may" is an appropriate legal term).  In my view the proposed AoI langauge goes further than clarifying and in so doing dilutes the language in para 51 above:   

Text from the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation: ", the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 54 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv), as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation ("Bylaws").    In the attached NCSG I added a comment suggesting using the specific language from paras 51 and 153 as a replacement for the language in the restated AoI.  I think this would be the simplest appraoch and also remain consistent with what we as the CCWG and broader community have agreed.

We can still file the attached.  But I feel further discussion is warranted on this matter in the PC.

Your thoughts are very welcome.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 
 	 		 			Subject:	  			NCSG comment on restated AoI	  		 
  			Date:	  			Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:57:49 +0100	  		 
  			From:	  			matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>	  		 
  			To:	  			comments-draft-restated-articles-incorporation-27may16 at icann.org	  		

    

 Please see attached.  Matthew Shears NCSG - PC   -------------- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987    
   
----------------------------------------

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
			www.avast.com 				  		

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160708/c6f75c0a/attachment.html>


From mshears  Fri Jul  8 21:02:07 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:02:07 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Status on
 volunteers for rapporteurs in WS2
In-Reply-To: <CAPhodgJru4pKPqN+eWoRch6_Zx8OcajW6YaCRmg2s7YrXqSgfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPhodgJru4pKPqN+eWoRch6_Zx8OcajW6YaCRmg2s7YrXqSgfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e034569f-5d61-10c4-8cf8-b25697a4f292@cdt.org>

Thought this would be of interest.  Number of our colleagues leading the 
WS2 work.



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Status on volunteers for 
rapporteurs in WS2
Date: 	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:41:59 -0400
From: 	Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
To: 	Accountability Cross Community 
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>




?All,

Please find below  the current list of volunteers for rapporteurs for 
WS2 as collected by staff:

  * Diversity - Fiona Asonga, Rafik Dammak
  * Human Rights - Neils ten Oever, Nige
    ?l?
    Roberts
  * Jurisdiction - Greg Shattan, Vinay Kesari
  * Ombudsman - Sebastien Bacholet
  * SO/AC Acct - Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Farzaneh Badii
    ?, Steve DelBianco?
  * Staff Acct. - Avri Doria
  * Transparency -
    ? ?
    Michael Karanicolas
  * Reviewing CEP - Ed Morris
  * Guidelines for Standard of Board Conduct - Lori Schulman

?Bernard Turcotte?
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160708/8c11e9a8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



From avri  Mon Jul 11 20:37:49 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:37:49 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reminder on Community comment for New gTLD
Message-ID: <2d0d1578-ca36-07db-01ff-576f99edc609@acm.org>

Hi,

NCSG Outreach - Community Comment 1.docx
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1465420822248&api=v2>

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1465420822248&api=v2

NCSG Outreach - Community Comment 1.pdf
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1465420832733&api=v2>

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1465420832733&api=v2


<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1465420832733&api=v2>

<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1465420832733&api=v2>

> If possible, please forward
> your comments and input to us by Monday, 25 July 2016 so that we may
> fully consider it in our further
> deliberations.
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1465420832733&api=v2>

<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1465420832733&api=v2>

avri
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1465420832733&api=v2>


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




From maryam.bakoshi  Wed Jul 13 16:45:29 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:45:29 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training | Thursday,
 14 July 2016 |14:00 UTC
Message-ID: <15309b27a2cd475dbe8b901910611e68@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for the NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training on Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 14:00 UTC


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


Full list of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/z658lcd


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Friday, 15 July 2016, 00:00
Tokyo: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 23:00
Beijing: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 22:00
Moscow: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 17:00
New Delhi: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 19:30
Paris: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 16:00
Buenos Aires: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 11:00
New York: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 10:00
Los Angeles: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 07:00




Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: NCSG

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

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


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


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


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


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160713/5b62bc91/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6561 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160713/5b62bc91/attachment-0001.ics>


From mshears  Wed Jul 13 19:14:27 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:14:27 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of
 Incorporation to July 13
In-Reply-To: <279d661e79b140389d15f1e794366d40@toast.net>
References: <ec7fd7a1-e03d-2025-9315-b890faa33a61@cdt.org>
	<c7396c49-9ed6-a0c7-3e54-8f5c13f46d7b@cdt.org>
	<279d661e79b140389d15f1e794366d40@toast.net>
Message-ID: <627c30f6-d9dc-42f6-d215-72e21ea651e9@cdt.org>

Hi all

New deadline is today.  But there have been developments on the CCWG 
list that may have resolved this issue.  The proposed text that was 
agreed on a recent call would change the proposed AOI language:

"as such global public interest _may be determined from time to time_ by 
the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up 
multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set 
forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?)."

To the following:

"Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any 
determination of such global public interest_shall be made _by the 
multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up 
multistakeholder community process"

This means that GPI may be determined as is needed and that any such 
determination shall be done by BUMP.

I believe this provides the clarity that the original text did not and 
therefore addresses the concern that was highlighted in the proposed 
NCSG submission.  I think this obviates the need for us to submit.

Matthew


On 08/07/2016 14:24, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> I don't agree that the Bylaws and the AoI are inconsistent with each 
> other.
> Articles and Bylaws have different purposes and functions. The 
> Articles state that the GPI can be determined by the community through 
> BUMP if it so desires. That's general and flexible, as Articles of 
> Incorporation should be. The Bylaws are more specific, as Bylaws 
> should be, ensuring that BUMP is used to ensure GPI. Nowhere, though, 
> is it mandated that the GPI must be determined, just that if it is 
> done so BUMP must be used. This is the same in both the Articles and 
> the Bylaws.
> One note about hierarchy: the Articles are the superior legal 
> instrument and Bylaws need to conform to it, not the other way 
> around.  We're actually doing things a bit backwards here in the 
> transition proposals.
> I am opposed to using the word "shall" in any context here as is 
> offered in the proposed NCSG statement. "Shall" requires establishment 
> of a GPI and that is not faithful to either the proposed Articles or 
> the Bylaws. Legally it would open up questions of timing 
> and legitimacy of the validity of any definition ( what would an IRP 
> consider a minimum acceptable definition, if the community is 
> /required/ to establish one?) and opens the question as how to proceed 
> in parts of the Articles and Bylaws  mentioning GPI if the BUMP is 
> unable to agree on a GPI definition in a timely manner.
> I have no problem in supporting the Articles as written. As counsel 
> has written "From a legal drafting perspective, the word "may" is 
> appropriate in this context, specifically as used in the phrase "may 
> be determined from time to time" which indicates that the 
> determination is made based on when the need for a determination 
> arises. Use of "may" in this context does not suggest that someone 
> other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right".
> This opinion was supported by both Sidley and Austin and Adler and 
> Colvin, the two law firms engaged by the CCWG, both of which have a 
> fiduciary obligation to act faithfully and in the best interest of 
> this community. I believe they have done so here.
> The NCSG proposal is a solution to a problem that does not exist. In 
> fact, by proposing to require community determination of the GPI 
> through use of the word "shall" it creates a number of potential 
> problems that the current formula does not risk. The proposed Articles 
> are superior to the NCSG proposal and as such I do not support 
> submission of the proposed statement on behalf of the NCSG.
> Thanks for all of your hard work on this, Matt. Although I do agree 
> with our lawyers that we don't have any real problem here, I do 
> appreciate your concern and perceptions and appreciate your effort in 
> bringing them to the attention of all of us.
> Respectfully,
> Ed Morris
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org>
> *Sent*: Friday, July 8, 2016 12:51 PM
> *To*: "PC-NCSG" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> *Subject*: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of 
> Incorporation to July 13
>
> Dear all
>
> Following some extensive e-mailing in the last hours of the public 
> comment on the CCWG list about the need for more time, ICANN has 
> agreed to extend this deadline to _July 13_.  I filed the attached 
> just before the deadline, then received the mail from Ed, followed the 
> last minute exchanges on the CCWG list and then saw that the deadline 
> had been extended.  I did not confirm submission as a result, so the 
> attached comment was _not_ filed.
>
> There has been some to-ing and fro-ing on the CCWG list as Ed noted in 
> his mail.  The CCWG's outside counsel is comfortable with the use of 
> "may from time to time" for example.  They state in a mail to the 
> CCWG: "From a legal drafting perspective, the word ?may? is 
> appropriate in this context, specifically as it is used in the phrase 
> ?may be determined from time to time? which indicates that the 
> determination is made based on when the need for a determination 
> arises. Use of ?may?  in this context does not suggest that someone 
> other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right."  
> Personally, I would normally be fine with the CCWG out side counsel's 
> findings but in this case I still have concerns.  To elaborate:
>
> The CCWG in its final proposal stated the following (my highlighting 
> and underlining):
>
>     CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 1, para 51: The Articles
>     of Incorporation will be amended _to clarify_ that*the global
>     public interest will be determined through a bottom-up,
>     multistakeholder process*.
>
>     CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 5, para 153 (core values)
>     2: Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting
>     the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet
>     at all levels of policy development and decision-making *to ensure
>     that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is
>     used to ascertain the global public interest *and that those
>     processes are accountable and transparent.
>
> These two statements above are pretty clear.  The statement in para 51 
> is definitive using the word "will"; the statement in para 153 
> reinforces that through the use of the word "ensure".
>
> It would seem to me that the restated AoI does not reflect the 
> language above (which is a different matter than whether or not the 
> "may" is an appropriate legal term).  In my view the proposed AoI 
> langauge goes further than clarifying and in so doing dilutes the 
> language in para 51 above:
>
>     Text from the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation: ?, the
>     Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 54 hereof, pursue
>     the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of
>     government and promoting the global public interest in the
>     operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the
>     assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain
>     universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and
>     overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet
>     Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing
>     functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name
>     system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for
>     determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains
>     are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the
>     authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in
>     any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i)
>     through (iv), *as such global public interest may be determined
>     from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an
>     inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process*, by
>     carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the
>     Corporation (?*Bylaws*?).
>
> In the attached NCSG I added a comment suggesting using the specific 
> language from paras 51 and 153 as a replacement for the language in 
> the restated AoI.  I think this would be the simplest appraoch and 
> also remain consistent with what we as the CCWG and broader community 
> have agreed.
>
> We can still file the attached.  But I feel further discussion is 
> warranted on this matter in the PC.
>
> Your thoughts are very welcome.
>
> Matthew
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	NCSG comment on restated AoI
> Date: 	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:57:49 +0100
> From: 	matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
> To: 	comments-draft-restated-articles-incorporation-27may16 at icann.org
>
> Please see attached.
>
> Matthew Shears
> NCSG - PC
>
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>

-- 

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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160713/fe292309/attachment.html>


From t.tropina  Wed Jul 13 23:56:57 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:56:57 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of
 Incorporation to July 13
In-Reply-To: <627c30f6-d9dc-42f6-d215-72e21ea651e9@cdt.org>
References: <ec7fd7a1-e03d-2025-9315-b890faa33a61@cdt.org>
	<c7396c49-9ed6-a0c7-3e54-8f5c13f46d7b@cdt.org>
	<279d661e79b140389d15f1e794366d40@toast.net>
	<627c30f6-d9dc-42f6-d215-72e21ea651e9@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <b1f16eef-d6d5-e55a-a175-c6c10d8ecafb@mpicc.de>

Hi Matthew,

thanks! I think there is no need for the NCSG comment anymore. The issue
is resolved.

Cheers

Tanya


On 13/07/16 18:14, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> New deadline is today.  But there have been developments on the CCWG
> list that may have resolved this issue.  The proposed text that was
> agreed on a recent call would change the proposed AOI language:
>
> "as such global public interest _may be determined from time to time_
> by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up
> multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set
> forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?)."
>
> To the following:
>
> "Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any
> determination of such global public interest_shall be made _by the
> multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up
> multistakeholder community process"
>
> This means that GPI may be determined as is needed and that any such
> determination shall be done by BUMP.
>
> I believe this provides the clarity that the original text did not and
> therefore addresses the concern that was highlighted in the proposed
> NCSG submission.  I think this obviates the need for us to submit.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 08/07/2016 14:24, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>>  
>> I don't agree that the Bylaws and the AoI are inconsistent with each
>> other.
>>  
>> Articles and Bylaws have different purposes and functions. The
>> Articles state that the GPI can be determined by the community
>> through BUMP if it so desires. That's general and flexible, as
>> Articles of Incorporation should be. The Bylaws are more specific, as
>> Bylaws should be, ensuring that BUMP is used to ensure GPI. Nowhere,
>> though, is it mandated that the GPI must be determined, just that if
>> it is done so BUMP must be used. This is the same in both the
>> Articles and the Bylaws.
>>  
>> One note about hierarchy: the Articles are the superior legal
>> instrument and Bylaws need to conform to it, not the other way
>> around.  We're actually doing things a bit backwards here in the
>> transition proposals.
>>  
>> I am opposed to using the word "shall" in any context here as is
>> offered in the proposed NCSG statement. "Shall" requires
>> establishment of a GPI and that is not faithful to either the
>> proposed Articles or the Bylaws. Legally it would open up questions
>> of timing and legitimacy of the validity of any definition ( what
>> would an IRP consider a minimum acceptable definition, if the
>> community is /required/ to establish one?) and opens the question as
>> how to proceed in parts of the Articles and Bylaws  mentioning GPI if
>> the BUMP is unable to agree on a GPI definition in a timely manner. 
>>  
>> I have no problem in supporting the Articles as written. As counsel
>> has written "From a legal drafting perspective, the word "may" is
>> appropriate in this context, specifically as used in the phrase "may
>> be determined from time to time" which indicates that the
>> determination is made based on when the need for a determination
>> arises. Use of "may" in this context does not suggest that someone
>> other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right".
>>  
>> This opinion was supported by both Sidley and Austin and Adler and
>> Colvin, the two law firms engaged by the CCWG, both of which have a
>> fiduciary obligation to act faithfully and in the best interest of
>> this community. I believe they have done so here.
>>  
>> The NCSG proposal is a solution to a problem that does not exist. In
>> fact, by proposing to require community determination of the GPI
>> through use of the word "shall" it creates a number of potential
>> problems that the current formula does not risk. The proposed
>> Articles are superior to the NCSG proposal and as such I do not
>> support submission of the proposed statement on behalf of the NCSG.
>>  
>> Thanks for all of your hard work on this, Matt. Although I do agree
>> with our lawyers that we don't have any real problem here, I do
>> appreciate your concern and perceptions and appreciate your effort in
>> bringing them to the attention of all of us.
>>  
>> Respectfully,
>>  
>> Ed Morris
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org>
>> *Sent*: Friday, July 8, 2016 12:51 PM
>> *To*: "PC-NCSG" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>> *Subject*: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article
>> of Incorporation to July 13
>>  
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Following some extensive e-mailing in the last hours of the public
>> comment on the CCWG list about the need for more time, ICANN has
>> agreed to extend this deadline to _July 13_.  I filed the attached
>> just before the deadline, then received the mail from Ed, followed
>> the last minute exchanges on the CCWG list and then saw that the
>> deadline had been extended.  I did not confirm submission as a
>> result, so the attached comment was _not_ filed.
>>
>> There has been some to-ing and fro-ing on the CCWG list as Ed noted
>> in his mail.  The CCWG's outside counsel is comfortable with the use
>> of "may from time to time" for example.  They state in a mail to the
>> CCWG: "From a legal drafting perspective, the word ?may? is
>> appropriate in this context, specifically as it is used in the phrase
>> ?may be determined from time to time? which indicates that the
>> determination is made based on when the need for a determination
>> arises. Use of ?may?  in this context does not suggest that someone
>> other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right." 
>> Personally, I would normally be fine with the CCWG out side counsel's
>> findings but in this case I still have concerns.  To elaborate:
>>
>> The CCWG in its final proposal stated the following (my highlighting
>> and underlining):
>>
>>     CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 1, para 51: The Articles
>>     of Incorporation will be amended _to clarify_ that*the global
>>     public interest will be determined through a bottom-up,
>>     multistakeholder process*.
>>
>>     CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 5, para 153 (core
>>     values) 2: Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation
>>     reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of
>>     the Internet at all levels of policy development and
>>     decision-making *to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder
>>     policy development process is used to ascertain the global public
>>     interest *and that those processes are accountable and transparent.
>>
>> These two statements above are pretty clear.  The statement in para
>> 51 is definitive using the word "will"; the statement in para 153
>> reinforces that through the use of the word "ensure".
>>
>> It would seem to me that the restated AoI does not reflect the
>> language above (which is a different matter than whether or not the
>> "may" is an appropriate legal term).  In my view the proposed AoI
>> langauge goes further than clarifying and in so doing dilutes the
>> language in para 51 above:
>>
>>     Text from the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation: ?, the
>>     Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 54 hereof, pursue
>>     the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of
>>     government and promoting the global public interest in the
>>     operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the
>>     assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain
>>     universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and
>>     overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet
>>     Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing
>>     functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name
>>     system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for
>>     determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains
>>     are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of
>>     the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v)
>>     engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of
>>     items (i) through (iv), *as such global public interest may be
>>     determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community
>>     through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community
>>     process*, by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of
>>     the Corporation (?*Bylaws*?).
>>
>> In the attached NCSG I added a comment suggesting using the specific
>> language from paras 51 and 153 as a replacement for the language in
>> the restated AoI.  I think this would be the simplest appraoch and
>> also remain consistent with what we as the CCWG and broader community
>> have agreed.
>>
>> We can still file the attached.  But I feel further discussion is
>> warranted on this matter in the PC.
>>
>> Your thoughts are very welcome.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	NCSG comment on restated AoI
>> Date: 	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:57:49 +0100
>> From: 	matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
>> To: 	comments-draft-restated-articles-incorporation-27may16 at icann.org
>>
>>  
>> Please see attached.
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> NCSG - PC
>>
>>
>> --------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
>>
>>
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>  
>
> -- 
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160713/0382e295/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Thu Jul 14 00:06:20 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 21:06:20 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of
 Incorporation to July 13
In-Reply-To: <b1f16eef-d6d5-e55a-a175-c6c10d8ecafb@mpicc.de>
References: <ec7fd7a1-e03d-2025-9315-b890faa33a61@cdt.org>
	<c7396c49-9ed6-a0c7-3e54-8f5c13f46d7b@cdt.org>
	<279d661e79b140389d15f1e794366d40@toast.net>
	<627c30f6-d9dc-42f6-d215-72e21ea651e9@cdt.org>,
	<b1f16eef-d6d5-e55a-a175-c6c10d8ecafb@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <A610BDD3-1A6D-421B-8BC0-56D2500AD094@EUI.eu>

seems so! thanks for walking us thru
stefania

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 13, 2016, at 22:57, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de<mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>> wrote:


Hi Matthew,

thanks! I think there is no need for the NCSG comment anymore. The issue is resolved.

Cheers

Tanya

On 13/07/16 18:14, matthew shears wrote:

Hi all

New deadline is today.  But there have been developments on the CCWG list that may have resolved this issue.  The proposed text that was agreed on a recent call would change the proposed AOI language:

"as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?)."

To the following:

"Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process"

This means that GPI may be determined as is needed and that any such determination shall be done by BUMP.

I believe this provides the clarity that the original text did not and therefore addresses the concern that was highlighted in the proposed NCSG submission.  I think this obviates the need for us to submit.

Matthew


On 08/07/2016 14:24, Edward Morris wrote:
Hi Matt,

I don't agree that the Bylaws and the AoI are inconsistent with each other.

Articles and Bylaws have different purposes and functions. The Articles state that the GPI can be determined by the community through BUMP if it so desires. That's general and flexible, as Articles of Incorporation should be. The Bylaws are more specific, as Bylaws should be, ensuring that BUMP is used to ensure GPI. Nowhere, though, is it mandated that the GPI must be determined, just that if it is done so BUMP must be used. This is the same in both the Articles and the Bylaws.

One note about hierarchy: the Articles are the superior legal instrument and Bylaws need to conform to it, not the other way around.  We're actually doing things a bit backwards here in the transition proposals.

I am opposed to using the word "shall" in any context here as is offered in the proposed NCSG statement. "Shall" requires establishment of a GPI and that is not faithful to either the proposed Articles or the Bylaws. Legally it would open up questions of timing and legitimacy of the validity of any definition ( what would an IRP consider a minimum acceptable definition, if the community is required to establish one?) and opens the question as how to proceed in parts of the Articles and Bylaws  mentioning GPI if the BUMP is unable to agree on a GPI definition in a timely manner.

I have no problem in supporting the Articles as written. As counsel has written "From a legal drafting perspective, the word "may" is appropriate in this context, specifically as used in the phrase "may be determined from time to time" which indicates that the determination is made based on when the need for a determination arises. Use of "may" in this context does not suggest that someone other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right".

This opinion was supported by both Sidley and Austin and Adler and Colvin, the two law firms engaged by the CCWG, both of which have a fiduciary obligation to act faithfully and in the best interest of this community. I believe they have done so here.

The NCSG proposal is a solution to a problem that does not exist. In fact, by proposing to require community determination of the GPI through use of the word "shall" it creates a number of potential problems that the current formula does not risk. The proposed Articles are superior to the NCSG proposal and as such I do not support submission of the proposed statement on behalf of the NCSG.

Thanks for all of your hard work on this, Matt. Although I do agree with our lawyers that we don't have any real problem here, I do appreciate your concern and perceptions and appreciate your effort in bringing them to the attention of all of us.

Respectfully,

Ed Morris



________________________________
From: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 12:51 PM
To: "PC-NCSG" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org><mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Deadline extended for ICANN's restated Article of Incorporation to July 13


Dear all

Following some extensive e-mailing in the last hours of the public comment on the CCWG list about the need for more time, ICANN has agreed to extend this deadline to July 13.  I filed the attached just before the deadline, then received the mail from Ed, followed the last minute exchanges on the CCWG list and then saw that the deadline had been extended.  I did not confirm submission as a result, so the attached comment was not filed.

There has been some to-ing and fro-ing on the CCWG list as Ed noted in his mail.  The CCWG's outside counsel is comfortable with the use of "may from time to time" for example.  They state in a mail to the CCWG: "From a legal drafting perspective, the word ?may? is appropriate in this context, specifically as it is used in the phrase ?may be determined from time to time? which indicates that the determination is made based on when the need for a determination arises. Use of ?may?  in this context does not suggest that someone other than the multistakeholder community has a decision right."  Personally, I would normally be fine with the CCWG out side counsel's findings but in this case I still have concerns.  To elaborate:

The CCWG in its final proposal stated the following (my highlighting and underlining):

CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 1, para 51: The Articles of Incorporation will be amended to clarify that the global public interest will be determined through a bottom-up, multistakeholder process.

CCWG-Accountability Final Recommendation 5, para 153 (core values) 2: Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent.

These two statements above are pretty clear.  The statement in para 51 is definitive using the word "will"; the statement in para 153 reinforces that through the use of the word "ensure".

It would seem to me that the restated AoI does not reflect the language above (which is a different matter than whether or not the "may" is an appropriate legal term).  In my view the proposed AoI langauge goes further than clarifying and in so doing dilutes the language in para 51 above:

Text from the Draft Restated Articles of Incorporation: ?, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 54 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv), as such global public interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process, by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (?Bylaws?).

In the attached NCSG I added a comment suggesting using the specific language from paras 51 and 153 as a replacement for the language in the restated AoI.  I think this would be the simplest appraoch and also remain consistent with what we as the CCWG and broader community have agreed.

We can still file the attached.  But I feel further discussion is warranted on this matter in the PC.

Your thoughts are very welcome.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        NCSG comment on restated AoI
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:57:49 +0100
From:   matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
To:     comments-draft-restated-articles-incorporation-27may16 at icann.org<mailto:comments-draft-restated-articles-incorporation-27may16 at icann.org>


Please see attached.

Matthew Shears
NCSG - PC


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





________________________________
[Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

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





--

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


________________________________
[Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

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





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


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

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160713/08f58b2a/attachment-0001.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Thu Jul 14 14:00:45 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:00:45 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] **REMINDER** NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training |
 Thursday, 14 July 2016 |14:00 UTC
Message-ID: <39805b15b29e43f687e070fb2ecb661b@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


**REMINDER**


Please find below participation details for the NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training, for today, Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 14:00 UTC


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


Full list of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/z658lcd


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Friday, 15 July 2016, 00:00
Tokyo: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 23:00
Beijing: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 22:00
Moscow: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 17:00
New Delhi: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 19:30
Paris: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 16:00
Buenos Aires: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 11:00
New York: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 10:00
Los Angeles: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 07:00




Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: NCSG

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

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


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


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


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


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160714/c831652e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160714/c831652e/attachment-0001.ics>


From mshears  Thu Jul 14 14:05:44 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:05:44 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI bylaws - items for possible discussion
Message-ID: <7e3cc7bf-a8b9-6336-c999-d4df6de43c82@cdt.org>

Hi all

Quickly reading through the proposed PTI by-laws (circulated to the CWG 
yesterday and on the ICANN website 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-pti-bylaws-12jul16-en.pdf 
) I note the following (BUT I am sure that I have missed some points 
worthy of discussion):

1.    principal office issue (Art 2)

"The principal office for the transaction of the business of the 
Corporation may be established at any place or places within or without 
the State of California by resolution of the Board.The Board may at any 
time establish branch or subordinate offices at any place or places 
where the Corporation is qualified to transact business."

Q.  Why would the power to determine the principal office of PTI not be 
subject to the same rules as for ICANN's place of business - if there is 
a change surely the empowered community should have a say, and not just 
the PTI Board (assuming Board in the article means PTI Board)?   We have 
the EC involved significantly in the decision-tree for PTI - why not in 
determining its place of business as we do for ICANN itself?

2.    purpose of PTI (art 3)

"The specific purpose of the Corporation is to operate exclusively for 
the benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out the 
purposes of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
(?*ICANN*?)."

Q. I thought that the purpose of the PTI subsidiary was to perform the 
IANA functions pursuant to the inter-company contract established 
between ICANN and PTI?


3.    Removal of Director (Art 5.6.2) - isn't the first sentence in 
contradiction with the other three paras?  it says may be removed w/out 
cause but then lists the causes....  May be this is just legalese....


4.  Responsibilities of officers (Art 7.6.1) - role of President. Given 
that we are suggesting that the Chair of the Board be, as is possible, 
nominated to the ICANN Board by the nominating committee - do we really 
want the President - who will be an ICANN appointee (typically the 
manager of the IANA functions) - to assume the role of Chairperson in 
the latter's absence?  Why would we not suggest that the other 
nominating committee appointed Director be the replacement if the Chair 
is absent to ensure a balance of interests/independence?

These bylaws are now also up for public comment:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en

Matthew




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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160714/a5c20433/attachment-0001.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Thu Jul 14 16:33:03 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:33:03 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] **REMINDER** NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training |
 Thursday, 14 July 2016 |14:00 UTC
Message-ID: <2835d2a9e3e042d9bdb36c11f0a785a2@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


**REMINDER**


Please find below participation details for the NCSG Policy Committee Trello Training, for today, Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 14:00 UTC


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


Full list of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/z658lcd


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Friday, 15 July 2016, 00:00
Tokyo: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 23:00
Beijing: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 22:00
Moscow: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 17:00
New Delhi: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 19:30
Paris: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 16:00
Buenos Aires: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 11:00
New York: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 10:00
Los Angeles: Thursday, 14 July 2016, 07:00




Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: NCSG

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

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


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


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


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


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160714/f48aab58/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160714/f48aab58/attachment-0001.ics>


From mariliamaciel  Fri Jul 22 11:21:19 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:21:19 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Drafting group on PTI issues - upcoming public comments
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2nngFZYs4MuyDc0PLA3ZnJrY9rBcgqw1=V8hbo6CaQLQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

In this week's NCSG policy committee call we discussed the upcoming public
comments. The most outstanding issue ahead of us is definitely the post
transition IANA (PTI). There are three upcoming public comment periods
related to this issue:

31/07: Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en

07/08: PTI Governance Documents
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en

11/08: Draft PTI Bylaws
 https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en

We agreed that, in order to save time and efforts, the best approach would
be to create an NCSG drafting team to work on these PTI consultations.
Matthew Shears volunteered to be the facilitator, but we definitively need
the inputs and experience of others in our group. Matt will guide us
through the next steps. He already started the conversation about a week
ago (please refer to his previous message below).

Please step forward if you can assist on this important task.

All the best wishes,
Marilia

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI bylaws - items for possible discussion
To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>


Hi all
Quickly reading through the proposed PTI by-laws (circulated to the CWG
yesterday and on the ICANN website
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-pti-bylaws-12jul16-en.pdf
) I note the following (BUT I am sure that I have missed some points worthy
of discussion):

1.    principal office issue (Art 2)

"The principal office for the transaction of the business of the
Corporation may be established at any place or places within or without the
State of California by resolution of the Board.  The Board may at any time
establish branch or subordinate offices at any place or places where the
Corporation is qualified to transact business."

Q.  Why would the power to determine the principal office of PTI not be
subject to the same rules as for ICANN's place of business - if there is a
change surely the empowered community should have a say, and not just the
PTI Board (assuming Board in the article means PTI Board)?   We have the EC
involved significantly in the decision-tree for PTI - why not in
determining its place of business as we do for ICANN itself?

2.    purpose of PTI (art 3)

"The specific purpose of the Corporation is to operate exclusively for the
benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out the purposes of
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (?*ICANN*?)."

Q. I thought that the purpose of the PTI subsidiary was to perform the IANA
functions pursuant to the inter-company contract established between ICANN
and PTI?


3.    Removal of Director (Art 5.6.2) - isn't the first sentence in
contradiction with the other three paras?  it says may be removed w/out
cause but then lists the causes....  May be this is just legalese....


4.  Responsibilities of officers (Art 7.6.1) - role of President.  Given
that we are suggesting that the Chair of the Board be, as is possible,
nominated to the ICANN Board by the nominating committee - do we really
want the President - who will be an ICANN appointee (typically the manager
of the IANA functions) - to assume the role of Chairperson in the latter's
absence?  Why would we not suggest that the other nominating committee
appointed Director be the replacement if the Chair is absent to ensure a
balance of interests/independence?

These bylaws are now also up for public comment:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en

Matthew

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



------------------------------
[image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

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


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160722/3aaf4a3c/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Jul 22 17:57:14 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:57:14 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: REMINDER (Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO
	Drafting Team)
References: <644CC0BD-5A57-48A1-AAA6-A1505CD7B651@icann.org>
Message-ID: <61BA267E-B675-4C4E-A141-5E0F811419EB@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I have an update on the call for volunteers for the GNSO DT to develop recommendations for implementing the GNSO?s new powers. My understanding of the announcement was that members of the SGs/Cs would simply inform on of their elected councillors of their desire to join the DT. I figured matching those volunteers against the desired experience in the announcement would be done at a later stage. I was apparently wrong.

So far, 5 NCSG members have expressed interest in joining the DT. So along with my name, I submitted 6 names to the GNSO secretariat:

1. Amr Elsadr
2. Matthew Shears
3. Wisdom Donkor
4. Sonigitu Ekpe
5. Pascal Bekono
6. Karel Douglas

I?ve also asked that placeholders be held for these names until the NCSG PC can review them against the criteria described below. It seems the NCSG will have the last say in our appointments, and I was wondering whether or not we would like to go through an exercise to determine how well our members match these criteria.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Amr

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Subject: REMINDER (Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team)
> Date: July 22, 2016 at 1:57:50 AM GMT+2
> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Hello and thanks to Amr for his question and reminder that the closing date for volunteers to send in their names was set to be Friday 22 July. As such, Councilors for those Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies that have not yet formally submitted names of volunteers are kindly requested to do so at their earliest convenience. FYI, as of today (21 July), staff has only received the names of five volunteers from the NCSG.
>  
> Please note also that, in accordance with the resolution that established this Drafting Team, volunteers should be those who ?can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures.? In addition, the resolution provides that ?the Drafting Team shall reflect the current composition of the GNSO and as such, the GNSO Council may review the number of volunteers identified by the GNSO Council members.?
>  
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>  
>  
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>  
>  
>  
> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
> Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 19:50
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team
>  
> Hi,
>  
> This wasn?t very clear to me, so yes?, it does help greatly.
>  
> Thanks James.
>  
> Amr
>  
>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 1:37 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi Amr-
>>  
>> In fact, yes, I believe we were expecting the vetting of criteria/capabilities to be done by the SGs and Cs.  Or, to turn the question around, I don?t believe it was anticipated that the Council would question or veto the selected member of any SG or C due to concerns.
>>  
>> Hope this helps.
>>  
>> J.
>>  
>>  
>> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>> Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 18:36 
>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team
>>  
>> Hi,
>>  
>> We just ended our monthly call, and I had a question on the AOB agenda item number 9.2 concerning ?Update on status of progress on the Drafting Team that is to identify new and additional rights and responsibilities for the GNSO under the revised ICANN Bylaws?:
>>  
>> In the below email, there are some qualifications described for potential volunteers to this group. I was wondering who is meant to determine whether these qualifications are met in volunteers. Is the GNSO Council meant to do this, or are the SGs/Cs supposed to do this prior to submitting names? I didn?t think the second scenario was the case, as the application process seems to be simply notifying a councillor of the desire to join the group, who would be expected, in turn, to communicated this to the GNSO secretariat.
>>  
>> As James mentioned on the call, the deadline for applications to join this group is tomorrow.
>>  
>> Thanks.
>>  
>> Amr
>>  
>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Dear GNSO Councilors,
>>>  
>>> Please see the following Call for Volunteers.
>>>  
>>> Kind regards,
>>>  
>>> Nathalie
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Drafting Team to Further Develop Recommendations to Implement the GNSO?s New Roles and Obligations Under the Revised ICANN Bylaws
>>>  
>>> In Brief
>>>  
>>> Per the motion adopted on 30 June 2016, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a Drafting Team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the post-transition ICANN Bylaws.
>>>  
>>> What This Team Will Do
>>>  
>>> The Drafting Team will work with ICANN staff to fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the post-transition Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities.
>>> The Drafting Team shall provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan, which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016.
>>> As part of the process of its consideration of the implementation plan, intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote, the Council may further request that the Drafting Team work with ICANN staff to develop new, or propose modifications to existing, procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO. Any such new, or proposed modifications to existing procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO are also intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote.
>>>  
>>> How to Join
>>> Volunteers for the Drafting Team will be identified by GNSO Council members. Volunteers should express interests and can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures. The Drafting Team shall reflect the current composition of the GNSO and as such, the GNSO Council may review the number of volunteers identified by the GNSO Council members. GNSO Councilors are requested to identify volunteers by email to gnso-sec at icann.org <mailto:gnso-sec at icann.org>by 22 July 2016.
>>>  
>>> Next steps
>>>  
>>> As noted above, the GNSO Council directed that this call for volunteers be circulated to the GNSO Council and that the volunteers should be identified by GNSO Council members. It is anticipated that the Drafting Team will convene online for the first time in early August 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Drafting Team?s work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks.
>>>  
>>> Further information and Preparation
>>>  
>>> For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are encouraged to review the  table at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf>.
>>>  
>>> Background
>>>  
>>> On 27 May 2016 the ICANN Board adopted a set of new ICANN Bylaws, as revised on 26 May 2016, that aim to reflect changes needed to implement the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and such adoption is contingent on the proposed transition away of remaining United States Government oversight of ICANN.  The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council is aware that changes that may need to be made to the GNSO?s current Operating Procedures and related mechanisms and to the ICANN Bylaws in order to give effect to new roles and obligations of the GNSO under the new Bylaws, such as those in this table (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf>), including but not limited to the GNSO?s participation in the Empowered Community.  Per the motion adopted on 30 June 2016, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a Drafting Team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>> 
>>  
> 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160722/7ff89a9d/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Jul 22 18:02:51 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:02:51 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER (Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO
	Drafting Team)
In-Reply-To: <61BA267E-B675-4C4E-A141-5E0F811419EB@egyptig.org>
References: <644CC0BD-5A57-48A1-AAA6-A1505CD7B651@icann.org>
	<61BA267E-B675-4C4E-A141-5E0F811419EB@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <F7A5BD96-BCA0-4E67-9315-403140389E90@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

And another quick update. Staff has just informed me that Ed has also submitted his name along with Tapani?s and Farzaneh?s. So we have 9 potential volunteers for this DT, not 6.

Ed?, thanks for volunteering, and good job talking Tapani and Farzi into it. ;-)

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Jul 22, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have an update on the call for volunteers for the GNSO DT to develop recommendations for implementing the GNSO?s new powers. My understanding of the announcement was that members of the SGs/Cs would simply inform on of their elected councillors of their desire to join the DT. I figured matching those volunteers against the desired experience in the announcement would be done at a later stage. I was apparently wrong.
> 
> So far, 5 NCSG members have expressed interest in joining the DT. So along with my name, I submitted 6 names to the GNSO secretariat:
> 
> 1. Amr Elsadr
> 2. Matthew Shears
> 3. Wisdom Donkor
> 4. Sonigitu Ekpe
> 5. Pascal Bekono
> 6. Karel Douglas
> 
> I?ve also asked that placeholders be held for these names until the NCSG PC can review them against the criteria described below. It seems the NCSG will have the last say in our appointments, and I was wondering whether or not we would like to go through an exercise to determine how well our members match these criteria.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>> Subject: REMINDER (Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team)
>> Date: July 22, 2016 at 1:57:50 AM GMT+2
>> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
>> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>> 
>> Hello and thanks to Amr for his question and reminder that the closing date for volunteers to send in their names was set to be Friday 22 July. As such, Councilors for those Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies that have not yet formally submitted names of volunteers are kindly requested to do so at their earliest convenience. FYI, as of today (21 July), staff has only received the names of five volunteers from the NCSG.
>>  
>> Please note also that, in accordance with the resolution that established this Drafting Team, volunteers should be those who ?can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures.? In addition, the resolution provides that ?the Drafting Team shall reflect the current composition of the GNSO and as such, the GNSO Council may review the number of volunteers identified by the GNSO Council members.?
>>  
>> Thanks and cheers
>> Mary
>>  
>>  
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>> Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 19:50
>> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
>> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team
>>  
>> Hi,
>>  
>> This wasn?t very clear to me, so yes?, it does help greatly.
>>  
>> Thanks James.
>>  
>> Amr
>>  
>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 1:37 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Hi Amr-
>>>  
>>> In fact, yes, I believe we were expecting the vetting of criteria/capabilities to be done by the SGs and Cs.  Or, to turn the question around, I don?t believe it was anticipated that the Council would question or veto the selected member of any SG or C due to concerns.
>>>  
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>  
>>> J.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>> Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 18:36 
>>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team
>>>  
>>> Hi,
>>>  
>>> We just ended our monthly call, and I had a question on the AOB agenda item number 9.2 concerning ?Update on status of progress on the Drafting Team that is to identify new and additional rights and responsibilities for the GNSO under the revised ICANN Bylaws?:
>>>  
>>> In the below email, there are some qualifications described for potential volunteers to this group. I was wondering who is meant to determine whether these qualifications are met in volunteers. Is the GNSO Council meant to do this, or are the SGs/Cs supposed to do this prior to submitting names? I didn?t think the second scenario was the case, as the application process seems to be simply notifying a councillor of the desire to join the group, who would be expected, in turn, to communicated this to the GNSO secretariat.
>>>  
>>> As James mentioned on the call, the deadline for applications to join this group is tomorrow.
>>>  
>>> Thanks.
>>>  
>>> Amr
>>>  
>>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> Dear GNSO Councilors,
>>>>  
>>>> Please see the following Call for Volunteers.
>>>>  
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>  
>>>> Nathalie
>>>> -- 
>>>>  
>>>> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Drafting Team to Further Develop Recommendations to Implement the GNSO?s New Roles and Obligations Under the Revised ICANN Bylaws
>>>>  
>>>> In Brief
>>>>  
>>>> Per the motion adopted on 30 June 2016, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a Drafting Team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the post-transition ICANN Bylaws.
>>>>  
>>>> What This Team Will Do
>>>>  
>>>> The Drafting Team will work with ICANN staff to fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the post-transition Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities.
>>>> The Drafting Team shall provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan, which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016.
>>>> As part of the process of its consideration of the implementation plan, intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote, the Council may further request that the Drafting Team work with ICANN staff to develop new, or propose modifications to existing, procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO. Any such new, or proposed modifications to existing procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO are also intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote.
>>>>  
>>>> How to Join
>>>> Volunteers for the Drafting Team will be identified by GNSO Council members. Volunteers should express interests and can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures. The Drafting Team shall reflect the current composition of the GNSO and as such, the GNSO Council may review the number of volunteers identified by the GNSO Council members. GNSO Councilors are requested to identify volunteers by email to gnso-sec at icann.org <mailto:gnso-sec at icann.org>by 22 July 2016.
>>>>  
>>>> Next steps
>>>>  
>>>> As noted above, the GNSO Council directed that this call for volunteers be circulated to the GNSO Council and that the volunteers should be identified by GNSO Council members. It is anticipated that the Drafting Team will convene online for the first time in early August 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Drafting Team?s work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks.
>>>>  
>>>> Further information and Preparation
>>>>  
>>>> For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are encouraged to review the  table at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf>.
>>>>  
>>>> Background
>>>>  
>>>> On 27 May 2016 the ICANN Board adopted a set of new ICANN Bylaws, as revised on 26 May 2016, that aim to reflect changes needed to implement the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and such adoption is contingent on the proposed transition away of remaining United States Government oversight of ICANN.  The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council is aware that changes that may need to be made to the GNSO?s current Operating Procedures and related mechanisms and to the ICANN Bylaws in order to give effect to new roles and obligations of the GNSO under the new Bylaws, such as those in this table (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf>), including but not limited to the GNSO?s participation in the Empowered Community.  Per the motion adopted on 30 June 2016, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a Drafting Team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws.
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>> 
>>  
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160722/8f6b1253/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Fri Jul 22 18:48:09 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:48:09 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Drafting group on PTI issues - upcoming public
	comments
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2nngFZYs4MuyDc0PLA3ZnJrY9rBcgqw1=V8hbo6CaQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2nngFZYs4MuyDc0PLA3ZnJrY9rBcgqw1=V8hbo6CaQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef9a993e-bd65-686a-0647-2c080cabe386@cdt.org>

Thanks Marilia.

I have set up a google doc for comments/drafting etc.:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19a1YqSnQ-QFBQF1Im0cnHKMeW8RAEBChdJgp6q6wAs4/edit?usp=sharing

I have entered some additional points on the draft PTI AoI for your 
consideration as that is the most imminent deadline.

Best.

Matthew

On 22/07/2016 09:21, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> In this week's NCSG policy committee call we discussed the upcoming 
> public comments. The most outstanding issue ahead of us is definitely 
> the post transition IANA (PTI). There are three upcoming public 
> comment periods related to this issue:
>
> 31/07: Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en
>
> 07/08: PTI Governance Documents
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en
>
> 11/08: Draft PTI Bylaws
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>
> We agreed that, in order to save time and efforts, the best approach 
> would be to create an NCSG drafting team to work on these PTI 
> consultations. Matthew Shears volunteered to be the facilitator, but 
> we definitively need the inputs and experience of others in our group. 
> Matt will guide us through the next steps. He already started the 
> conversation about a week ago (please refer to his previous message 
> below).
>
> Please step forward if you can assist on this important task.
>
> All the best wishes,
> Marilia
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *matthew shears* <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
> Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI bylaws - items for possible discussion
> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
>
>
> Hi all
>
> Quickly reading through the proposed PTI by-laws (circulated to the 
> CWG yesterday and on the ICANN website 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-pti-bylaws-12jul16-en.pdf 
> ) I note the following (BUT I am sure that I have missed some points 
> worthy of discussion):
>
> 1.    principal office issue (Art 2)
>
> "The principal office for the transaction of the business of the 
> Corporation may be established at any place or places within or 
> without the State of California by resolution of the Board.The Board 
> may at any time establish branch or subordinate offices at any place 
> or places where the Corporation is qualified to transact business."
>
> Q.  Why would the power to determine the principal office of PTI not 
> be subject to the same rules as for ICANN's place of business - if 
> there is a change surely the empowered community should have a say, 
> and not just the PTI Board (assuming Board in the article means PTI 
> Board)?   We have the EC involved significantly in the decision-tree 
> for PTI - why not in determining its place of business as we do for 
> ICANN itself?
>
> 2.    purpose of PTI (art 3)
>
> "The specific purpose of the Corporation is to operate exclusively for 
> the benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out the 
> purposes of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
> (?*ICANN*?)."
>
> Q. I thought that the purpose of the PTI subsidiary was to perform the 
> IANA functions pursuant to the inter-company contract established 
> between ICANN and PTI?
>
>
> 3.    Removal of Director (Art 5.6.2) - isn't the first sentence in 
> contradiction with the other three paras?  it says may be removed 
> w/out cause but then lists the causes....  May be this is just 
> legalese....
>
>
> 4.  Responsibilities of officers (Art 7.6.1) - role of President.  
> Given that we are suggesting that the Chair of the Board be, as is 
> possible, nominated to the ICANN Board by the nominating committee - 
> do we really want the President - who will be an ICANN appointee 
> (typically the manager of the IANA functions) - to assume the role of 
> Chairperson in the latter's absence?  Why would we not suggest that 
> the other nominating committee appointed Director be the replacement 
> if the Chair is absent to ensure a balance of interests/independence?
>
> These bylaws are now also up for public comment:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>
> Matthew
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160722/f76f09c4/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Fri Jul 22 18:48:53 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:48:53 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER (Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO
	Drafting Team)
In-Reply-To: <F7A5BD96-BCA0-4E67-9315-403140389E90@egyptig.org>
References: <644CC0BD-5A57-48A1-AAA6-A1505CD7B651@icann.org>
	<61BA267E-B675-4C4E-A141-5E0F811419EB@egyptig.org>
	<F7A5BD96-BCA0-4E67-9315-403140389E90@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <0ED3EBD0-C392-425D-AF11-0811F6C7E8B1@toast.net>

Hi Amr,

The composition of the drafting team 
was the result of some pretty intense negotiation involving ourselves, the Intellectual Property Constituency and the NCPH NCA during the Helsinki meeting. Nominations were to be made by individual Councillors rather than by SG/C's to satisfy the concerns of the NCA and were a compromise that also reflected the concerns of the IPC and ourselves. The DT was the single major issue discussed during the Wednesday informal Council meeting.

Composition of the DT is to reflect the composition of the Council. The DT will operate by consensus and the final result will be subject to approval by a supermajority of the Council. These provisions are largely the result of the work of the NCSG Council contingent.

The DT will obviously not consist of 40 members (9 per SG plus NCA participation). I would suggest we wait until the close of nominations tonight at midnight, work with staff and Council leadership to determine how many NCSG members would be helpful and fair to include on the DT and then request our PC leadership to sort the process of determining who can best serve our Members by being on the DT.

I think we all are aware how important  this DT is - let's do our best to ensure our representation there represents our most qualified and experienced members. The outcome of this DT will go a long way in determining how influential the NCSG can and will be on the GNSO and ICANN itself going forward.

Kind Regards,

Ed




Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Jul 2016, at 15:54, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> And another quick update. Staff has just informed me that Ed has also submitted his name along with Tapani?s and Farzaneh?s. So we have 9 potential volunteers for this DT, not 6.
> 
> Ed?, thanks for volunteering, and good job talking Tapani and Farzi into it. ;-)
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have an update on the call for volunteers for the GNSO DT to develop recommendations for implementing the GNSO?s new powers. My understanding of the announcement was that members of the SGs/Cs would simply inform on of their elected councillors of their desire to join the DT. I figured matching those volunteers against the desired experience in the announcement would be done at a later stage. I was apparently wrong.
>> 
>> So far, 5 NCSG members have expressed interest in joining the DT. So along with my name, I submitted 6 names to the GNSO secretariat:
>> 
>> 1. Amr Elsadr
>> 2. Matthew Shears
>> 3. Wisdom Donkor
>> 4. Sonigitu Ekpe
>> 5. Pascal Bekono
>> 6. Karel Douglas
>> 
>> I?ve also asked that placeholders be held for these names until the NCSG PC can review them against the criteria described below. It seems the NCSG will have the last say in our appointments, and I was wondering whether or not we would like to go through an exercise to determine how well our members match these criteria.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>> Subject: REMINDER (Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team)
>>> Date: July 22, 2016 at 1:57:50 AM GMT+2
>>> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> 
>>> Hello and thanks to Amr for his question and reminder that the closing date for volunteers to send in their names was set to be Friday 22 July. As such, Councilors for those Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies that have not yet formally submitted names of volunteers are kindly requested to do so at their earliest convenience. FYI, as of today (21 July), staff has only received the names of five volunteers from the NCSG.
>>>  
>>> Please note also that, in accordance with the resolution that established this Drafting Team, volunteers should be those who ?can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures.? In addition, the resolution provides that ?the Drafting Team shall reflect the current composition of the GNSO and as such, the GNSO Council may review the number of volunteers identified by the GNSO Council members.?
>>>  
>>> Thanks and cheers
>>> Mary
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Mary Wong
>>> Senior Policy Director
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 19:50
>>> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team
>>>  
>>> Hi,
>>>  
>>> This wasn?t very clear to me, so yes?, it does help greatly.
>>>  
>>> Thanks James.
>>>  
>>> Amr
>>>  
>>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 1:37 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> Hi Amr-
>>>>  
>>>> In fact, yes, I believe we were expecting the vetting of criteria/capabilities to be done by the SGs and Cs.  Or, to turn the question around, I don?t believe it was anticipated that the Council would question or veto the selected member of any SG or C due to concerns.
>>>>  
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>  
>>>> J.
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>> Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 18:36 
>>>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team
>>>>  
>>>> Hi,
>>>>  
>>>> We just ended our monthly call, and I had a question on the AOB agenda item number 9.2 concerning ?Update on status of progress on the Drafting Team that is to identify new and additional rights and responsibilities for the GNSO under the revised ICANN Bylaws?:
>>>>  
>>>> In the below email, there are some qualifications described for potential volunteers to this group. I was wondering who is meant to determine whether these qualifications are met in volunteers. Is the GNSO Council meant to do this, or are the SGs/Cs supposed to do this prior to submitting names? I didn?t think the second scenario was the case, as the application process seems to be simply notifying a councillor of the desire to join the group, who would be expected, in turn, to communicated this to the GNSO secretariat.
>>>>  
>>>> As James mentioned on the call, the deadline for applications to join this group is tomorrow.
>>>>  
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>  
>>>> Amr
>>>>  
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>> Dear GNSO Councilors,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Please see the following Call for Volunteers.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Nathalie
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Drafting Team to Further Develop Recommendations to Implement the GNSO?s New Roles and Obligations Under the Revised ICANN Bylaws
>>>>>  
>>>>> In Brief
>>>>>  
>>>>> Per the motion adopted on 30 June 2016, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a Drafting Team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the post-transition ICANN Bylaws.
>>>>>  
>>>>> What This Team Will Do
>>>>>  
>>>>> The Drafting Team will work with ICANN staff to fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the post-transition Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities.
>>>>> The Drafting Team shall provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan, which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016.
>>>>> As part of the process of its consideration of the implementation plan, intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote, the Council may further request that the Drafting Team work with ICANN staff to develop new, or propose modifications to existing, procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO. Any such new, or proposed modifications to existing procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO are also intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote.
>>>>>  
>>>>> How to Join
>>>>> Volunteers for the Drafting Team will be identified by GNSO Council members. Volunteers should express interests and can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures. The Drafting Team shall reflect the current composition of the GNSO and as such, the GNSO Council may review the number of volunteers identified by the GNSO Council members. GNSO Councilors are requested to identify volunteers by email to gnso-sec at icann.orgby 22 July 2016.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Next steps
>>>>>  
>>>>> As noted above, the GNSO Council directed that this call for volunteers be circulated to the GNSO Council and that the volunteers should be identified by GNSO Council members. It is anticipated that the Drafting Team will convene online for the first time in early August 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Drafting Team?s work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Further information and Preparation
>>>>>  
>>>>> For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are encouraged to review the  table at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Background
>>>>>  
>>>>> On 27 May 2016 the ICANN Board adopted a set of new ICANN Bylaws, as revised on 26 May 2016, that aim to reflect changes needed to implement the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and such adoption is contingent on the proposed transition away of remaining United States Government oversight of ICANN.  The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council is aware that changes that may need to be made to the GNSO?s current Operating Procedures and related mechanisms and to the ICANN Bylaws in order to give effect to new roles and obligations of the GNSO under the new Bylaws, such as those in this table (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf), including but not limited to the GNSO?s participation in the Empowered Community.  Per the motion adopted on 30 June 2016, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a Drafting Team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160722/c1340db7/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Jul 27 12:44:28 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 05:44:28 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working
	Group
Message-ID: <9410565c86074317bee045657df8a735@toast.net>

We are going to have to select a member and an alternate BEFORE our next scheduled NCSG PC call (there is no Council meeting in August).
  
 Suggestions?
  
 Ed
  
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Nathalie Peregrine" <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:47 AM
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group   
  
           96        Normal   0               false   false   false      EN-US   JA   X-NONE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            96        Normal   0               false   false   false      EN-US   JA   X-NONE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group    

     

In Brief    

     

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council adopted the Charter of the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. This Working Group is tasked to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Review recommendations which were recently adopted by the ICANN Board. This is the Call for Volunteers to join this Working Group. Anyone interested in the GNSO Review and contributing to the development of the implementation plan and subsequent implementation is encouraged to volunteer.    

     

What This Working Group Will Do    

     

Per the GNSO Review Working Group Charter the GNSO Review Working Group will be responsible for developing an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome for the GNSO Review recommendations adopted by the ICANN Board (thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report of the Independent Examiner (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). This implementation plan is to be submitted for approval to the GNSO Council, followed by consideration by the ICANN Board. Following the approval of the implementation plan, the Working Group is also expected to execute and oversee the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations unless specified differently in the implementation plan.    

     

The GNSO Review Working Group will also be responsible for considering any new requests[1] by the GNSO Council concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council, or a group chartered by the GNSO Council, as needing discussion. However, the first priority of the Working Group will be the development of an implementation plan and the subsequent implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations.      

     

Timeline and Deliverables    

     

The GNSO Review Working Group is expected to deliver the implementation plan to the GNSO Council for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting at ICANN57 at the latest in order to meet the Board set objective of 'an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution'[2] i.e., December 2016.      

     

How to Join    

     

Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and/or Constituency will identify one primary and one alternate member to serve on the GNSO Review Working Group. In addition to these appointed members, anyone interested will be able to join this working group as a participant or observer.   Please note that participants are expected to attend conference calls and to actively participate in online discussions.  They also must submit a Statement of Interest per Section 5.0 of the GNSO Operating Procedures.  Observers can follow the group's work on the mailing list but can neither send to the mailing list nor participate actively in the calls.    

     

Interested participants and observers are requested to complete the sign-up sheet by Friday, 19 August 2016.     

     

Next steps    

     

It is anticipated that the GNSO Review Working Group will convene online for the first time in the last week of August 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Working Group's work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks.    

     

Further information and preparation    

     

For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are encouraged to review the following materials:    

1.     GNSO Review Recommendations    

2.     Independent Examiner Final Report    

3.     Frequently Asked Questions    

     

Background    

     

The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014.  The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future.  The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority).    

     

On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council.  The Board adopted thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32).  Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations.    

     

Per the motion adopted on 21 July 2016, the GNSO Council adopted the Charter of the GNSO Review Working Group and directed staff to send a Call for Volunteers for the Working Group.      

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

[1]For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the GNSO Review WG expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by theprocess/operational change concerned. See request template at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/14713135/GNSO-SCI-ReviewRequest-yyymmdd_template.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1469143165000&api=v2.  

[2] The Board resolution was adopted on 25 June 2016 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160727/fb06f873/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Wed Jul 27 13:39:06 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:39:06 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Drafting group on PTI issues - upcoming public
	comments
In-Reply-To: <ef9a993e-bd65-686a-0647-2c080cabe386@cdt.org>
References: <CACpVkK2nngFZYs4MuyDc0PLA3ZnJrY9rBcgqw1=V8hbo6CaQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ef9a993e-bd65-686a-0647-2c080cabe386@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5abd7d2c-b0b1-87fe-5f27-17c3a884254d@cdt.org>

Hi all

Please review and add to the comments on the PTI Articles of 
Incorporation as I will be wrapping them up tomorrow (the 28th) and 
circulating for consensus.

Thanks!

Matthew


On 22/07/2016 16:48, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Thanks Marilia.
>
> I have set up a google doc for comments/drafting etc.:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19a1YqSnQ-QFBQF1Im0cnHKMeW8RAEBChdJgp6q6wAs4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I have entered some additional points on the draft PTI AoI for your 
> consideration as that is the most imminent deadline.
>
> Best.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 22/07/2016 09:21, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In this week's NCSG policy committee call we discussed the upcoming 
>> public comments. The most outstanding issue ahead of us is definitely 
>> the post transition IANA (PTI). There are three upcoming public 
>> comment periods related to this issue:
>>
>> 31/07: Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en
>>
>> 07/08: PTI Governance Documents
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en
>>
>> 11/08: Draft PTI Bylaws
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>
>> We agreed that, in order to save time and efforts, the best approach 
>> would be to create an NCSG drafting team to work on these PTI 
>> consultations. Matthew Shears volunteered to be the facilitator, but 
>> we definitively need the inputs and experience of others in our 
>> group. Matt will guide us through the next steps. He already started 
>> the conversation about a week ago (please refer to his previous 
>> message below).
>>
>> Please step forward if you can assist on this important task.
>>
>> All the best wishes,
>> Marilia
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *matthew shears* <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>> Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM
>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI bylaws - items for possible discussion
>> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Quickly reading through the proposed PTI by-laws (circulated to the 
>> CWG yesterday and on the ICANN website 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-pti-bylaws-12jul16-en.pdf 
>> ) I note the following (BUT I am sure that I have missed some points 
>> worthy of discussion):
>>
>> 1.    principal office issue (Art 2)
>>
>> "The principal office for the transaction of the business of the 
>> Corporation may be established at any place or places within or 
>> without the State of California by resolution of the Board.The Board 
>> may at any time establish branch or subordinate offices at any place 
>> or places where the Corporation is qualified to transact business."
>>
>> Q.  Why would the power to determine the principal office of PTI not 
>> be subject to the same rules as for ICANN's place of business - if 
>> there is a change surely the empowered community should have a say, 
>> and not just the PTI Board (assuming Board in the article means PTI 
>> Board)?   We have the EC involved significantly in the decision-tree 
>> for PTI - why not in determining its place of business as we do for 
>> ICANN itself?
>>
>> 2.    purpose of PTI (art 3)
>>
>> "The specific purpose of the Corporation is to operate exclusively 
>> for the benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out the 
>> purposes of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
>> (?*ICANN*?)."
>>
>> Q. I thought that the purpose of the PTI subsidiary was to perform 
>> the IANA functions pursuant to the inter-company contract established 
>> between ICANN and PTI?
>>
>>
>> 3.    Removal of Director (Art 5.6.2) - isn't the first sentence in 
>> contradiction with the other three paras? it says may be removed 
>> w/out cause but then lists the causes....  May be this is just 
>> legalese....
>>
>>
>> 4.  Responsibilities of officers (Art 7.6.1) - role of President.  
>> Given that we are suggesting that the Chair of the Board be, as is 
>> possible, nominated to the ICANN Board by the nominating committee - 
>> do we really want the President - who will be an ICANN appointee 
>> (typically the manager of the IANA functions) - to assume the role of 
>> Chairperson in the latter's absence? Why would we not suggest that 
>> the other nominating committee appointed Director be the replacement 
>> if the Chair is absent to ensure a balance of interests/independence?
>>
>> These bylaws are now also up for public comment:
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>
>> Matthew
>> --------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> -- 
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160727/c73a7f45/attachment.html>


From mshears  Wed Jul 27 14:15:29 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:15:29 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review
 Working Group
In-Reply-To: <9410565c86074317bee045657df8a735@toast.net>
References: <9410565c86074317bee045657df8a735@toast.net>
Message-ID: <fce72f65-1499-a4a2-0db4-d37092da1515@cdt.org>

My suggestion would be to select the member from those in our list who 
have a very good knowledge of the GNSO procedures, etc., and the 
alternate from those who have a very good knowledge of the work on 
accountability (CCWG).

Matthew


On 27/07/2016 10:44, Edward Morris wrote:
> We are going to have to select a member and an alternate BEFORE our 
> next scheduled NCSG PC call (there is no Council meeting in August).
> Suggestions?
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Nathalie Peregrine" <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:47 AM
> *To*: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Cc*: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject*: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group
>
> *Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group*
>
> **
>
> */In Brief/*
>
> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council adopted the 
> Charter 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf>of 
> the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. This 
> Working Group is tasked to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO 
> Review recommendations 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf>which 
> were recently adopted 
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e>by 
> the ICANN Board. This is the Call for Volunteers to join this Working 
> Group. Anyone interested in the GNSO Review and contributing to the 
> development of the implementation plan and subsequent implementation 
> is encouraged to volunteer.
>
> **
>
> */What This Working Group Will Do/*
>
> **
>
> Per the GNSO Review Working Group Charter 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf>the 
> GNSO Review Working Group will be responsible for developing an 
> implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the 
> implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure 
> current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome for the 
> GNSO Review recommendations adopted by the ICANN Board (thirty-four 
> (34) recommendations of the Final Report 
> <https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf>of 
> the Independent Examiner (i.e. all recommendations excluding 
> recommendations 23 and 32). This implementation plan is to be 
> submitted for approval to the GNSO Council, followed by consideration 
> by the ICANN Board. Following the approval of the implementation plan, 
> the Working Group is also expected to execute and oversee the 
> implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations unless specified 
> differently in the implementation plan.
>
> The GNSO Review Working Group will also be responsible for considering 
> any new requests^^[1] <#_ftn1> by the GNSO Council concerning issues 
> related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working 
> Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council, 
> or a group chartered by the GNSO Council, as needing discussion. 
> However, the first priority of the Working Group will be the 
> development of an implementation plan and the subsequent 
> implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations.
>
> *Timeline and Deliverables*
>
> The GNSO Review Working Group is expected to deliver the 
> implementation plan to the GNSO Council for consideration at the GNSO 
> Council meeting at ICANN57 at the latest in order to meet the Board 
> set objective of ?an implementation plan, containing a realistic 
> timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a 
> way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired 
> outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no 
> later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution?^^[2] 
> <#_ftn2> i.e., December 2016.
>
> */How to Join/*
>
> Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and/or Constituency will identify one 
> primary and one alternate member to serve on the GNSO Review Working 
> Group. In addition to these appointed members, anyone interested will 
> be able to join this working group as a participant or observer. 
> Please note that participants are expected to attend conference calls 
> and to actively participate in online discussions.  They also must 
> submit a Statement of Interest per Section 5.0 of the GNSO Operating 
> Procedures 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-16feb16-en.pdf>.  
> Observers can follow the group's work on the mailing list but can 
> neither send to the mailing list nor participate actively in the calls.
>
> Interested participants and observers are requested to complete the 
> sign-up sheet <https://goo.gl/forms/TbmkrEXT2xlx6jGn1>by Friday, 19 
> August 2016.
>
> */Next steps/***
>
> It is anticipated that the GNSO Review Working Group will convene 
> online for the first time in the last week of August 2016. Following 
> that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the 
> Working Group?s work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of 
> its first tasks.
>
> *//*
>
> */Further information and preparation/***
>
> For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are 
> encouraged to review the following materials:
>
> 1.GNSO Review Recommendations 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf>
>
> 2.Independent Examiner Final 
> Report<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf>
>
> 3.Frequently Asked Questions<https://community.icann.org/x/UBCbAw>
>
> */Background/***
>
> The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014. The Final 
> Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 
> (see 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) 
> and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & 
> representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment 
> with ICANN's future.  The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review 
> Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis 
> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) 
> on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the 
> council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of 
> information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to 
> help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low 
> priority).
>
> On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the 
> independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's 
> Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review 
> Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council. The 
> Board adopted thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report 
> (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). 
> Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group 
> that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations.
>
> Per the motion <https://community.icann.org/x/BAObAw>adopted on 21 
> July 2016, the GNSO Council adopted the Charter 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf>of 
> the GNSO Review Working Group and directed staff to send a Call for 
> Volunteers for the Working Group.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [1] <#_ftnref1>For items that are submitted for review 'on request', 
> the GNSO Review WG expects to receive detailed input from the group 
> affected by theprocess/operational change concerned. See request 
> template at: 
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/14713135/GNSO-SCI-ReviewRequest-yyymmdd_template.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1469143165000&api=v2. 
>
>
> [2] <#_ftnref2>The Board resolution was adopted on 25 June 2016
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160727/d751fde8/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Jul 27 14:24:22 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 07:24:22 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review
	Working Group
In-Reply-To: <fce72f65-1499-a4a2-0db4-d37092da1515@cdt.org>
References: <9410565c86074317bee045657df8a735@toast.net>
	<fce72f65-1499-a4a2-0db4-d37092da1515@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <bb52d14365bb4b9e925af2762d1d8d08@toast.net>

Hi Matt,
  
 Just in case there is any confusion: this is not a call for volunteers for the drafting team to implement GNSO related aspects of the transition. This is tied to the results of the GNSO Review (Westlake etc.). As such, I'm not sure that CCWG expertise, although helpful, is essential here. GNSO expertise, though, most certainly is.
  
 Ed
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:15 PM
To: egmorris1 at toast.net, "pc-ncsg" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group   

My suggestion would be to select the member from those in our list who have a very good knowledge of the GNSO procedures, etc., and the alternate from those who have a very good knowledge of the work on accountability (CCWG).   

Matthew    On 27/07/2016 10:44, Edward Morris wrote:
  We are going to have to select a member and an alternate BEFORE our next scheduled NCSG PC call (there is no Council meeting in August).
  
 Suggestions?
  
 Ed
  
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Nathalie Peregrine" <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:47 AM
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group    
    
             96        Normal   0               false   false   false      EN-US   JA   X-NONE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             96        Normal   0               false   false   false      EN-US   JA   X-NONE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group      

       

In Brief      

       

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council adopted the Charter of the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. This Working Group is tasked to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Review recommendations which were recently adopted by the ICANN Board. This is the Call for Volunteers to join this Working Group. Anyone interested in the GNSO Review and contributing to the development of the implementation plan and subsequent implementation is encouraged to volunteer.      

       

What This Working Group Will Do      

       

Per the GNSO Review Working Group Charter the GNSO Review Working Group will be responsible for developing an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome for the GNSO Review recommendations adopted by the ICANN Board (thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report of the Independent Examiner (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). This implementation plan is to be submitted for approval to the GNSO Council, followed by consideration by the ICANN Board. Following the approval of the implementation plan, the Working Group is also expected to execute and oversee the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations unless specified differently in the implementation plan.      

       

The GNSO Review Working Group will also be responsible for considering any new requests[1] by the GNSO Council concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council, or a group chartered by the GNSO Council, as needing discussion. However, the first priority of the Working Group will be the development of an implementation plan and the subsequent implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations.        

       

Timeline and Deliverables      

       

The GNSO Review Working Group is expected to deliver the implementation plan to the GNSO Council for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting at ICANN57 at the latest in order to meet the Board set objective of 'an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution'[2] i.e., December 2016.        

       

How to Join      

       

Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and/or Constituency will identify one primary and one alternate member to serve on the GNSO Review Working Group. In addition to these appointed members, anyone interested will be able to join this working group as a participant or observer.   Please note that participants are expected to attend conference calls and to actively participate in online discussions.  They also must submit a Statement of Interest per Section 5.0 of the GNSO Operating Procedures.  Observers can follow the group's work on the mailing list but can neither send to the mailing list nor participate actively in the calls.      

       

Interested participants and observers are requested to complete the sign-up sheet by Friday, 19 August 2016.       

       

Next steps      

       

It is anticipated that the GNSO Review Working Group will convene online for the first time in the last week of August 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Working Group's work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks.      

       

Further information and preparation      

       

For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are encouraged to review the following materials:      

1.     GNSO Review Recommendations      

2.     Independent Examiner Final Report      

3.     Frequently Asked Questions      

       

Background      

       

The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014.  The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future.  The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority).      

       

On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council.  The Board adopted thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32).  Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations.      

       

Per the motion adopted on 21 July 2016, the GNSO Council adopted the Charter of the GNSO Review Working Group and directed staff to send a Call for Volunteers for the Working Group.        

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

[1]For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the GNSO Review WG expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by theprocess/operational change concerned. See request template at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/14713135/GNSO-SCI-ReviewRequest-yyymmdd_template.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1469143165000&api=v2.  

[2] The Board resolution was adopted on 25 June 2016 

        

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160727/6bec9447/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Wed Jul 27 14:25:43 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:25:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review
 Working Group
In-Reply-To: <bb52d14365bb4b9e925af2762d1d8d08@toast.net>
References: <9410565c86074317bee045657df8a735@toast.net>
	<fce72f65-1499-a4a2-0db4-d37092da1515@cdt.org>
	<bb52d14365bb4b9e925af2762d1d8d08@toast.net>
Message-ID: <d1892b21-5e82-19fb-c088-69e8bc5402fe@cdt.org>

Woops - sorry - my mistake.

Thanks for the clarification.


On 27/07/2016 12:24, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> Just in case there is any confusion: this is not a call for volunteers 
> for the drafting team to implement GNSO related aspects of the 
> transition. This is tied to the results of the GNSO Review (Westlake 
> etc.). As such, I'm not sure that CCWG expertise, although helpful, is 
> essential here. GNSO expertise, though, most certainly is.
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:15 PM
> *To*: egmorris1 at toast.net, "pc-ncsg" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO 
> Review Working Group
>
> My suggestion would be to select the member from those in our list who 
> have a very good knowledge of the GNSO procedures, etc., and the 
> alternate from those who have a very good knowledge of the work on 
> accountability (CCWG).
>
> Matthew
>
> On 27/07/2016 10:44, Edward Morris wrote:
>> We are going to have to select a member and an alternate BEFORE our 
>> next scheduled NCSG PC call (there is no Council meeting in August).
>> Suggestions?
>> Ed
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "Nathalie Peregrine" <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>> *Sent*: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:47 AM
>> *To*: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Cc*: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>> *Subject*: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group
>>
>> *Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group*
>>
>> **
>>
>> */In Brief/*
>>
>> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council adopted the 
>> Charter 
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf>of 
>> the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. 
>> This Working Group is tasked to develop an implementation plan for 
>> the GNSO Review recommendations 
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf>which 
>> were recently adopted 
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e>by 
>> the ICANN Board. This is the Call for Volunteers to join this Working 
>> Group. Anyone interested in the GNSO Review and contributing to the 
>> development of the implementation plan and subsequent implementation 
>> is encouraged to volunteer.
>>
>> **
>>
>> */What This Working Group Will Do/*
>>
>> **
>>
>> Per the GNSO Review Working Group Charter 
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf>the 
>> GNSO Review Working Group will be responsible for developing an 
>> implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the 
>> implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure 
>> current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome for the 
>> GNSO Review recommendations adopted by the ICANN Board (thirty-four 
>> (34) recommendations of the Final Report 
>> <https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf>of 
>> the Independent Examiner (i.e. all recommendations excluding 
>> recommendations 23 and 32). This implementation plan is to be 
>> submitted for approval to the GNSO Council, followed by consideration 
>> by the ICANN Board. Following the approval of the implementation 
>> plan, the Working Group is also expected to execute and oversee the 
>> implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations unless specified 
>> differently in the implementation plan.
>>
>> The GNSO Review Working Group will also be responsible for 
>> considering any new requests^^[1] <#_ftn1> by the GNSO Council 
>> concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and 
>> procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified 
>> either by the GNSO Council, or a group chartered by the GNSO Council, 
>> as needing discussion. However, the first priority of the Working 
>> Group will be the development of an implementation plan and the 
>> subsequent implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations.
>>
>> *Timeline and Deliverables*
>>
>> The GNSO Review Working Group is expected to deliver the 
>> implementation plan to the GNSO Council for consideration at the GNSO 
>> Council meeting at ICANN57 at the latest in order to meet the Board 
>> set objective of ?an implementation plan, containing a realistic 
>> timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a 
>> way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired 
>> outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no 
>> later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution?^^[2] 
>> <#_ftn2> i.e., December 2016.
>>
>> */How to Join/*
>>
>> Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and/or Constituency will identify one 
>> primary and one alternate member to serve on the GNSO Review Working 
>> Group. In addition to these appointed members, anyone interested will 
>> be able to join this working group as a participant or observer. 
>> Please note that participants are expected to attend conference calls 
>> and to actively participate in online discussions.  They also must 
>> submit a Statement of Interest per Section 5.0 of the GNSO Operating 
>> Procedures 
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-16feb16-en.pdf>.  
>> Observers can follow the group's work on the mailing list but can 
>> neither send to the mailing list nor participate actively in the calls.
>>
>> Interested participants and observers are requested to complete the 
>> sign-up sheet <https://goo.gl/forms/TbmkrEXT2xlx6jGn1>by Friday, 19 
>> August 2016.
>>
>> */Next steps/***
>>
>> It is anticipated that the GNSO Review Working Group will convene 
>> online for the first time in the last week of August 2016. Following 
>> that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with 
>> the Working Group?s work plan, which it is expected to develop as one 
>> of its first tasks.
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> */Further information and preparation/***
>>
>> For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are 
>> encouraged to review the following materials:
>>
>> 1.GNSO Review Recommendations 
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf>
>>
>> 2.Independent Examiner Final 
>> Report<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf>
>>
>> 3.Frequently Asked Questions<https://community.icann.org/x/UBCbAw>
>>
>> */Background/***
>>
>> The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014.  The 
>> Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 
>> September 2015 (see 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) 
>> and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & 
>> representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment 
>> with ICANN's future.  The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review 
>> Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis 
>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) 
>> on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the 
>> council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods 
>> of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs 
>> to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low 
>> priority).
>>
>> On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the 
>> independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's 
>> Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review 
>> Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council.  The 
>> Board adopted thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report 
>> (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32).  
>> Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a 
>> group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations.
>>
>> Per the motion <https://community.icann.org/x/BAObAw>adopted on 21 
>> July 2016, the GNSO Council adopted the Charter 
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf>of 
>> the GNSO Review Working Group and directed staff to send a Call for 
>> Volunteers for the Working Group.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> [1] <#_ftnref1>For items that are submitted for review 'on request', 
>> the GNSO Review WG expects to receive detailed input from the group 
>> affected by theprocess/operational change concerned. See request 
>> template at: 
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/14713135/GNSO-SCI-ReviewRequest-yyymmdd_template.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1469143165000&api=v2. 
>>
>>
>> [2] <#_ftnref2>The Board resolution was adopted on 25 June 2016
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> -- 
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160727/3a6006d3/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Jul 27 15:31:15 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:31:15 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER (Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO
	Drafting Team)
In-Reply-To: <0ED3EBD0-C392-425D-AF11-0811F6C7E8B1@toast.net>
References: <644CC0BD-5A57-48A1-AAA6-A1505CD7B651@icann.org>
	<61BA267E-B675-4C4E-A141-5E0F811419EB@egyptig.org>
	<F7A5BD96-BCA0-4E67-9315-403140389E90@egyptig.org>
	<0ED3EBD0-C392-425D-AF11-0811F6C7E8B1@toast.net>
Message-ID: <A81F3C34-6115-4C34-AF3F-54A35FBECAEA@egyptig.org>

Hi Ed,

Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Wanted to thank you, both, for the context on the DT composition as well as the suggestion on how to move forward.

It all sounds good to me.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jul 22, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> 
> The composition of the drafting team 
> was the result of some pretty intense negotiation involving ourselves, the Intellectual Property Constituency and the NCPH NCA during the Helsinki meeting. Nominations were to be made by individual Councillors rather than by SG/C's to satisfy the concerns of the NCA and were a compromise that also reflected the concerns of the IPC and ourselves. The DT was the single major issue discussed during the Wednesday informal Council meeting.
> 
> Composition of the DT is to reflect the composition of the Council. The DT will operate by consensus and the final result will be subject to approval by a supermajority of the Council. These provisions are largely the result of the work of the NCSG Council contingent.
> 
> The DT will obviously not consist of 40 members (9 per SG plus NCA participation). I would suggest we wait until the close of nominations tonight at midnight, work with staff and Council leadership to determine how many NCSG members would be helpful and fair to include on the DT and then request our PC leadership to sort the process of determining who can best serve our Members by being on the DT.
> 
> I think we all are aware how important  this DT is - let's do our best to ensure our representation there represents our most qualified and experienced members. The outcome of this DT will go a long way in determining how influential the NCSG can and will be on the GNSO and ICANN itself going forward.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 22 Jul 2016, at 15:54, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> And another quick update. Staff has just informed me that Ed has also submitted his name along with Tapani?s and Farzaneh?s. So we have 9 potential volunteers for this DT, not 6.
>> 
>> Ed?, thanks for volunteering, and good job talking Tapani and Farzi into it. ;-)
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have an update on the call for volunteers for the GNSO DT to develop recommendations for implementing the GNSO?s new powers. My understanding of the announcement was that members of the SGs/Cs would simply inform on of their elected councillors of their desire to join the DT. I figured matching those volunteers against the desired experience in the announcement would be done at a later stage. I was apparently wrong.
>>> 
>>> So far, 5 NCSG members have expressed interest in joining the DT. So along with my name, I submitted 6 names to the GNSO secretariat:
>>> 
>>> 1. Amr Elsadr
>>> 2. Matthew Shears
>>> 3. Wisdom Donkor
>>> 4. Sonigitu Ekpe
>>> 5. Pascal Bekono
>>> 6. Karel Douglas
>>> 
>>> I?ve also asked that placeholders be held for these names until the NCSG PC can review them against the criteria described below. It seems the NCSG will have the last say in our appointments, and I was wondering whether or not we would like to go through an exercise to determine how well our members match these criteria.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>>>> Subject: REMINDER (Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team)
>>>> Date: July 22, 2016 at 1:57:50 AM GMT+2
>>>> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
>>>> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>>> 
>>>> Hello and thanks to Amr for his question and reminder that the closing date for volunteers to send in their names was set to be Friday 22 July. As such, Councilors for those Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies that have not yet formally submitted names of volunteers are kindly requested to do so at their earliest convenience. FYI, as of today (21 July), staff has only received the names of five volunteers from the NCSG.
>>>>  
>>>> Please note also that, in accordance with the resolution that established this Drafting Team, volunteers should be those who ?can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures.? In addition, the resolution provides that ?the Drafting Team shall reflect the current composition of the GNSO and as such, the GNSO Council may review the number of volunteers identified by the GNSO Council members.?
>>>>  
>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>> Mary
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Mary Wong
>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>>> Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 19:50
>>>> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
>>>> Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team
>>>>  
>>>> Hi,
>>>>  
>>>> This wasn?t very clear to me, so yes?, it does help greatly.
>>>>  
>>>> Thanks James.
>>>>  
>>>> Amr
>>>>  
>>>>> On Jul 22, 2016, at 1:37 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>> Hi Amr-
>>>>>  
>>>>> In fact, yes, I believe we were expecting the vetting of criteria/capabilities to be done by the SGs and Cs.  Or, to turn the question around, I don?t believe it was anticipated that the Council would question or veto the selected member of any SG or C due to concerns.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>  
>>>>> J.
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 18:36 
>>>>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for GNSO Drafting Team
>>>>>  
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>  
>>>>> We just ended our monthly call, and I had a question on the AOB agenda item number 9.2 concerning ?Update on status of progress on the Drafting Team that is to identify new and additional rights and responsibilities for the GNSO under the revised ICANN Bylaws?:
>>>>>  
>>>>> In the below email, there are some qualifications described for potential volunteers to this group. I was wondering who is meant to determine whether these qualifications are met in volunteers. Is the GNSO Council meant to do this, or are the SGs/Cs supposed to do this prior to submitting names? I didn?t think the second scenario was the case, as the application process seems to be simply notifying a councillor of the desire to join the group, who would be expected, in turn, to communicated this to the GNSO secretariat.
>>>>>  
>>>>> As James mentioned on the call, the deadline for applications to join this group is tomorrow.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>  
>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Dear GNSO Councilors,
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Please see the following Call for Volunteers.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Nathalie
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Drafting Team to Further Develop Recommendations to Implement the GNSO?s New Roles and Obligations Under the Revised ICANN Bylaws
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> In Brief
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Per the motion adopted on 30 June 2016, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a Drafting Team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the post-transition ICANN Bylaws.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> What This Team Will Do
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> The Drafting Team will work with ICANN staff to fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the post-transition Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities.
>>>>>> The Drafting Team shall provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan, which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016.
>>>>>> As part of the process of its consideration of the implementation plan, intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote, the Council may further request that the Drafting Team work with ICANN staff to develop new, or propose modifications to existing, procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO. Any such new, or proposed modifications to existing procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO are also intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> How to Join
>>>>>> Volunteers for the Drafting Team will be identified by GNSO Council members. Volunteers should express interests and can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures. The Drafting Team shall reflect the current composition of the GNSO and as such, the GNSO Council may review the number of volunteers identified by the GNSO Council members. GNSO Councilors are requested to identify volunteers by email to gnso-sec at icann.org <mailto:gnso-sec at icann.org>by 22 July 2016.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Next steps
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> As noted above, the GNSO Council directed that this call for volunteers be circulated to the GNSO Council and that the volunteers should be identified by GNSO Council members. It is anticipated that the Drafting Team will convene online for the first time in early August 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Drafting Team?s work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Further information and Preparation
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are encouraged to review the  table at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf>.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Background
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> On 27 May 2016 the ICANN Board adopted a set of new ICANN Bylaws, as revised on 26 May 2016, that aim to reflect changes needed to implement the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and such adoption is contingent on the proposed transition away of remaining United States Government oversight of ICANN.  The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council is aware that changes that may need to be made to the GNSO?s current Operating Procedures and related mechanisms and to the ICANN Bylaws in order to give effect to new roles and obligations of the GNSO under the new Bylaws, such as those in this table (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf>), including but not limited to the GNSO?s participation in the Empowered Community.  Per the motion adopted on 30 June 2016, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a Drafting Team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160727/43688177/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Jul 27 15:40:19 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:40:19 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working
	Group
In-Reply-To: <bb52d14365bb4b9e925af2762d1d8d08@toast.net>
References: <9410565c86074317bee045657df8a735@toast.net>
	<fce72f65-1499-a4a2-0db4-d37092da1515@cdt.org>
	<bb52d14365bb4b9e925af2762d1d8d08@toast.net>
Message-ID: <0C812A8D-798A-4282-A4F9-C30B7011F3B3@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Agree with Ed here, however, it wouldn?t hurt to stay alert on both groups recommending changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures simultaneously, just in case the recommendations from one group have any impact on the recommendations of the other. My guess is that staff will be of assistance on that front, but wouldn?t hurt for us to also keep our eyes peeled.

The NCSG should be able to appoint two members (primary and alternate) to this group. Additionally, others may join as participants or observers. The call for volunteers has already been circulated to NCSG-DISCUSS by Maryam (thanks Maryam). From what I can tell, there is no hard deadline to appoint members, although participants/obsevers are asked to sign up by August 19th. We could also set that as a deadline for the PC to make its appointments by, and let NCSG members know this?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jul 27, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Matt,
>  
> Just in case there is any confusion: this is not a call for volunteers for the drafting team to implement GNSO related aspects of the transition. This is tied to the results of the GNSO Review (Westlake etc.). As such, I'm not sure that CCWG expertise, although helpful, is essential here. GNSO expertise, though, most certainly is.
>  
> Ed
>  
>  
>  
> From: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:15 PM
> To: egmorris1 at toast.net, "pc-ncsg" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group
>  
> My suggestion would be to select the member from those in our list who have a very good knowledge of the GNSO procedures, etc., and the alternate from those who have a very good knowledge of the work on accountability (CCWG). 
> 
> Matthew
> 
>  
> On 27/07/2016 10:44, Edward Morris wrote:
>> We are going to have to select a member and an alternate BEFORE our next scheduled NCSG PC call (there is no Council meeting in August).
>>  
>> Suggestions?
>>  
>> Ed
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: "Nathalie Peregrine" <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:47 AM
>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
>> Subject: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group
>>  
>>  
>> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group
>>  
>> In Brief
>>  
>> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council adopted the Charter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf> of the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. This Working Group is tasked to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Review recommendations <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf> which were recently adopted <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e> by the ICANN Board. This is the Call for Volunteers to join this Working Group. Anyone interested in the GNSO Review and contributing to the development of the implementation plan and subsequent implementation is encouraged to volunteer.
>>  
>> What This Working Group Will Do
>>  
>> Per the GNSO Review Working Group Charter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf> the GNSO Review Working Group will be responsible for developing an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome for the GNSO Review recommendations adopted by the ICANN Board (thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report <https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf> of the Independent Examiner (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). This implementation plan is to be submitted for approval to the GNSO Council, followed by consideration by the ICANN Board. Following the approval of the implementation plan, the Working Group is also expected to execute and oversee the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations unless specified differently in the implementation plan.
>>  
>> The GNSO Review Working Group will also be responsible for considering any new requests[1] <x-msg://8/#_ftn1> by the GNSO Council concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council, or a group chartered by the GNSO Council, as needing discussion. However, the first priority of the Working Group will be the development of an implementation plan and the subsequent implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations. 
>>  
>> Timeline and Deliverables
>>  
>> The GNSO Review Working Group is expected to deliver the implementation plan to the GNSO Council for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting at ICANN57 at the latest in order to meet the Board set objective of ?an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution?[2] <x-msg://8/#_ftn2> i.e., December 2016. 
>>  
>> How to Join
>>  
>> Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and/or Constituency will identify one primary and one alternate member to serve on the GNSO Review Working Group. In addition to these appointed members, anyone interested will be able to join this working group as a participant or observer.  Please note that participants are expected to attend conference calls and to actively participate in online discussions.  They also must submit a Statement of Interest per Section 5.0 of the GNSO Operating Procedures <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-16feb16-en.pdf>.  Observers can follow the group's work on the mailing list but can neither send to the mailing list nor participate actively in the calls.
>>  
>> Interested participants and observers are requested to complete the sign-up sheet <https://goo.gl/forms/TbmkrEXT2xlx6jGn1> by Friday, 19 August 2016. 
>>  
>> Next steps
>>  
>> It is anticipated that the GNSO Review Working Group will convene online for the first time in the last week of August 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Working Group?s work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks.
>>  
>> Further information and preparation
>>  
>> For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are encouraged to review the following materials:
>> 1.     GNSO Review Recommendations <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf>
>> 2.     Independent Examiner Final Report <https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf>
>> 3.     Frequently Asked Questions <https://community.icann.org/x/UBCbAw>
>>  
>> Background
>>  
>> The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014.  The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf>) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future.  The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf>) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority).
>>  
>> On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council.  The Board adopted thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32).  Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations.
>>  
>> Per the motion <https://community.icann.org/x/BAObAw> adopted on 21 July 2016, the GNSO Council adopted the Charter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf> of the GNSO Review Working Group and directed staff to send a Call for Volunteers for the Working Group. 
>>  
>> [1] <x-msg://8/#_ftnref1>For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the GNSO Review WG expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by theprocess/operational change concerned. See request template at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/14713135/GNSO-SCI-ReviewRequest-yyymmdd_template.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1469143165000&api=v2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/14713135/GNSO-SCI-ReviewRequest-yyymmdd_template.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1469143165000&api=v2>.
>> [2] <x-msg://8/#_ftnref2> The Board resolution was adopted on 25 June 2016
>>    
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>  
> --
> 
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160727/97ebe170/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jul 27 15:56:24 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 08:56:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working
 Group
In-Reply-To: <0C812A8D-798A-4282-A4F9-C30B7011F3B3@egyptig.org>
References: <9410565c86074317bee045657df8a735@toast.net>
	<fce72f65-1499-a4a2-0db4-d37092da1515@cdt.org>
	<bb52d14365bb4b9e925af2762d1d8d08@toast.net>
	<0C812A8D-798A-4282-A4F9-C30B7011F3B3@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <e3d59988-5e3f-aafc-6585-ddb92504fa81@mail.utoronto.ca>

So who have we got on this one, I am losing track.....I did a lot of 
work on the Westlake stuff so could join if needed.  Drowning in RDS at 
the moment though, and with both James and Kathy leaving active status I 
have quite a lot on the plate.....

cheers Steph


On 2016-07-27 8:40, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Agree with Ed here, however, it wouldn?t hurt to stay alert on both 
> groups recommending changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures 
> simultaneously, just in case the recommendations from one group have 
> any impact on the recommendations of the other. My guess is that staff 
> will be of assistance on that front, but wouldn?t hurt for us to also 
> keep our eyes peeled.
>
> The NCSG should be able to appoint two members (primary and alternate) 
> to this group. Additionally, others may join as participants or 
> observers. The call for volunteers has already been circulated to 
> NCSG-DISCUSS by Maryam (thanks Maryam). From what I can tell, there is 
> no hard deadline to appoint members, although participants/obsevers 
> are asked to sign up by August 19th. We could also set that as a 
> deadline for the PC to make its appointments by, and let NCSG members 
> know this?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matt,
>> Just in case there is any confusion: this is not a call for 
>> volunteers for the drafting team to implement GNSO related aspects of 
>> the transition. This is tied to the results of the GNSO 
>> Review (Westlake etc.). As such, I'm not sure that CCWG expertise, 
>> although helpful, is essential here. GNSO expertise, though, most 
>> certainly is.
>> Ed
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "matthew shears" <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>> *Sent*: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:15 PM
>> *To*: egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>, "pc-ncsg" 
>> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO 
>> Review Working Group
>>
>> My suggestion would be to select the member from those in our list 
>> who have a very good knowledge of the GNSO procedures, etc., and the 
>> alternate from those who have a very good knowledge of the work on 
>> accountability (CCWG).
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 27/07/2016 10:44, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> We are going to have to select a member and an alternate BEFORE our 
>>> next scheduled NCSG PC call (there is no Council meeting in August).
>>> Suggestions?
>>> Ed
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From*: "Nathalie Peregrine" <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>>> *Sent*: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:47 AM
>>> *To*: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> *Cc*: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>> *Subject*: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group
>>>
>>> *Call for Volunteers: GNSO Review Working Group*
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> */In Brief/*
>>>
>>>
>>> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council adopted the 
>>> Charter 
>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf>of 
>>> the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. 
>>> This Working Group is tasked to develop an implementation plan for 
>>> the GNSO Review recommendations 
>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf>which 
>>> were recently adopted 
>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e>by 
>>> the ICANN Board. This is the Call for Volunteers to join this 
>>> Working Group. Anyone interested in the GNSO Review and contributing 
>>> to the development of the implementation plan and subsequent 
>>> implementation is encouraged to volunteer.
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> */What This Working Group Will Do/*
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> Per the GNSO Review Working Group Charter 
>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf>the 
>>> GNSO Review Working Group will be responsible for developing an 
>>> implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the 
>>> implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure 
>>> current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome for the 
>>> GNSO Review recommendations adopted by the ICANN Board (thirty-four 
>>> (34) recommendations of the Final Report 
>>> <https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf>of 
>>> the Independent Examiner (i.e. all recommendations excluding 
>>> recommendations 23 and 32). This implementation plan is to be 
>>> submitted for approval to the GNSO Council, followed by 
>>> consideration by the ICANN Board. Following the approval of the 
>>> implementation plan, the Working Group is also expected to execute 
>>> and oversee the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations 
>>> unless specified differently in the implementation plan.
>>>
>>>
>>> The GNSO Review Working Group will also be responsible for 
>>> considering any new requests^^[1] <x-msg://8/#_ftn1> by the GNSO 
>>> Council concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and 
>>> procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified 
>>> either by the GNSO Council, or a group chartered by the GNSO 
>>> Council, as needing discussion. However, the first priority of the 
>>> Working Group will be the development of an implementation plan and 
>>> the subsequent implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Timeline and Deliverables*
>>>
>>>
>>> The GNSO Review Working Group is expected to deliver the 
>>> implementation plan to the GNSO Council for consideration at the 
>>> GNSO Council meeting at ICANN57 at the latest in order to meet the 
>>> Board set objective of ?an implementation plan, containing a 
>>> realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired 
>>> outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress 
>>> toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon 
>>> as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of 
>>> this resolution?^^[2] <x-msg://8/#_ftn2> i.e., December 2016.
>>>
>>>
>>> */How to Join/*
>>>
>>> Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and/or Constituency will identify one 
>>> primary and one alternate member to serve on the GNSO Review Working 
>>> Group. In addition to these appointed members, anyone interested 
>>> will be able to join this working group as a participant or 
>>> observer. Please note that participants are expected to attend 
>>> conference calls and to actively participate in online discussions. 
>>> They also must submit a Statement of Interest per Section 5.0 of the 
>>> GNSO Operating Procedures 
>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-16feb16-en.pdf>.  
>>> Observers can follow the group's work on the mailing list but can 
>>> neither send to the mailing list nor participate actively in the calls.
>>>
>>> Interested participants and observers are requested to complete the 
>>> sign-up sheet <https://goo.gl/forms/TbmkrEXT2xlx6jGn1>by Friday, 19 
>>> August 2016.
>>>
>>>
>>> */Next steps/***
>>>
>>>
>>> It is anticipated that the GNSO Review Working Group will convene 
>>> online for the first time in the last week of August 2016. Following 
>>> that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with 
>>> the Working Group?s work plan, which it is expected to develop as 
>>> one of its first tasks.
>>>
>>> *//*
>>>
>>> */Further information and preparation/***
>>>
>>>
>>> For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are 
>>> encouraged to review the following materials:
>>>
>>> 1.GNSO Review Recommendations 
>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf>
>>>
>>> 2.Independent Examiner Final 
>>> Report<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf>
>>>
>>> 3.Frequently Asked Questions<https://community.icann.org/x/UBCbAw>
>>>
>>> */Background/***
>>>
>>>
>>> The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014.  The 
>>> Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 
>>> September 2015 (see 
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) 
>>> and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & 
>>> representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment 
>>> with ICANN's future. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review 
>>> Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis 
>>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) 
>>> on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that 
>>> the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute 
>>> methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related 
>>> to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge 
>>> base (low priority).
>>>
>>> On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the 
>>> independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's 
>>> Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review 
>>> Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council. The 
>>> Board adopted thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report 
>>> (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). 
>>> Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a 
>>> group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted 
>>> recommendations.
>>>
>>> Per the motion <https://community.icann.org/x/BAObAw>adopted on 21 
>>> July 2016, the GNSO Council adopted the Charter 
>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf>of 
>>> the GNSO Review Working Group and directed staff to send a Call for 
>>> Volunteers for the Working Group.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> [1] <x-msg://8/#_ftnref1>For items that are submitted for review 'on 
>>> request', the GNSO Review WG expects to receive detailed input from 
>>> the group affected by theprocess/operational change concerned. See 
>>> request template at: 
>>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/14713135/GNSO-SCI-ReviewRequest-yyymmdd_template.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1469143165000&api=v2. 
>>>
>>>
>>> [2] <x-msg://8/#_ftnref2>The Board resolution was adopted on 25 June 
>>> 2016
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> --
>>
>> --------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160727/08a1ac10/attachment-0001.html>


From t.tropina  Fri Jul 29 16:27:54 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:27:54 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
Message-ID: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>

Dear all,

I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
can try.

Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think it
is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!

best

Tanya

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PublicCommentICANNFellowshipprogram.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20096 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/16057cb3/attachment-0001.docx>


From aelsadr  Fri Jul 29 16:55:04 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:55:04 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
In-Reply-To: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
References: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <C3851AC6-C09D-4A2F-A242-60AEEE56D38A@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I don't have anything against the points made in the draft. And considering how much support has already been voiced for this comment on the discuss list, I'm happy to have the NCSG endorse and submit it. 

Thanks for the work on this Farzi. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
> time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
> shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
> yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
> attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
> deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
> can try.
> 
> Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
> Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think it
> is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!
> 
> best
> 
> Tanya
> 
> <PublicCommentICANNFellowshipprogram.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From egmorris1  Fri Jul 29 17:17:07 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:17:07 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
In-Reply-To: <C3851AC6-C09D-4A2F-A242-60AEEE56D38A@egyptig.org>
References: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
	<C3851AC6-C09D-4A2F-A242-60AEEE56D38A@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <D6D03FFB-3180-423F-8C9F-15C13927162A@toast.net>

I'd like to add my support for submitting this as a NCSG comment and my congratulations and thanks to Farzi as well for a job well done.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Jul 2016, at 14:42, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I don't have anything against the points made in the draft. And considering how much support has already been voiced for this comment on the discuss list, I'm happy to have the NCSG endorse and submit it. 
> 
> Thanks for the work on this Farzi. 
> 
> Amr
> 
> Sent from mobile
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
>> time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
>> shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
>> yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
>> attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
>> deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
>> can try.
>> 
>> Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
>> Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think it
>> is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!
>> 
>> best
>> 
>> Tanya
>> 
>> <PublicCommentICANNFellowshipprogram.docx>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Fri Jul 29 17:58:19 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:58:19 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
In-Reply-To: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
References: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <5a48aa3b-9a64-6aa1-c08e-c76805e141e7@apc.org>

as an observer i recommend approval.

avri


On 29-Jul-16 09:27, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
> time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
> shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
> yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
> attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
> deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
> can try.
>
> Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
> Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think it
> is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!
>
> best
>
> Tanya
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From ncsg  Fri Jul 29 18:17:00 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:17:00 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
In-Reply-To: <D6D03FFB-3180-423F-8C9F-15C13927162A@toast.net>
References: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
	<C3851AC6-C09D-4A2F-A242-60AEEE56D38A@egyptig.org>
	<D6D03FFB-3180-423F-8C9F-15C13927162A@toast.net>
Message-ID: <20160729151700.GA18800@tarvainen.info>

Likewise. Thak you Farzi.

Tapani

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:

> I'd like to add my support for submitting this as a NCSG comment and my congratulations and thanks to Farzi as well for a job well done.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On 29 Jul 2016, at 14:42, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I don't have anything against the points made in the draft. And considering how much support has already been voiced for this comment on the discuss list, I'm happy to have the NCSG endorse and submit it. 
> > 
> > Thanks for the work on this Farzi. 
> > 
> > Amr
> > 
> > Sent from mobile
> > 
> >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Dear all,
> >> 
> >> I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
> >> time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
> >> shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
> >> yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
> >> attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
> >> deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
> >> can try.
> >> 
> >> Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
> >> Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think it
> >> is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!
> >> 
> >> best
> >> 
> >> Tanya
> >> 
> >> <PublicCommentICANNFellowshipprogram.docx>



From mshears  Fri Jul 29 18:56:46 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:56:46 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
In-Reply-To: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
References: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <3cfc8b93-05bd-3f85-1fba-f1b767329f23@cdt.org>

I support.


On 29/07/2016 14:27, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
> time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
> shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
> yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
> attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
> deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
> can try.
>
> Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
> Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think it
> is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!
>
> best
>
> Tanya
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/b0f86e20/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Fri Jul 29 18:56:41 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:56:41 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
In-Reply-To: <20160729151700.GA18800@tarvainen.info>
References: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
	<C3851AC6-C09D-4A2F-A242-60AEEE56D38A@egyptig.org>
	<D6D03FFB-3180-423F-8C9F-15C13927162A@toast.net>
	<20160729151700.GA18800@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1eN1mVumktyo4TngEkq1tVPKoWNL57CgpgncXT4Bm3YA@mail.gmail.com>

I also support the approval of the document and I think that we are in the
position to submit it today, if no one objects until the deadline. Thank
you, Farzi. Great job.
Marilia

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> Likewise. Thak you Farzi.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Edward Morris (
> egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>
> > I'd like to add my support for submitting this as a NCSG comment and my
> congratulations and thanks to Farzi as well for a job well done.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 29 Jul 2016, at 14:42, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I don't have anything against the points made in the draft. And
> considering how much support has already been voiced for this comment on
> the discuss list, I'm happy to have the NCSG endorse and submit it.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the work on this Farzi.
> > >
> > > Amr
> > >
> > > Sent from mobile
> > >
> > >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
> > >> time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
> > >> shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
> > >> yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
> > >> attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
> > >> deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
> > >> can try.
> > >>
> > >> Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
> > >> Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think
> it
> > >> is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!
> > >>
> > >> best
> > >>
> > >> Tanya
> > >>
> > >> <PublicCommentICANNFellowshipprogram.docx>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/f188a62f/attachment-0001.html>


From pileleji  Fri Jul 29 18:57:16 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:57:16 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public Comment ICANN Fellowship Program Endorsement by
	NPOC
Message-ID: <CAEux40sVZBiHsAb293TBig2TXvtt4-Ai40c3CUPgi3sv7DpMuQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sir / Madam,

As Chair of the Policy Committee of NPOC I sent a message to the NCSG
Policy discuss it got rejected and I was told to contact this email.  Will
be grateful if this can be rectified. and my message accepted.

Kind Regards

Poncelet



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






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/31ffeb18/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Jul 29 18:58:42 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:58:42 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
In-Reply-To: <3cfc8b93-05bd-3f85-1fba-f1b767329f23@cdt.org>
References: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
	<3cfc8b93-05bd-3f85-1fba-f1b767329f23@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <22af63e9-ef97-7053-4d36-86b7e55ee990@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am sure I would be delighted to support if I could just get access to 
the document.  I have asked for access, someone should have received my 
request from google docs.  thanks

Stephanie.


On 2016-07-29 11:56, matthew shears wrote:
>
> I support.
>
>
> On 29/07/2016 14:27, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
>> time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
>> shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
>> yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
>> attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
>> deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
>> can try.
>>
>> Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
>> Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think it
>> is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!
>>
>> best
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> -- 
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/03b1d0f4/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Jul 29 19:07:54 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:07:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
In-Reply-To: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
References: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <230b7455-8116-10f1-c726-95c473dbf612@mail.utoronto.ca>

I have picked up a few typos on the word document that Tatiana 
circulated.  This is great work, thanks for doing it, happy to endorse 
but you might wish to check these typos.

Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-07-29 9:27, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
> time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
> shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
> yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
> attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
> deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
> can try.
>
> Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
> Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think it
> is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!
>
> best
>
> Tanya
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/068066af/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PublicCommentICANNFellowshipprogramsp.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/068066af/attachment-0001.docx>


From pileleji  Fri Jul 29 19:09:52 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:09:52 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Quite urgent: Comments on ICANN Fellowship
In-Reply-To: <230b7455-8116-10f1-c726-95c473dbf612@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <57a97fbb-7a2e-d82e-1079-2fa2c894eee8@mpicc.de>
	<230b7455-8116-10f1-c726-95c473dbf612@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAEux40veCccythjK5qf3EE5_H2qfscKonsGALLePpRrO_XGJTg@mail.gmail.com>

Fully endorsed also on behalf of NPOC.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 29 July 2016 at 16:07, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I have picked up a few typos on the word document that Tatiana
> circulated.  This is great work, thanks for doing it, happy to endorse but
> you might wish to check these typos.
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2016-07-29 9:27, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I know it might be quite a last moment request, but hope we will be in
> time to approve this document. As you might have noticed, Farzaneh
> shared the comment on the ICANN Fellowship program on the NCSG list
> yesterday. The finalised document after NCSG members' comments is
> attached to this email. Will we be able to approve it quickly? The
> deadline is tonight 23.59 UTC. Well, I know it's though but I think we
> can try.
>
> Please consider this email as the first endorsement of the comment.
> Please do submit your opinion - it's not a long document, but I think it
> is very important to submit this comment. Thanks a lot!
>
> best
>
> Tanya
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


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






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/f3d62d25/attachment.html>


From mshears  Fri Jul 29 20:03:32 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:03:32 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Drafting group on PTI issues - upcoming public
	comments
In-Reply-To: <5abd7d2c-b0b1-87fe-5f27-17c3a884254d@cdt.org>
References: <CACpVkK2nngFZYs4MuyDc0PLA3ZnJrY9rBcgqw1=V8hbo6CaQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ef9a993e-bd65-686a-0647-2c080cabe386@cdt.org>
	<5abd7d2c-b0b1-87fe-5f27-17c3a884254d@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <2d0f4471-2cc9-e7f2-3ee5-4dc04e665faa@cdt.org>

Hi

Please find attached proposed draft NCSG comments on the PTI AoI.  
Thanks to those who proposed comments.   I have tried to account for 
various views and inputs.  Some of the comments might be considered 
contentious.

Consider this a call for consensus.

For the person who submitted a comment on article 10 please address the 
comment in the attached document on Code references - thanks.

If there are concerns/questions, etc. with this submission please come 
back to the list and/or to me, Marilia or David asap.

Many thanks.

Matthew


On 27/07/2016 11:39, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Please review and add to the comments on the PTI Articles of 
> Incorporation as I will be wrapping them up tomorrow (the 28th) and 
> circulating for consensus.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 22/07/2016 16:48, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Marilia.
>>
>> I have set up a google doc for comments/drafting etc.:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19a1YqSnQ-QFBQF1Im0cnHKMeW8RAEBChdJgp6q6wAs4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> I have entered some additional points on the draft PTI AoI for your 
>> consideration as that is the most imminent deadline.
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 22/07/2016 09:21, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> In this week's NCSG policy committee call we discussed the upcoming 
>>> public comments. The most outstanding issue ahead of us is 
>>> definitely the post transition IANA (PTI). There are three upcoming 
>>> public comment periods related to this issue:
>>>
>>> 31/07: Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en
>>>
>>> 07/08: PTI Governance Documents
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en
>>>
>>> 11/08: Draft PTI Bylaws
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>>
>>> We agreed that, in order to save time and efforts, the best approach 
>>> would be to create an NCSG drafting team to work on these PTI 
>>> consultations. Matthew Shears volunteered to be the facilitator, but 
>>> we definitively need the inputs and experience of others in our 
>>> group. Matt will guide us through the next steps. He already started 
>>> the conversation about a week ago (please refer to his previous 
>>> message below).
>>>
>>> Please step forward if you can assist on this important task.
>>>
>>> All the best wishes,
>>> Marilia
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *matthew shears* <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>>> Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM
>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI bylaws - items for possible discussion
>>> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Quickly reading through the proposed PTI by-laws (circulated to the 
>>> CWG yesterday and on the ICANN website 
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-pti-bylaws-12jul16-en.pdf 
>>> ) I note the following (BUT I am sure that I have missed some points 
>>> worthy of discussion):
>>>
>>> 1.    principal office issue (Art 2)
>>>
>>> "The principal office for the transaction of the business of the 
>>> Corporation may be established at any place or places within or 
>>> without the State of California by resolution of the Board.The Board 
>>> may at any time establish branch or subordinate offices at any place 
>>> or places where the Corporation is qualified to transact business."
>>>
>>> Q.  Why would the power to determine the principal office of PTI not 
>>> be subject to the same rules as for ICANN's place of business - if 
>>> there is a change surely the empowered community should have a say, 
>>> and not just the PTI Board (assuming Board in the article means PTI 
>>> Board)?   We have the EC involved significantly in the decision-tree 
>>> for PTI - why not in determining its place of business as we do for 
>>> ICANN itself?
>>>
>>> 2.    purpose of PTI (art 3)
>>>
>>> "The specific purpose of the Corporation is to operate exclusively 
>>> for the benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out the 
>>> purposes of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
>>> (?*ICANN*?)."
>>>
>>> Q. I thought that the purpose of the PTI subsidiary was to perform 
>>> the IANA functions pursuant to the inter-company contract 
>>> established between ICANN and PTI?
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.    Removal of Director (Art 5.6.2) - isn't the first sentence in 
>>> contradiction with the other three paras?  it says may be removed 
>>> w/out cause but then lists the causes....  May be this is just 
>>> legalese....
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.  Responsibilities of officers (Art 7.6.1) - role of President.  
>>> Given that we are suggesting that the Chair of the Board be, as is 
>>> possible, nominated to the ICANN Board by the nominating committee - 
>>> do we really want the President - who will be an ICANN appointee 
>>> (typically the manager of the IANA functions) - to assume the role 
>>> of Chairperson in the latter's absence?  Why would we not suggest 
>>> that the other nominating committee appointed Director be the 
>>> replacement if the Chair is absent to ensure a balance of 
>>> interests/independence?
>>>
>>> These bylaws are now also up for public comment:
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>> --------------
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> --------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
>
> -- 
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/0b58b06a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG comments PTI AoI.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/0b58b06a/attachment-0001.docx>


From bkuerbis  Fri Jul 29 21:19:47 2016
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:19:47 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Drafting group on PTI issues - upcoming public
	comments
In-Reply-To: <2d0f4471-2cc9-e7f2-3ee5-4dc04e665faa@cdt.org>
References: <CACpVkK2nngFZYs4MuyDc0PLA3ZnJrY9rBcgqw1=V8hbo6CaQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ef9a993e-bd65-686a-0647-2c080cabe386@cdt.org>
	<5abd7d2c-b0b1-87fe-5f27-17c3a884254d@cdt.org>
	<2d0f4471-2cc9-e7f2-3ee5-4dc04e665faa@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3CL5CgX7CHaB1PoMuvF3C2F57KsrdR290b+i74bbG50Vw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for pulling this together Matt. I'm just an observer here, but I
support.

-- B

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:03 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Please find attached proposed draft NCSG comments on the PTI AoI.  Thanks
> to those who proposed comments.   I have tried to account for various views
> and inputs.  Some of the comments might be considered contentious.
>
> Consider this a call for consensus.
>
> For the person who submitted a comment on article 10 please address the
> comment in the attached document on Code references - thanks.
>
> If there are concerns/questions, etc. with this submission please come
> back to the list and/or to me, Marilia or David asap.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 27/07/2016 11:39, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Please review and add to the comments on the PTI Articles of Incorporation
> as I will be wrapping them up tomorrow (the 28th) and circulating for
> consensus.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matthew
>
> On 22/07/2016 16:48, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Thanks Marilia.
> I have set up a google doc for comments/drafting etc.:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19a1YqSnQ-QFBQF1Im0cnHKMeW8RAEBChdJgp6q6wAs4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I have entered some additional points on the draft PTI AoI for your
> consideration as that is the most imminent deadline.
>
> Best.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 22/07/2016 09:21, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> In this week's NCSG policy committee call we discussed the upcoming public
> comments. The most outstanding issue ahead of us is definitely the post
> transition IANA (PTI). There are three upcoming public comment periods
> related to this issue:
>
> 31/07: Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en
>
> 07/08: PTI Governance Documents
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en
>
> 11/08: Draft PTI Bylaws
>  https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>
> We agreed that, in order to save time and efforts, the best approach would
> be to create an NCSG drafting team to work on these PTI consultations.
> Matthew Shears volunteered to be the facilitator, but we definitively need
> the inputs and experience of others in our group. Matt will guide us
> through the next steps. He already started the conversation about a week
> ago (please refer to his previous message below).
>
> Please step forward if you can assist on this important task.
>
> All the best wishes,
> Marilia
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
> Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI bylaws - items for possible discussion
> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>
>
> Hi all
> Quickly reading through the proposed PTI by-laws (circulated to the CWG
> yesterday and on the ICANN website
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-pti-bylaws-12jul16-en.pdf
> ) I note the following (BUT I am sure that I have missed some points worthy
> of discussion):
>
> 1.    principal office issue (Art 2)
>
> "The principal office for the transaction of the business of the
> Corporation may be established at any place or places within or without the
> State of California by resolution of the Board.  The Board may at any
> time establish branch or subordinate offices at any place or places where
> the Corporation is qualified to transact business."
>
> Q.  Why would the power to determine the principal office of PTI not be
> subject to the same rules as for ICANN's place of business - if there is a
> change surely the empowered community should have a say, and not just the
> PTI Board (assuming Board in the article means PTI Board)?   We have the EC
> involved significantly in the decision-tree for PTI - why not in
> determining its place of business as we do for ICANN itself?
>
> 2.    purpose of PTI (art 3)
>
> "The specific purpose of the Corporation is to operate exclusively for the
> benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out the purposes of
> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (?*ICANN*?)."
>
> Q. I thought that the purpose of the PTI subsidiary was to perform the
> IANA functions pursuant to the inter-company contract established between
> ICANN and PTI?
>
>
> 3.    Removal of Director (Art 5.6.2) - isn't the first sentence in
> contradiction with the other three paras?  it says may be removed w/out
> cause but then lists the causes....  May be this is just legalese....
>
>
> 4.  Responsibilities of officers (Art 7.6.1) - role of President.  Given
> that we are suggesting that the Chair of the Board be, as is possible,
> nominated to the ICANN Board by the nominating committee - do we really
> want the President - who will be an ICANN appointee (typically the manager
> of the IANA functions) - to assume the role of Chairperson in the latter's
> absence?  Why would we not suggest that the other nominating committee
> appointed Director be the replacement if the Chair is absent to ensure a
> balance of interests/independence?
>
> These bylaws are now also up for public comment:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>
> Matthew
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987
>
>
> --
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987
>
>
> --
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/84e9efaa/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Fri Jul 29 22:38:19 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:38:19 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Drafting group on PTI issues - upcoming public
	comments
In-Reply-To: <2d0f4471-2cc9-e7f2-3ee5-4dc04e665faa@cdt.org>
References: <CACpVkK2nngFZYs4MuyDc0PLA3ZnJrY9rBcgqw1=V8hbo6CaQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ef9a993e-bd65-686a-0647-2c080cabe386@cdt.org>
	<5abd7d2c-b0b1-87fe-5f27-17c3a884254d@cdt.org>
	<2d0f4471-2cc9-e7f2-3ee5-4dc04e665faa@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5D717451-423A-48DC-8E98-2A66BC6C1515@toast.net>

Matt,

This is extremely well done.

Although I'm comfortable with the specific California statutes cited and believe I know why they have been I think it would be good to have some confirmation of my thoughts so support that part of the PC, as well
as the rest.

This is really great work - thanks so much for doing it.

Kind Regards,

Ed



Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Jul 2016, at 18:03, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi 
> Please find attached proposed draft NCSG comments on the PTI AoI.  Thanks to those who proposed comments.   I have tried to account for various views and inputs.  Some of the comments might be considered contentious.
> Consider this a call for consensus.
> For the person who submitted a comment on article 10 please address the comment in the attached document on Code references - thanks.
> 
> If there are concerns/questions, etc. with this submission please come back to the list and/or to me, Marilia or David asap.
> 
> Many thanks.
> 
> Matthew
> 
>> On 27/07/2016 11:39, matthew shears wrote:
>> Hi all
>> 
>> Please review and add to the comments on the PTI Articles of Incorporation as I will be wrapping them up tomorrow (the 28th) and circulating for consensus.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Matthew
>> 
>>> On 22/07/2016 16:48, matthew shears wrote:
>>> Thanks Marilia.
>>> 
>>> I have set up a google doc for comments/drafting etc.:
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19a1YqSnQ-QFBQF1Im0cnHKMeW8RAEBChdJgp6q6wAs4/edit?usp=sharing
>>> 
>>> I have entered some additional points on the draft PTI AoI for your consideration as that is the most imminent deadline.
>>> 
>>> Best.
>>> 
>>> Matthew
>>> 
>>>> On 22/07/2016 09:21, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> In this week's NCSG policy committee call we discussed the upcoming public comments. The most outstanding issue ahead of us is definitely the post transition IANA (PTI). There are three upcoming public comment periods related to this issue:
>>>> 
>>>> 31/07: Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en
>>>> 
>>>> 07/08: PTI Governance Documents
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en
>>>> 
>>>> 11/08: Draft PTI Bylaws
>>>>  https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>>> 
>>>> We agreed that, in order to save time and efforts, the best approach would be to create an NCSG drafting team to work on these PTI consultations. Matthew Shears volunteered to be the facilitator, but we definitively need the inputs and experience of others in our group. Matt will guide us through the next steps. He already started the conversation about a week ago (please refer to his previous message below).
>>>> 
>>>> Please step forward if you can assist on this important task. 
>>>> 
>>>> All the best wishes,
>>>> Marilia
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
>>>> Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM
>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI bylaws - items for possible discussion
>>>> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all
>>>> 
>>>> Quickly reading through the proposed PTI by-laws (circulated to the CWG yesterday and on the ICANN website https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-pti-bylaws-12jul16-en.pdf ) I note the following (BUT I am sure that I have missed some points worthy of discussion):
>>>> 
>>>> 1.    principal office issue (Art 2)
>>>> 
>>>> "The principal office for the transaction of the business of the Corporation may be established at any place or places within or without the State of California by resolution of the Board.  The Board may at any time establish branch or subordinate offices at any place or places where the Corporation is qualified to transact business."
>>>> 
>>>> Q.  Why would the power to determine the principal office of PTI not be subject to the same rules as for ICANN's place of business - if there is a change surely the empowered community should have a say, and not just the PTI Board (assuming Board in the article means PTI Board)?   We have the EC involved significantly in the decision-tree for PTI - why not in determining its place of business as we do for ICANN itself?
>>>> 
>>>> 2.    purpose of PTI (art 3)
>>>> 
>>>> "The specific purpose of the Corporation is to operate exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out the purposes of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (?ICANN?)."
>>>> 
>>>> Q. I thought that the purpose of the PTI subsidiary was to perform the IANA functions pursuant to the inter-company contract established between ICANN and PTI?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3.    Removal of Director (Art 5.6.2) - isn't the first sentence in contradiction with the other three paras?  it says may be removed w/out cause but then lists the causes....  May be this is just legalese....
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 4.  Responsibilities of officers (Art 7.6.1) - role of President.  Given that we are suggesting that the Chair of the Board be, as is possible, nominated to the ICANN Board by the nominating committee - do we really want the President - who will be an ICANN appointee (typically the manager of the IANA functions) - to assume the role of Chairperson in the latter's absence?  Why would we not suggest that the other nominating committee appointed Director be the replacement if the Chair is absent to ensure a balance of interests/independence?
>>>> 
>>>> These bylaws are now also up for public comment:
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>>> 
>>>> Matthew 
>>>> --------------
>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> + 44 771 2472987
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  	
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>>>> www.avast.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> --------------
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> --------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
> 
> -- 
> 
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
> <NCSG comments PTI AoI.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/9e104bf3/attachment-0001.html>


From t.tropina  Sat Jul 30 00:04:34 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 23:04:34 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Drafting group on PTI issues - upcoming public
	comments
In-Reply-To: <2d0f4471-2cc9-e7f2-3ee5-4dc04e665faa@cdt.org>
References: <CACpVkK2nngFZYs4MuyDc0PLA3ZnJrY9rBcgqw1=V8hbo6CaQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ef9a993e-bd65-686a-0647-2c080cabe386@cdt.org>
	<5abd7d2c-b0b1-87fe-5f27-17c3a884254d@cdt.org>
	<2d0f4471-2cc9-e7f2-3ee5-4dc04e665faa@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <16e7b07a-feb9-334a-2bfa-04da68564b56@mpicc.de>

Matthew,

Great job. I support.

Thanks a lot for taking the lead on this!

Cheers
Tanya


On 29/07/16 19:03, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Please find attached proposed draft NCSG comments on the PTI AoI. 
> Thanks to those who proposed comments.   I have tried to account for
> various views and inputs.  Some of the comments might be considered
> contentious.
>
> Consider this a call for consensus.
>
> For the person who submitted a comment on article 10 please address
> the comment in the attached document on Code references - thanks.
>
> If there are concerns/questions, etc. with this submission please come
> back to the list and/or to me, Marilia or David asap.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 27/07/2016 11:39, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Please review and add to the comments on the PTI Articles of
>> Incorporation as I will be wrapping them up tomorrow (the 28th) and
>> circulating for consensus.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 22/07/2016 16:48, matthew shears wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Marilia.
>>>
>>> I have set up a google doc for comments/drafting etc.:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19a1YqSnQ-QFBQF1Im0cnHKMeW8RAEBChdJgp6q6wAs4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> I have entered some additional points on the draft PTI AoI for your
>>> consideration as that is the most imminent deadline.
>>>
>>> Best.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> On 22/07/2016 09:21, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> In this week's NCSG policy committee call we discussed the upcoming
>>>> public comments. The most outstanding issue ahead of us is
>>>> definitely the post transition IANA (PTI). There are three upcoming
>>>> public comment periods related to this issue:
>>>>
>>>> 31/07: Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en
>>>>
>>>> 07/08: PTI Governance Documents
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en
>>>>
>>>> 11/08: Draft PTI Bylaws
>>>>  https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>>>
>>>> We agreed that, in order to save time and efforts, the best
>>>> approach would be to create an NCSG drafting team to work on these
>>>> PTI consultations. Matthew Shears volunteered to be the
>>>> facilitator, but we definitively need the inputs and experience of
>>>> others in our group. Matt will guide us through the next steps. He
>>>> already started the conversation about a week ago (please refer to
>>>> his previous message below).
>>>>
>>>> Please step forward if you can assist on this important task. 
>>>>
>>>> All the best wishes,
>>>> Marilia
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: *matthew shears* <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>>>> Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM
>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI bylaws - items for possible discussion
>>>> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> Quickly reading through the proposed PTI by-laws (circulated to the
>>>> CWG yesterday and on the ICANN website
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-pti-bylaws-12jul16-en.pdf
>>>> ) I note the following (BUT I am sure that I have missed some
>>>> points worthy of discussion):
>>>>
>>>> 1.    principal office issue (Art 2)
>>>>
>>>> "The principal office for the transaction of the business of the
>>>> Corporation may be established at any place or places within or
>>>> without the State of California by resolution of the Board.  The
>>>> Board may at any time establish branch or subordinate offices at
>>>> any place or places where the Corporation is qualified to transact
>>>> business."
>>>>
>>>> Q.  Why would the power to determine the principal office of PTI
>>>> not be subject to the same rules as for ICANN's place of business -
>>>> if there is a change surely the empowered community should have a
>>>> say, and not just the PTI Board (assuming Board in the article
>>>> means PTI Board)?   We have the EC involved significantly in the
>>>> decision-tree for PTI - why not in determining its place of
>>>> business as we do for ICANN itself?
>>>>
>>>> 2.    purpose of PTI (art 3)
>>>>
>>>> "The specific purpose of the Corporation is to operate exclusively
>>>> for the benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out
>>>> the purposes of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>>>> Numbers (?*ICANN*?)."
>>>>
>>>> Q. I thought that the purpose of the PTI subsidiary was to perform
>>>> the IANA functions pursuant to the inter-company contract
>>>> established between ICANN and PTI?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3.    Removal of Director (Art 5.6.2) - isn't the first sentence in
>>>> contradiction with the other three paras?  it says may be removed
>>>> w/out cause but then lists the causes....  May be this is just
>>>> legalese....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4.  Responsibilities of officers (Art 7.6.1) - role of President. 
>>>> Given that we are suggesting that the Chair of the Board be, as is
>>>> possible, nominated to the ICANN Board by the nominating committee
>>>> - do we really want the President - who will be an ICANN appointee
>>>> (typically the manager of the IANA functions) - to assume the role
>>>> of Chairperson in the latter's absence?  Why would we not suggest
>>>> that the other nominating committee appointed Director be the
>>>> replacement if the Chair is absent to ensure a balance of
>>>> interests/independence?
>>>>
>>>> These bylaws are now also up for public comment:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>> --------------
>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> --------------
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> --------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
>
> -- 
>
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160729/60f2b0cd/attachment.html>


From mshears  Sun Jul 31 16:26:52 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:26:52 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Drafting group on PTI issues - upcoming public
	comments
In-Reply-To: <16e7b07a-feb9-334a-2bfa-04da68564b56@mpicc.de>
References: <CACpVkK2nngFZYs4MuyDc0PLA3ZnJrY9rBcgqw1=V8hbo6CaQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ef9a993e-bd65-686a-0647-2c080cabe386@cdt.org>
	<5abd7d2c-b0b1-87fe-5f27-17c3a884254d@cdt.org>
	<2d0f4471-2cc9-e7f2-3ee5-4dc04e665faa@cdt.org>
	<16e7b07a-feb9-334a-2bfa-04da68564b56@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <de54cc80-4b81-b783-6331-12b3b8b60454@cdt.org>

Thanks all (and for the clarifications).  As I have seen no objections I 
will be submitting these as NCSG comments later today.

Matthew


On 29/07/2016 22:04, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> Great job. I support.
>
> Thanks a lot for taking the lead on this!
>
> Cheers
> Tanya
>
>
> On 29/07/16 19:03, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Please find attached proposed draft NCSG comments on the PTI AoI.  
>> Thanks to those who proposed comments.   I have tried to account for 
>> various views and inputs.  Some of the comments might be considered 
>> contentious.
>>
>> Consider this a call for consensus.
>>
>> For the person who submitted a comment on article 10 please address 
>> the comment in the attached document on Code references - thanks.
>>
>> If there are concerns/questions, etc. with this submission please 
>> come back to the list and/or to me, Marilia or David asap.
>>
>> Many thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 27/07/2016 11:39, matthew shears wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Please review and add to the comments on the PTI Articles of 
>>> Incorporation as I will be wrapping them up tomorrow (the 28th) and 
>>> circulating for consensus.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/07/2016 16:48, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Marilia.
>>>>
>>>> I have set up a google doc for comments/drafting etc.:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19a1YqSnQ-QFBQF1Im0cnHKMeW8RAEBChdJgp6q6wAs4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> I have entered some additional points on the draft PTI AoI for your 
>>>> consideration as that is the most imminent deadline.
>>>>
>>>> Best.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>> On 22/07/2016 09:21, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> In this week's NCSG policy committee call we discussed the 
>>>>> upcoming public comments. The most outstanding issue ahead of us 
>>>>> is definitely the post transition IANA (PTI). There are three 
>>>>> upcoming public comment periods related to this issue:
>>>>>
>>>>> 31/07: Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-articles-incorporation-2016-07-01-en
>>>>>
>>>>> 07/08: PTI Governance Documents
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pti-governance-documents-2016-07-08-en
>>>>>
>>>>> 11/08: Draft PTI Bylaws
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>>>>
>>>>> We agreed that, in order to save time and efforts, the best 
>>>>> approach would be to create an NCSG drafting team to work on these 
>>>>> PTI consultations. Matthew Shears volunteered to be the 
>>>>> facilitator, but we definitively need the inputs and experience of 
>>>>> others in our group. Matt will guide us through the next steps. He 
>>>>> already started the conversation about a week ago (please refer to 
>>>>> his previous message below).
>>>>>
>>>>> Please step forward if you can assist on this important task.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best wishes,
>>>>> Marilia
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: *matthew shears* <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>>>>> Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM
>>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] PTI bylaws - items for possible discussion
>>>>> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> Quickly reading through the proposed PTI by-laws (circulated to 
>>>>> the CWG yesterday and on the ICANN website 
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-pti-bylaws-12jul16-en.pdf 
>>>>> ) I note the following (BUT I am sure that I have missed some 
>>>>> points worthy of discussion):
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.    principal office issue (Art 2)
>>>>>
>>>>> "The principal office for the transaction of the business of the 
>>>>> Corporation may be established at any place or places within or 
>>>>> without the State of California by resolution of the Board.The 
>>>>> Board may at any time establish branch or subordinate offices at 
>>>>> any place or places where the Corporation is qualified to transact 
>>>>> business."
>>>>>
>>>>> Q.  Why would the power to determine the principal office of PTI 
>>>>> not be subject to the same rules as for ICANN's place of business 
>>>>> - if there is a change surely the empowered community should have 
>>>>> a say, and not just the PTI Board (assuming Board in the article 
>>>>> means PTI Board)?   We have the EC involved significantly in the 
>>>>> decision-tree for PTI - why not in determining its place of 
>>>>> business as we do for ICANN itself?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.    purpose of PTI (art 3)
>>>>>
>>>>> "The specific purpose of the Corporation is to operate exclusively 
>>>>> for the benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out 
>>>>> the purposes of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
>>>>> Numbers (?*ICANN*?)."
>>>>>
>>>>> Q. I thought that the purpose of the PTI subsidiary was to perform 
>>>>> the IANA functions pursuant to the inter-company contract 
>>>>> established between ICANN and PTI?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.    Removal of Director (Art 5.6.2) - isn't the first sentence 
>>>>> in contradiction with the other three paras?  it says may be 
>>>>> removed w/out cause but then lists the causes....  May be this is 
>>>>> just legalese....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.  Responsibilities of officers (Art 7.6.1) - role of President.  
>>>>> Given that we are suggesting that the Chair of the Board be, as is 
>>>>> possible, nominated to the ICANN Board by the nominating committee 
>>>>> - do we really want the President - who will be an ICANN appointee 
>>>>> (typically the manager of the IANA functions) - to assume the role 
>>>>> of Chairperson in the latter's absence?  Why would we not suggest 
>>>>> that the other nominating committee appointed Director be the 
>>>>> replacement if the Chair is absent to ensure a balance of 
>>>>> interests/independence?
>>>>>
>>>>> These bylaws are now also up for public comment:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-bylaws-2016-07-12-en
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>> --------------
>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>>>>
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> --------------
>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> + 44 771 2472987
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> --------------
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> --------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160731/2ba3867a/attachment.html>


From mshears  Sun Jul 31 16:53:17 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:53:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update request on Auction proceeds drafting team
In-Reply-To: <AD9D0EA3-C542-4AA4-AD6A-E44B9D4CBFDC@cyberinvasion.net>
References: <AD9D0EA3-C542-4AA4-AD6A-E44B9D4CBFDC@cyberinvasion.net>
Message-ID: <1d405599-fe21-dd3d-95aa-df0f193fd3f1@cdt.org>

+ 1 an update would be greatly appreciated.


On 13/06/2016 15:07, James Gannon wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Can our reps to the Auction Proceeds drafting team provide us with an 
> update on the work of the group?
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58728193
>
> This is critical work and I want to make sure we are giving sufficient 
> input into this process.
> -James

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160731/49c04270/attachment-0001.html>