From dave  Thu Jun  2 19:34:43 2016
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 00:34:43 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Fwd: Request for Appointment of Members
	and Liaisons to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC)
References: <6E43806F-2470-4E04-9C3A-747C06CEEAB4@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <44AEEC0F-BA7C-455E-8A67-1CDB67546B43@davecake.net>

Note that the CSC Liaisons have now been requested by ICANN. There is one liaison to be selected by the GNSO Council, that can come from any stakeholder group except a Registry. It does not need to be a member of the council. 
I am on this selection committee. 

David

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Subject: [council] Fwd: Request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC)
> Date: 2 June 2016 at 8:43:53 AM AWST
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Colleagues--
> 
> Please see the announcement below and attached document from ICANN Staff regarding the appointment of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). Note that the Selection Committee we defined earlier this week will evaluate candidates for the GNSO Liaison. 
> 
> Please share with your ExComs and Stakeholders/Constituents. 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> J.
> ____________
> James Bladel
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org <mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>>
>> Date: June 1, 2016 at 17:52:29 CDT
>> 
>> Subject: Request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC)
>> 
>> Dear Chairs and Co-Chairs,
>> 
>> Please see attached a request from ICANN for appointment of members and liaisons to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC).
>> 
>> Warm regards,
>> 
>> Trang Nguyen
>> Senior Director, Strategic Programs
>> ICANN
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160603/5a043c53/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSC Request for Appointment_FINAL.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 236857 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160603/5a043c53/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160603/5a043c53/attachment-0003.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Jun  3 06:19:17 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 23:19:17 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] ICANN,
 RySG Propose Amendment to New gTLD Registry Agreement
In-Reply-To: <0A466C7F-6F9E-4FAD-AB09-33EE4F81A0ED@godaddy.com>
References: <0A466C7F-6F9E-4FAD-AB09-33EE4F81A0ED@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <f5e26cf2-1752-9e1d-3e99-e6aee31a1837@mail.utoronto.ca>


My apologies if anyone has already forwarded this to the list.  I think 
we should focus on what our views are.
Stephanie

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [council] ICANN, RySG Propose Amendment to New gTLD 
Registry Agreement
Date: 	Tue, 31 May 2016 23:14:07 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
CC: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Thanks Marika.

And for Councilors, please note that I have been asked by the Registry 
Services Team at ICANN to share this message (below) with the Council:

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

Today, ICANN published for public comment proposed amendments to the 
base New gTLD Registry Agreement. ICANN is sending this communication to 
alert the GNSO Council of the proposed amendments. Should the GNSO wish 
to submit comments for consideration, they must be received by 23:59 UTC 
<x-apple-data-detectors://2>*13 July 2016 <x-apple-data-detectors://2>*.

Comment now 
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-2016-05-31-en>*.*

*Amendment Process ? How We Got Here*

A process for amending the Registry Agreement is defined in Section 7.7 
of the Registry Agreement. All Registry Agreements based on the base New 
gTLD Registry Agreement contain these provisions.

The process is initiated when one party ? ICANN or the Registries 
Stakeholder Group (RySG) ? notifies the other that it wishes to propose 
changes to the Registry Agreement. The amendment process can be 
initiated no more than once per year and, following its initiation, 
ICANN and a Working Group appointed by the RySG may negotiate and 
mutually agree on proposed changes before publishing said changes for 
comment by the greater ICANN community.

In July 2014, over one year after the original base Registry Agreement 
was approved, the RySG notified ICANN of its desire to negotiate changes 
to the Registry Agreement.

The RySG then appointed a Working Group to negotiate an amendment with 
ICANN representatives. The goal was to arrive at terms that were 
mutually acceptable, so the revisions could be presented to all Registry 
Operators and the ICANN board for final approval. Following those 
negotiations, the teams agreed upon the proposed changes that have been 
published for public comment today.

In addition to posting the proposed changes for public comment and 
sending notification to the Applicable Registry Operators, ICANN 
published an announcement and a blog 
<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/amending-the-new-gtld-registry-agreement> to 
ensure community awareness.

ICANN invites the GNSO Council to read the proposed amendments and other 
published information, and provide input through the public comment process.

*Next Steps*

ICANN has initiated a 43-day public comment period. Once the public 
comment period closes, the RySG Working Group and ICANN will consider 
the comments received and make revisions, where appropriate, resulting 
in the final proposed amendment. The final proposal will be distributed 
to all Registry Operators and the ICANN board for approval. Registry 
Operator approval will be solicited as defined in Section 7.6(j)(ii) of 
the Registry Agreement.

If the amendments are approved by Registry Operators and the ICANN 
board, as provided in Section 7.7(c) of the Registry Agreement, they 
shall be effective and deemed amendments to the Registry Agreement upon 
60 calendar days notice from ICANN to you.

Read the amendment 
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-2016-05-31-en>_._

Please let me know if you have any questions. We look forward to any 
feedback the GNSO may have on the proposed amendments.

Best regards,

Cyrus Namazi

Vice President, Domain Name Services & Industry Engagement

Global Domains Division

ICANN

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

On May 31, 2016, at 15:39, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org 
<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:

>
>   For your information.
>
>
>   https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-05-31-en
>
>
>   ICANN, RySG Propose Amendment to New gTLD Registry Agreement
>
> ICANN today issued for public comment a proposed amendment to the base 
> New gTLD Registry Agreement 
> <https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.htm>. 
> The public comment period ends 13 July 2016.
>
> *Comment now 
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-2016-05-31-en>*.
>
> The amendment proposed today reflects over 18 months of negotiations 
> between representatives of ICANN and the Registries Stakeholder Group 
> (RySG). These negotiations were conducted pursuant to Section 7.7 of 
> the base agreement. The RySG initiated the process. Following the 
> conclusion of the public comment period, ICANN and the RySG working 
> group for these negotiations will consider the comments and submit the 
> proposed final version of the amendment for approval by registry 
> operators and the ICANN board (see Section 7.6 of the registry 
> agreement). If these approvals are obtained, the amendment will become 
> effective upon 60 days notice from ICANN to the registry operators.
>
> *Read the blog post 
> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/amending-the-new-gtld-registry-agreement>*.
>
>
>       About ICANN
>
> /ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global 
> Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an 
> address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to 
> be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps 
> coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. 
> ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit 
> corporation and a community with participants from all over the world. 
> ICANN and its community help keep the Internet secure, stable and 
> interoperable. It also promotes competition and develops policy for 
> the top-level of the Internet's naming system and facilitates the use 
> of other unique Internet identifiers. For more information please 
> visit: www.icann.org <https://www.icann.org/>./
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160602/656b2769/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Tue Jun  7 02:03:39 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:03:39 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
	and Work Stream 2
Message-ID: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>

Hi everybody,
  
 As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working group but it is what it is.
  
 I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself ( she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort of Robin Gross.
  
 I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process. Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work Robin has done on behalf of us all.
  
 Thanks for considering,
  
 Ed
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:10 PM
To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2   

Dear Council Colleagues -

At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself. Now, the
CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
(WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.

There are two questions at hand for each SG: Will the current GNSO
appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2? If not, who
will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward? From my
own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
to find a replacement. Other members may have similar plans. Finally,
once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
appointed members, if any.

Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2. We
need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
list by 20 JUN 2016.

Thank you,

J.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160606/d9c8cb14/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Tue Jun  7 02:09:42 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 23:09:42 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
 and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5217C0BF177FC27F6456E30F75C0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I am very happy to provide my enthusiastic +1!
We are so lucky Robin is willing to continue
stefi


________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Inviato: marted? 7 giugno 2016 01.03.39
A: pc-ncsg; Tapani Tarvainen; Robin Gross
Oggetto: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2

Hi everybody,

As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working group but it is what it is.

I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself ( she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort of Robin Gross.

I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process. Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work Robin has done on behalf of us all.

Thanks for considering,

Ed


________________________________
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:10 PM
To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2


Dear Council Colleagues -


At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself. Now, the
CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
(WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.

There are two questions at hand for each SG: Will the current GNSO
appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2? If not, who
will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward? From my
own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
to find a replacement. Other members may have similar plans. Finally,
once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
appointed members, if any.

Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2. We
need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
list by 20 JUN 2016.



Thank you,



J.





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 avri  Tue Jun  7 02:43:00 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:43:00 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
 and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
Message-ID: <b4cd93d4-2c45-472f-d3c6-493bebbb19cc@apc.org>

only an observer, but sure!


avri


On 06-Jun-16 19:03, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>  
> As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel
> indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG
> as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall
> ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working
> group but it is what it is.
>  
> I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our
> Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment
> official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be
> speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as
> our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public
> comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself (
> she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the
> noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of
> this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above
> our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort
> of Robin Gross.
>  
> I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but
> I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on
> the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that
> be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process.
> Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work
> Robin has done on behalf of us all.
>  
> Thanks for considering,
>  
> Ed
>  
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Sent*: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:10 PM
> *To*: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject*: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2
>  
>
> Dear Council Colleagues -
>
>
> At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
> GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
> to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
> Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself. Now, the
> CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
> associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
> (WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
> Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.
>
> There are two questions at hand for each SG: Will the current GNSO
> appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2? If not, who
> will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward? From my
> own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
> to find a replacement. Other members may have similar plans. Finally,
> once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
> also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
> appointed members, if any.
>
> Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
> Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
> member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2. We
> need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
> list by 20 JUN 2016.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From aelsadr  Tue Jun  7 03:11:57 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:11:57 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
	and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5217C0BF177FC27F6456E30F75C0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
	<DB3PR05MB5217C0BF177FC27F6456E30F75C0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <DE8B8B87-83CD-4D00-AD38-7C74C6F38F4F@egyptig.org>

If anything, I'm grateful Robin is willing to continue, so +1. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu> wrote:
> 
> I am very happy to provide my enthusiastic +1!
> We are so lucky Robin is willing to continue
> stefi
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> Inviato: marted? 7 giugno 2016 01.03.39
> A: pc-ncsg; Tapani Tarvainen; Robin Gross
> Oggetto: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working group but it is what it is.
> 
> I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself ( she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort of Robin Gross.
> 
> I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process. Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work Robin has done on behalf of us all.
> 
> Thanks for considering,
> 




From kathy  Tue Jun  7 04:04:37 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 21:04:37 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
 and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
Message-ID: <74c03306-b439-874f-c5a3-73aa09e3083b@kathykleiman.com>

Hooray - and tx, Robin!

Kathy


On 6/6/2016 7:03 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel 
> indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG 
> as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall 
> ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working 
> group but it is what it is.
> I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our 
> Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment 
> official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be 
> speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as 
> our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public 
> comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself ( 
> she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the 
> noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of 
> this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above 
> our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort 
> of Robin Gross.
> I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but 
> I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on 
> the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that 
> be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process. 
> Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work 
> Robin has done on behalf of us all.
> Thanks for considering,
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Sent*: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:10 PM
> *To*: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject*: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2
>
> Dear Council Colleagues -
>
>
> At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
> GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
> to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
> Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself. Now, the
> CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
> associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
> (WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
> Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.
>
> There are two questions at hand for each SG: Will the current GNSO
> appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2? If not, who
> will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward? From my
> own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
> to find a replacement. Other members may have similar plans. Finally,
> once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
> also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
> appointed members, if any.
>
> Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
> Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
> member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2. We
> need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
> list by 20 JUN 2016.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160606/03105954/attachment.html>


From mshears  Tue Jun  7 04:59:45 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 21:59:45 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
 and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
Message-ID: <f08097d8-560b-0e80-91da-37ac965aee70@cdt.org>

+ 1 from me.


On 6/6/2016 7:03 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel 
> indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG 
> as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall 
> ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working 
> group but it is what it is.
> I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our 
> Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment 
> official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be 
> speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as 
> our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public 
> comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself ( 
> she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the 
> noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of 
> this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above 
> our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort 
> of Robin Gross.
> I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but 
> I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on 
> the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that 
> be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process. 
> Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work 
> Robin has done on behalf of us all.
> Thanks for considering,
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Sent*: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:10 PM
> *To*: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject*: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2
>
> Dear Council Colleagues -
>
>
> At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
> GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
> to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
> Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself. Now, the
> CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
> associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
> (WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
> Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.
>
> There are two questions at hand for each SG: Will the current GNSO
> appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2? If not, who
> will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward? From my
> own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
> to find a replacement. Other members may have similar plans. Finally,
> once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
> also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
> appointed members, if any.
>
> Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
> Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
> member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2. We
> need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
> list by 20 JUN 2016.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160606/908e2a8c/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Tue Jun  7 09:07:30 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:07:30 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
	and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
Message-ID: <20160607060730.GA32230@tarvainen.info>

+1 for Robin.

Tapani

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:03:39PM -0400, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:

> Hi everybody,
> 
>  As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working group but it is what it is.
> 
>  I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself ( she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort of Robin Gross.
> 
>  I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process. Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work Robin has done on behalf of us all.
> 
>  Thanks for considering,
> 
>  Ed
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
>  From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:10 PM
> To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2
> 
> Dear Council Colleagues -
> 
> At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
> GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
> to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
> Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself. Now, the
> CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
> associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
> (WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
> Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.
> 
> There are two questions at hand for each SG: Will the current GNSO
> appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2? If not, who
> will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward? From my
> own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
> to find a replacement. Other members may have similar plans. Finally,
> once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
> also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
> appointed members, if any.
> 
> Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
> Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
> member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2. We
> need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
> list by 20 JUN 2016.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> J.



From avri  Tue Jun  7 15:23:39 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 08:23:39 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
 and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <20160607060730.GA32230@tarvainen.info>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
	<20160607060730.GA32230@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <01aa1b90-fd0c-f96b-e955-eb1e8fe75adf@apc.org>



>  I can't recall ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working group but it is what it is.

Note on this.  with an ongoing group like the SCI with appointed SG
reps, it has been the norm to reconfirm or replace yearly.  Well sort of
yearly, happens a some point most years.

Never had a group quite like the CCWG-Account before.

avri

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




From t.tropina  Wed Jun  8 09:29:39 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:29:39 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
 and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <20160607060730.GA32230@tarvainen.info>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
	<20160607060730.GA32230@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <608975b7-a325-7e5a-d4fe-671342eb7eec@mpicc.de>

yes! +1 for Robin from me too

Cheers

Tanya


On 07/06/16 08:07, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> +1 for Robin.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:03:39PM -0400, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>>  As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working group but it is what it is.
>>
>>  I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself ( she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort of Robin Gross.
>>
>>  I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process. Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work Robin has done on behalf of us all.
>>
>>  Thanks for considering,
>>
>>  Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>  From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:10 PM
>> To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2
>>
>> Dear Council Colleagues -
>>
>> At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
>> GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
>> to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
>> Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself. Now, the
>> CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
>> associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
>> (WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
>> Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.
>>
>> There are two questions at hand for each SG: Will the current GNSO
>> appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2? If not, who
>> will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward? From my
>> own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
>> to find a replacement. Other members may have similar plans. Finally,
>> once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
>> also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
>> appointed members, if any.
>>
>> Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
>> Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
>> member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2. We
>> need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
>> list by 20 JUN 2016.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> J.
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jun  8 17:39:23 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:39:23 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
 and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <608975b7-a325-7e5a-d4fe-671342eb7eec@mpicc.de>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
	<20160607060730.GA32230@tarvainen.info>
	<608975b7-a325-7e5a-d4fe-671342eb7eec@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <e1e28457-f825-919a-c190-2ccac273fe0f@mail.utoronto.ca>

yes and many thanks to Robin for doing this!

Steph


On 2016-06-08 2:29, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> yes! +1 for Robin from me too
>
> Cheers
>
> Tanya
>
>
> On 07/06/16 08:07, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> +1 for Robin.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:03:39PM -0400, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>>   As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working group but it is what it is.
>>>
>>>   I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself ( she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort of Robin Gross.
>>>
>>>   I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process. Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work Robin has done on behalf of us all.
>>>
>>>   Thanks for considering,
>>>
>>>   Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>   From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:10 PM
>>> To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> Subject: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2
>>>
>>> Dear Council Colleagues -
>>>
>>> At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
>>> GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
>>> to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
>>> Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself. Now, the
>>> CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
>>> associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
>>> (WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
>>> Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.
>>>
>>> There are two questions at hand for each SG: Will the current GNSO
>>> appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2? If not, who
>>> will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward? From my
>>> own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
>>> to find a replacement. Other members may have similar plans. Finally,
>>> once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
>>> also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
>>> appointed members, if any.
>>>
>>> Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
>>> Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
>>> member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2. We
>>> need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
>>> list by 20 JUN 2016.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> J.
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160608/2c4e356b/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Thu Jun  9 11:05:17 2016
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:05:17 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
	and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <e1e28457-f825-919a-c190-2ccac273fe0f@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <d790bbf2b0af42398225bb08015bc439@toast.net>
	<20160607060730.GA32230@tarvainen.info>
	<608975b7-a325-7e5a-d4fe-671342eb7eec@mpicc.de>
	<e1e28457-f825-919a-c190-2ccac273fe0f@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4435A017-E417-49CD-A3B8-E43D6F661247@gmail.com>

+1 from the peanut gallery

Bill

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 16:39, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> yes and many thanks to Robin for doing this!
> 
> Steph
> 
> On 2016-06-08 2:29, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>> yes! +1 for Robin from me too
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Tanya
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/06/16 08:07, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> +1 for Robin.
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:03:39PM -0400, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>> 
>>>>  As the e-mail which follows from GNSO Council Chair James Bladel indicates we need to let folks know who we want to represent the NCSG as our Member going forward on the CCWG-Accountability. I can't recall ever before having to reconfirm an appointee for an ongoing working group but it is what it is.
>>>> 
>>>>  I am so happy to report that Robin is willing to continue as our Member. Can I get a bunch of plus 1's so we can make her reappointment official? I don't have words, and it's really unusual for me to be speechless, to describe what an awesome job Robin has done for us as our Member on this working group. Be it organising our public comments, virtually rewriting the Reconsideration reform by herself ( she won't tell you that so I will), ensuring that the voice of the noncommercial community has been heard in every nook and cranny of this very complicated and time consuming process: we've punched above our weight in this working group and that is largely due to the effort of Robin Gross.
>>>> 
>>>>  I'll leave it to Marilia and Tapani to sort all the official stuff but I hope we can get this confirmed and posted, as requested below, on the Council list ASAP. I'm a bit ticked that the corporate powers that be are requiring us to go through this midterm reappointment  process. Quick action will send a message at how happy we are with the work Robin has done on behalf of us all.
>>>> 
>>>>  Thanks for considering,
>>>> 
>>>>  Ed
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>  From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:10 PM
>>>> To: "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> Subject: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Council Colleagues -
>>>> 
>>>> At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
>>>> GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
>>>> to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
>>>> Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself. Now, the
>>>> CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
>>>> associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
>>>> (WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
>>>> Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.
>>>> 
>>>> There are two questions at hand for each SG: Will the current GNSO
>>>> appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2? If not, who
>>>> will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward? From my
>>>> own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
>>>> to find a replacement. Other members may have similar plans. Finally,
>>>> once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
>>>> also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
>>>> appointed members, if any.
>>>> 
>>>> Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
>>>> Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
>>>> member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2. We
>>>> need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
>>>> list by 20 JUN 2016.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> 
>>>> J.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160609/174033f2/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Jun 14 06:13:00 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 23:13:00 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Ncph-gnsofutures] Moving forward
In-Reply-To: <003201d1c583$2a5b7700$7f126500$@btinternet.com>
References: <003201d1c583$2a5b7700$7f126500$@btinternet.com>
Message-ID: <6d4e80da-4034-c6b3-bbda-a679894fd0b5@mail.utoronto.ca>

Possibly we could ask for an update on this activity at our next meeting?

Stephanie



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[Ncph-gnsofutures] Moving forward
Date: 	Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:52:08 +0100
From: 	tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
To: 	ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org



All

First, thanks to all those who responded to the questions that were 
circulated.

Rudi and I have now analysed the input and as anticipated there are a 
range of opinions on most issues. What is apparent is that there?s 
common agreement that the globalisation of ICANN along with outreach and 
engagement raise key issues that need to be addressed.

We?re planning to present the results in Helsinki and seek additional 
input to help provide more clarity and shape the way forward. Chantelle 
is currently following up with ICANN to try and arrange a slot in the 
timetable. As soon as that arrangement is clear I will flag to the list 
and also copy to the NCPH list.

Regards

Tony

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160613/baf0e178/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncph-gnsofutures mailing list
Ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-gnsofutures


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Jun 16 04:34:03 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:34:03 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] RE: GAC invitation to session on Privacy
 and Proxy Services Accreditation in Helsinki
In-Reply-To: <4c4a296e59d948a7ad642bfb65333299@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <4c4a296e59d948a7ad642bfb65333299@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <2b739713-72b9-d55d-bcca-5777a33c8269@mail.utoronto.ca>

Please note that the GNSO has received an invitation from the GAC re 
PPSAI.  I have indicated that I would like to attend; it is not entirely 
clear who is invited.  This is rather important.

Stephanie Perrin


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] RE: GAC invitation to session on Privacy and Proxy 
Services Accreditation in Helsinki
Date: 	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:54:53 +0000
From: 	Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
To: 	Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, GNSO Council List 
(council at gnso.icann.org) <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear Councillors,

The invitation has been published on page
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence 
<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT5qivhStIqpYc9ooSSrDMzEeq-2Fiww6R68D9Jo9rkUR8S6u0weY6PIg-3D-3D_r-2BdYbSjRm9r0i9vSiPZtW-2BX-2BAwnBbxYJcYft8cAni3iLz7nHdH1TO6yId4yJ1X5bCjn7UQ8ekPGWrKZXzU-2FB1vqqq7KS-2BMznRij3m3ZEI87WW3StxS8dTPOoQSB9krb-2FFJK2QHBzOYchxlxB81-2FrQgEKCZwhIWmFeV3hThjRR7ogCkshuA-2FPie9e6zmA6P8LcmxIhOMWtnKKKWf79EgZasqp-2Fq8n7DOBGb7a04h-2BVhugMbFb-2BC-2FZsk-2BJJFAU6HxBjseu1pW-2BxY-2FzVt5pfCECmC-2BGiyyV-2BOLN36zfP7oVU4Ca-2BfsISxNQewyLNZ3Z1-2BfjecL3OV5kP-2BPAHh0ZhNNTnUZDRrV2GvQWOAldWgHzKq-2Fa9M5bvF9tOEfzvR7MCiabCbhENMStphZm-2F-2Bi276qtoXKjPCzjDKtAOqeIkpd16TjIfVVJ1YZuHqVIH8ZPvY3ueOAXiZKV2QRTDJG4LE9dseWf6khk-2BJYEmJ0ocHZYBNE-3D>

and can be directly viewed at:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/schneider-to-icann-board-et-al-10jun16-en.pdf 
<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT5qivhStIqqDkkq-2Fo0KU-2Bsvz5dYq3DY9bDFVxRYwBYlEBsdN682Xb-2FMU707oIAu-2FngbP2lpTiyL5GiJXo8UnqDtgt59hWpUW_r-2BdYbSjRm9r0i9vSiPZtW-2BX-2BAwnBbxYJcYft8cAni3iLz7nHdH1TO6yId4yJ1X5bCjn7UQ8ekPGWrKZXzU-2FB1vqqq7KS-2BMznRij3m3ZEI87WW3StxS8dTPOoQSB9krb-2FFJK2QHBzOYchxlxB81-2FrQgEKCZwhIWmFeV3hThjRR7ogCkshuA-2FPie9e6zmA6P8LcmxIhOMWtnKKKWf79EgZasqp-2Fq8n7DOBGb7a04h-2BVhugMbFb-2BC-2FZsk-2BJJFAU6HxBjseu1pW-2BxY-2FzVt5pfCECmC-2BGiyyV-2BOLN36zfP7oVU4DYTlQtAbH4nNfYU8xKQE1AtMiZSfZAP7nOvTx7M7jG4RHG1Lztr2hq1NpCSothOwq3skZlyDgHCGJryGu-2FmYsnHvHOnwjE8BRY2HTWVrJ4CfbS98JjiVic0AGUs4EQai8uK4s-2BEnq6rO-2Bbx04gJoUqq4dlna-2Bt2q4H8f0Qo8W-2BiNp3qFHPFv2xD2YHj-2Bp40iw-3D>

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

*De :*owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 
*De la part de* Mary Wong
*Envoy? :* mercredi 15 juin 2016 22:29
*? :* GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)
*Objet :* [council] GAC invitation to session on Privacy and Proxy 
Services Accreditation in Helsinki

Dear Councilors,

Please find attached an invitation from Thomas Schneider, the GAC Chair, 
for interested Councilors to participate in a meeting with the GAC on 
the topic of privacy and proxy service accreditation. The session will 
take place on Tuesday 28 June as part of the GAC?s discussion of the topic.

I believe that Graeme Bunton and Steve Metalitz, the co-chairs of the 
PPSAI PDP Working Group, plan to attend the meeting.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160615/f8b7ac2b/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Jun 18 19:44:54 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:44:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday,
 20 June 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council Public Meeting 30 June
 2016 at 07:45 UTC. (10:45 Helsinki)
In-Reply-To: <124c84ca9bd441088c84dd0110bdb400@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <124c84ca9bd441088c84dd0110bdb400@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <7494ceb5-3882-4b67-34eb-82edec988921@apc.org>

hi,

i do not assume we are presenting any motions, just wanted to check as
part of catching up.

avri

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday, 20
June 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council Public Meeting 30 June 2016 at
07:45 UTC. (10:45 Helsinki)
Date: 	Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:53:32 +0000
From: 	Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
To: 	GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org) <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear Councillors,

 

Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than
(NLT) 10 days in advance *(i.e. MONDAY, 20 JUNE 2016 at 23:59 UTC)*of
the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Helsinki on 30 June 2016 at 07:45
UTC.(10:45 -12:30 Helsinki)

Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be
posted on the Wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+30+June+2016

Thank you very much. 

Kind regards,

 

Glen

 

Glen de Saint G?ry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>

http://gnso.icann.org

 


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




From aelsadr  Sat Jun 18 20:51:57 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 19:51:57 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday,
	20 June 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council Public Meeting 30 June
	2016 at 07:45 UTC. (10:45 Helsinki)
In-Reply-To: <7494ceb5-3882-4b67-34eb-82edec988921@apc.org>
References: <124c84ca9bd441088c84dd0110bdb400@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<7494ceb5-3882-4b67-34eb-82edec988921@apc.org>
Message-ID: <7C9F0C2C-7FA5-4F8D-85BE-C7B5EFBBEF61@egyptig.org>

Not that I am aware of. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Jun 18, 2016, at 6:44 PM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> hi,
> 
> i do not assume we are presenting any motions, just wanted to check as
> part of catching up.
> 
> avri
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:    [council] REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday, 20
> June 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council Public Meeting 30 June 2016 at
> 07:45 UTC. (10:45 Helsinki)
> Date:    Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:53:32 +0000
> From:    Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> To:    GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org) <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Councillors,
> 
> 
> 
> Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than
> (NLT) 10 days in advance *(i.e. MONDAY, 20 JUNE 2016 at 23:59 UTC)*of
> the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Helsinki on 30 June 2016 at 07:45
> UTC.(10:45 -12:30 Helsinki)
> 
> Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be
> posted on the Wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+30+June+2016
> 
> Thank you very much. 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Glen
> 
> 
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> 
> GNSO Secretariat
> 
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Sat Jun 18 22:15:07 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:15:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday,
 20 June 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council Public Meeting 30 June 2016 at
 07:45 UTC. (10:45 Helsinki)
In-Reply-To: <7C9F0C2C-7FA5-4F8D-85BE-C7B5EFBBEF61@egyptig.org>
References: <124c84ca9bd441088c84dd0110bdb400@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<7494ceb5-3882-4b67-34eb-82edec988921@apc.org>
	<7C9F0C2C-7FA5-4F8D-85BE-C7B5EFBBEF61@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <19ea1c41-f7e9-d1ad-3fd1-9ef256fc7738@mail.utoronto.ca>

same here


On 2016-06-18 13:51, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Not that I am aware of.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Sent from mobile
>
>> On Jun 18, 2016, at 6:44 PM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> i do not assume we are presenting any motions, just wanted to check as
>> part of catching up.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:    [council] REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday, 20
>> June 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council Public Meeting 30 June 2016 at
>> 07:45 UTC. (10:45 Helsinki)
>> Date:    Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:53:32 +0000
>> From:    Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> To:    GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org) <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Councillors,
>>
>>
>>
>> Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than
>> (NLT) 10 days in advance *(i.e. MONDAY, 20 JUNE 2016 at 23:59 UTC)*of
>> the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Helsinki on 30 June 2016 at 07:45
>> UTC.(10:45 -12:30 Helsinki)
>>
>> Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be
>> posted on the Wiki at:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+30+June+2016
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Glen
>>
>>
>>
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>
>> GNSO Secretariat
>>
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160618/1ca0e439/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Jun 20 02:51:07 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 19:51:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] SSAC Update: ICANN56 Helsinki
In-Reply-To: <D38C155B.C6D08%jbladel@godaddy.com>
References: <D38C155B.C6D08%jbladel@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <2fc6d3fb-3714-788f-c4b8-218426bd2bb2@mail.utoronto.ca>

Attached is the SSAC slide deck for the Helsinki meeting.  If there are 
any questions/issues you think we should raise to the SSAC, please let 
me know and I will pass them on to James.

The deck is pretty general, as was the advice we received for the new 
RDS PDP.

Stephanie Perrin



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] SSAC Update: ICANN56 Helsinki
Date: 	Sun, 19 Jun 2016 14:24:56 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>



Council Colleagues -

Recalling our conversation from last month, there was general agreement 
to take a fresh look at how we interact with the SSAC.  While stopping 
short of appointing standing GNSO/SSAC Liaison, we agreed that their 
updates were valuable, and could be improved by providing materials 
(slides) in advance, and coming to meetings with specific topics and 
questions prepared.

Although the Helsinki ?Meeting B? format doesn?t allow for a dedicated 
update from SSAC, the chair of that group (Patrik F?ltstr?m) has 
provided his report of ongoing SSAC activities (attached).  Please 
review, discuss, and let me know by Thursday (23 JUN) if there are any 
issues or questions that we?d like to raise on behalf of the Council. 
  I?ll deliver these to Patrik for his group to discuss and respond in 
Helsinki.

Thank you,

J.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Bladel



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160619/db966297/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SSAC Activities Update ICANN 56 Helsinki FINAL 17 June 2016[2].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 543970 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160619/db966297/attachment-0001.pdf>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Jun 20 03:10:35 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 20:10:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] International Registration Data (IRD) -
 Expert WG Report and Proposed Council Actions
In-Reply-To: <D38C302F.C6D57%jbladel@godaddy.com>
References: <D38C302F.C6D57%jbladel@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <d9db4d7e-da69-08ad-4a66-e06cecc46eb5@mail.utoronto.ca>

And another much more complex report which the GNSO has been asked to 
review for policy issues.  Since Amr and Rudi were on the translation 
and transliteration PDP, they are no doubt much more able than I to 
explain potential policy issues, but I thought I would lose no time in 
forwarding to you.  Personally, I think I need on a webinar on this one, 
so will ask if there is one they did at any point.  Very complex stuff.

Stephanie Perrin



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] International Registration Data (IRD) - Expert WG 
Report and Proposed Council Actions
Date: 	Sun, 19 Jun 2016 16:19:27 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>



Council Colleagues -

Last month we received a letter (attached) from the ICANN Board, 
requesting that the GNSO Council analyze the Final Report from the 2012 
WHOIS Expert Working Group for policy implications (IRD Final Report 
<https://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/ird-expert-wg-final-23sep15-en.pdf>), 
and forward this report and our concerns to the appropriate PDP working 
groups, including the Next Generation RDS PDP working group at a minimum.

To move this task forward, here are the steps I propose:

 1. That the Council, forward the IRD Final Report to the RDS PDP
    chairs, with the request that this PDP WG consider these
    recommendations within the context of that policy development work.
      And that they report to us (via their Council Liaison) any
    elements of the IRD Recommendations that they believe to be
    incompatible with their Charter, or beyond the scope of a GNSO PDP,
    *and*
 2. That the Council also forward the IRD Final Report to the former
    chairs of the recently-completed Translation & Transliteration
    Working Group, with the request that they (along with support from
    Policy Staff) analyze the IRD Recommendations against the adopted
    Recommendations of their PDP (see Staff-prepared table, attached).
      And that they report back to the Council with their assessment of
    whether or not these recommendations were adequately covered by the
    PDP, or if there are any omissions or incompatibilities, *and*
 3. That we reply to the letter from Steve & the Board, acknowledge
    receipt of this request, and inform them of actions taken.

I?d welcome any additional thoughts on this topic, or the proposed path 
forward.  This is an extraordinarily complex topic, with numerous 
dependencies and moving parts, so please don?t hesitate to raise any 
questions or concerns.


Thank you,

J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Bladel


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160619/a1381b59/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2016-05-11-Steve-Crocker-to-James-Bladel-IRD-Board-Review-Request.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 491807 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160619/a1381b59/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TTIRDSyncTable.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 113153 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160619/a1381b59/attachment-0001.docx>


From mariliamaciel  Mon Jun 20 09:45:27 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:45:27 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions to
 ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
In-Reply-To: <df841557-d7d4-8917-212c-b9d10eb3e3fa@article19.org>
References: <20160616120600.42df658c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
	<df841557-d7d4-8917-212c-b9d10eb3e3fa@article19.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2FxteKeuTkhVxjCKqDV4gWUOs32vYAidYrPKpL3MmK0A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear members of the PC,

Please see the message below about the proposal of a statement on ICANN
Expected Standards of Behaviour. The PC was asked to review the statement
in order to assess if it could be presented on behalf of NCSG. Please,
present your objections or comments *until Wednesday, June 22 at 23:00 UTC*.
The deadline of the public comment period is June 25.

More information about this public comment can be found at:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en

All the best regards,
Marilia


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:29 PM
Subject: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions to ICANN Expected
Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>, Amr Elsadr <
aelsadr at egyptig.org>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>, Edward Morris <
egmorris1 at toast.net>, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>, Stephanie
Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, "Milan, Stefania" <
Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>


Dear Policy Committee mebers,

After a long constructive discussion we now have a statement for the
public comment for the revision to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors
[0].

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kb-LVkR-JSEA00aiHej5lNWWB49ASU8pNuxoSGaD85g/edit

It would be great if you could review this and submit this on behalf of
the NCSG, or allow me to do so.

All the best,

Niels

PS The deadline is June 25, so some urgency is required

[0]
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160620/38aecf32/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160620/38aecf32/attachment.sig>


From egmorris1  Mon Jun 20 13:57:43 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:57:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions
	to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2FxteKeuTkhVxjCKqDV4gWUOs32vYAidYrPKpL3MmK0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160616120600.42df658c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
	<df841557-d7d4-8917-212c-b9d10eb3e3fa@article19.org>
	<CACpVkK2FxteKeuTkhVxjCKqDV4gWUOs32vYAidYrPKpL3MmK0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EAAA791F-4789-4D80-8F38-CFC4682C3E33@toast.net>

Hi Marilia,

Happy to support as a group comment with much thanks to Niels and Corinne for doing the heavy lifting on this. 

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Jun 2016, at 07:46, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear members of the PC, 
> 
> Please see the message below about the proposal of a statement on ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour. The PC was asked to review the statement in order to assess if it could be presented on behalf of NCSG. Please, present your objections or comments until Wednesday, June 22 at 23:00 UTC. The deadline of the public comment period is June 25.
> 
> More information about this public comment can be found at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
> 
> All the best regards,
> Marilia
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org>
> Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:29 PM
> Subject: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>
> 
> 
> Dear Policy Committee mebers,
> 
> After a long constructive discussion we now have a statement for the
> public comment for the revision to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors
> [0].
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kb-LVkR-JSEA00aiHej5lNWWB49ASU8pNuxoSGaD85g/edit
> 
> It would be great if you could review this and submit this on behalf of
> the NCSG, or allow me to do so.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> PS The deadline is June 25, so some urgency is required
> 
> [0]
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
> 
> 
> <signature.asc>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160620/63b2fd6e/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Mon Jun 20 21:03:21 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:03:21 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER
	DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND
	OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
Message-ID: <9f56ef88f1c94057a1ca244d3ee0f0aa@toast.net>

Hi everyone,
  
 Attached please find an IPC Motion to create a drafting team to develop GNSO responses to changes brought by the transition.
  
 This is a different approach that what has previously been discussed. What concerns me is the possibility under this plan for the NCSG to be inadequately represented on the proposed drafting team. It would appear to be an open call for volunteers with the following qualifications:
  
 -   	The Drafting Team shall comprise volunteers from the GNSO community who can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws. 
  
 I might like that language if I were from a constituency composed principally of lawyers such as the IPC.
  
 I would prefer to have Council, working with staff, to make the needed changes. We have a fairly collegial working environment and the expertise to get this done in a fairly time efficient manner with full representation of all stakeholder groups. If we are going to farm this out I'd suggest we need to insist on equal representation of all stakeholder groups on the Drafting Team with appointments being made directly by the SG's themselves according to their own criteria.
  
 Thoughts?
  
 Best,
  
 Ed 
  
  

  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 6:35 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Cc: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>, mary.wong at icann.org, "Heather Forrest" <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>
Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS   

Dear Council Colleagues:  

   

As we all know, making the Empowered Community a reality is going to take a lot of effort by everyone.  To get us started in that process, attached please find a MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS which is being proposed by the IPC for consideration at the next GNSO Council meeting in Helsinki.  Safe travels!  

   

Best,  

Paul  

   

Paul McGrady  

GNSO Councilor for the IPC  

policy at paulmcgrady.com  

   

  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160620/34e20048/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: June 20 2016 - IPC Motion.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 23728 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160620/34e20048/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3bclean-control.bin
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4697 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160620/34e20048/attachment-0001.bin>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Jun 20 22:00:26 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:00:26 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Discussion Paper on GNSO Review
 Recommendations Implementation
In-Reply-To: <2836EBF5-BC96-43CF-84E7-8343B4CC99B6@icann.org>
References: <2836EBF5-BC96-43CF-84E7-8343B4CC99B6@icann.org>
Message-ID: <55fd4e10-2f29-5d06-b28a-860ed4dea6ea@mail.utoronto.ca>

Headsup.  Better take a close look at this one....

Stephanie



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Discussion Paper on GNSO Review Recommendations 
Implementation
Date: 	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:07:10 +0000
From: 	Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear GNSO Councilors,

Please see the attached Discussion Paper for your consideration and 
discussion during the GNSO Council meeting on 30 June at ICANN 56 in 
Helsinki.

As you may recall, In September 2015, the Independent Examiner that had 
been appointed to conduct the GNSO organizational review published its 
Final Report. At its meeting in April 2016, the GNSO Council adopted, 
with one modification, the proposed Feasibility and Prioritization 
Analysis of the Independent Examiner?s recommendations that was prepared 
by the GNSO Working Party (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201604). The Working Party 
had been formed to liaise between the GNSO, the Board?s Organizational 
Effectiveness Committee (OEC) and the Independent Examiner. The OEC 
considered the Final Report and the GNSO?s modified Feasibility and 
Prioritization Analysis at its meeting in May 2016, and is expected to 
recommend action by the Board on the GNSO organizational review in Helsinki.

To prepare for implementation of the recommendations that are expected 
to be adopted by the ICANN Board, ICANN staff was requested to prepare a 
Discussion Paper for the GNSO. The discussion paper is intended to 
facilitate the Council?s discussion and subsequent agreement on a 
possible mechanism to develop and execute the implementation plan.

The Discussion Paper is expected to be on the Council?s meeting agenda 
in Helsinki on Thursday, 30 June.  The primary recommendation in this 
Discussion Paper is for this mechanism to be in the form of a Working 
Group and that following further Council discussion (including in 
Helsinki) the Council may be in a position to vote and adopt the charter 
for this Working Group (or other mechanism the Council may decide on) at 
its July meeting (assuming the Board adopts the OEC recommendations in 
Helsinki).

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160620/3ee563e5/attachment.html>


From mshears  Mon Jun 20 23:48:13 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:48:13 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO
 FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND
 OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
In-Reply-To: <9f56ef88f1c94057a1ca244d3ee0f0aa@toast.net>
References: <9f56ef88f1c94057a1ca244d3ee0f0aa@toast.net>
Message-ID: <af271e54-1e45-1ec6-56d5-76eba932eaac@cdt.org>

Hi Ed

On 6/20/2016 2:03 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Attached please find an IPC Motion to create a drafting team to 
> develop GNSO responses to changes brought by the transition.
> This is a different approach that what has previously been discussed. 
> What concerns me is the possibility under this plan for the NCSG to be 
> inadequately represented on the proposed drafting team. It would 
> appear to be an open call for volunteers with the following 
> qualifications:
> -
>
>  1. The Drafting Team shall comprise volunteers from the GNSO
>     community who can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or
>     experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws.
>
> I might like that language if I were from a constituency composed 
> principally of lawyers such as the IPC.
Agree - although I think anyone who has been through the bylaws work in 
the CCWG should be fine.
> I would prefer to have Council, working with staff, to make the needed 
> changes. We have a fairly collegial working environment and the 
> expertise to get this done in a fairly time efficient manner with full 
> representation of all stakeholder groups.
Agree but we should also suggest inviting others if interested beyond 
the Council.
> If we are going to farm this out I'd suggest we need to insist on 
> equal representation of all stakeholder groups on the Drafting Team 
> with appointments being made directly by the SG's themselves according 
> to their own criteria.
Agree.

Thanks or raising.
> Thoughts?
> Best,
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
> *Sent*: Monday, June 20, 2016 6:35 PM
> *To*: council at gnso.icann.org
> *Cc*: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>, mary.wong at icann.org, 
> "Heather Forrest" <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>
> *Subject*: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER 
> DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND 
> OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
>
> Dear Council Colleagues:
>
> As we all know, making the Empowered Community a reality is going to 
> take a lot of effort by everyone.  To get us started in that process, 
> attached please find a MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER 
> DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO?S NEW ROLES AND 
> OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS which is being proposed by 
> the IPC for consideration at the next GNSO Council meeting in 
> Helsinki.  Safe travels!
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
> Paul McGrady
>
> GNSO Councilor for the IPC
>
> policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160620/043be6a6/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Jun 21 02:21:33 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:21:33 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Discussion Paper on GNSO Review
 Recommendations Implementation
In-Reply-To: <2836EBF5-BC96-43CF-84E7-8343B4CC99B6@icann.org>
References: <2836EBF5-BC96-43CF-84E7-8343B4CC99B6@icann.org>
Message-ID: <81fac509-3de2-89ff-77e6-0ec9313cd76a@mail.utoronto.ca>

sorry folks, I did not notice when I forwarded this the first time that 
the attachment fell off.  Weird.  Here it is again.  please let me know 
if you don't receive it.

Stephanie Perrin



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Discussion Paper on GNSO Review Recommendations 
Implementation
Date: 	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:07:10 +0000
From: 	Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear GNSO Councilors,

Please see the attached Discussion Paper for your consideration and 
discussion during the GNSO Council meeting on 30 June at ICANN 56 in 
Helsinki.

As you may recall, In September 2015, the Independent Examiner that had 
been appointed to conduct the GNSO organizational review published its 
Final Report. At its meeting in April 2016, the GNSO Council adopted, 
with one modification, the proposed Feasibility and Prioritization 
Analysis of the Independent Examiner?s recommendations that was prepared 
by the GNSO Working Party (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201604). The Working Party 
had been formed to liaise between the GNSO, the Board?s Organizational 
Effectiveness Committee (OEC) and the Independent Examiner. The OEC 
considered the Final Report and the GNSO?s modified Feasibility and 
Prioritization Analysis at its meeting in May 2016, and is expected to 
recommend action by the Board on the GNSO organizational review in Helsinki.

To prepare for implementation of the recommendations that are expected 
to be adopted by the ICANN Board, ICANN staff was requested to prepare a 
Discussion Paper for the GNSO. The discussion paper is intended to 
facilitate the Council?s discussion and subsequent agreement on a 
possible mechanism to develop and execute the implementation plan.

The Discussion Paper is expected to be on the Council?s meeting agenda 
in Helsinki on Thursday, 30 June.  The primary recommendation in this 
Discussion Paper is for this mechanism to be in the form of a Working 
Group and that following further Council discussion (including in 
Helsinki) the Council may be in a position to vote and adopt the charter 
for this Working Group (or other mechanism the Council may decide on) at 
its July meeting (assuming the Board adopts the OEC recommendations in 
Helsinki).

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160620/b60347cc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Review Recommendations Implementation Discussion Paper 20 June 2016.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 224783 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160620/b60347cc/attachment-0001.docx>


From avri  Tue Jun 21 22:40:25 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:40:25 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
Message-ID: <f95818ea-9e8e-fe5b-4584-e2e0cca50ac6@apc.org>

Hi,

I think you all agreed that Robin remain the WS2 rep for NCSg.

Somebody on council should probably say so.  I would, but i am not
really on council, not even temporarily yet.

( Unless it was already said before i was resubscribed, in which case
ignore this redundant email )

avri



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




From stephanie.perrin  Tue Jun 21 22:42:35 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:42:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
In-Reply-To: <f95818ea-9e8e-fe5b-4584-e2e0cca50ac6@apc.org>
References: <f95818ea-9e8e-fe5b-4584-e2e0cca50ac6@apc.org>
Message-ID: <26079d06-dd9a-134b-d356-8aadd6ff57c2@mail.utoronto.ca>

ok, I thought Ed had done this but just in case I will mention it.

SP
On 2016-06-21 15:40, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think you all agreed that Robin remain the WS2 rep for NCSg.
>
> Somebody on council should probably say so.  I would, but i am not
> really on council, not even temporarily yet.
>
> ( Unless it was already said before i was resubscribed, in which case
> ignore this redundant email )
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160621/18fb0d53/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Jun 21 22:50:23 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:50:23 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members,
	and Work Stream 2
In-Reply-To: <63979474-77b0-08da-4e9c-1811e49dc989@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <63979474-77b0-08da-4e9c-1811e49dc989@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <915f603c-e743-a6c5-7985-9d73dcf10b64@mail.utoronto.ca>

Done



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [council] CCWG - Accountability Members, and Work Stream 2
Date: 	Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:46:31 -0400
From: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
To: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List 
<council at gnso.icann.org>



I am not sure whether anyone in NCSG has already made this announcement 
James, but Just in case, I will.  Robin Gross has very kindly agreed to 
continue to be our rep on Work Stream 2.  I apologize for not getting 
this to you by yesterday, I thought it had been done.

Stephanie Perrin


On 2016-06-06 15:04, James M. Bladel wrote:
> Dear Council Colleagues -
>
>   
> At the establishment of the CCWG-Accountability In November 2014, each
> GNSO Stakeholder Group confirmed a member to join this CCWG, in addition
> to the GNSO appointed co-chair (Thomas Rickert), the members are/were:
> Becky Burr, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, and myself.  Now, the
> CCWG-Accountability is transitioning from Work Stream 1 (WS1) items
> associated with the IANA transition, and beginning work on Work Stream 2
> (WS2). This is therefore an appropriate opportunity to ask each
> Stakeholder Group to re-confirm that its member selection for this CCWG.
>
> There are two questions at hand for each SG:  Will the current GNSO
> appointed member continue to serve through Work Stream 2?  If not, who
> will assume this role beginning in Helsinki and going forward?  From my
> own view, I do not plan to continue as a member, and plan to ask the RrSG
> to find a replacement.  Other members may have similar plans.  Finally,
> once we have confirmed or re-confirmed the slate CCWG members, we might
> also take this opportunity to discuss the Council?s expectations of its
> appointed members, if any.
>
> Please coordinate with your respective ExComs and report back to the
> Council with either (a) re-confirmation of your SG's current CCWG-ACCT
> member or (b) the name and affiliation of their replacement for WS2.  We
> need this information in advance of Helsinki, so please respond on the
> list by 20 JUN 2016.
>
>   
>
> Thank you,
>
>   
>
> J.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160621/9e92d0a9/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Tue Jun 21 22:53:10 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:53:10 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
In-Reply-To: <26079d06-dd9a-134b-d356-8aadd6ff57c2@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <f95818ea-9e8e-fe5b-4584-e2e0cca50ac6@apc.org>
	<26079d06-dd9a-134b-d356-8aadd6ff57c2@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <75fc87f01a664b539a79f7371bc0bf71@toast.net>

Hi,
  
 I felt the call should be made by Marilia, as PC Chair. Still do.
  
 I did call for Robin to be reappointed, received much support for the 
nomination but wouldn't want to set a precedent by declaring the nomination 
made. That's the job of the Chair. :)
  
 Ed
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:43 PM
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin   

ok, I thought Ed had done this but just in case I will mention it.   SP  On 
2016-06-21 15:40, avri doria wrote:

 Hi,  I think you all agreed that Robin remain the WS2 rep for NCSg.  
Somebody on council should probably say so.  I would, but i am not really 
on council, not even temporarily yet.  ( Unless it was already said before 
i was resubscribed, in which case ignore this redundant email )  avri    
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
https://www.avast.com/antivirus   
_______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list 
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg   
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160621/fefaa5eb/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Jun 21 23:05:43 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:05:43 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
In-Reply-To: <75fc87f01a664b539a79f7371bc0bf71@toast.net>
References: <f95818ea-9e8e-fe5b-4584-e2e0cca50ac6@apc.org>
	<26079d06-dd9a-134b-d356-8aadd6ff57c2@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<75fc87f01a664b539a79f7371bc0bf71@toast.net>
Message-ID: <d7099f48-970c-86b2-fd22-3c35dd4d0455@apc.org>

Hi,

since the deadline had passed and there had been no objections, i think
that it was probably forgivable for me to ask and for Stephanie to enter
the breach.

besides it had to be a council member since it was on the council list.

cheers

avri



On 21-Jun-16 15:53, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> I felt the call should be made by Marilia, as PC Chair. Still do.
>  
> I did call for Robin to be reappointed, received much support for the
> nomination but wouldn't want to set a precedent by declaring the
> nomination made. That's the job of the Chair. :)
>  
> Ed
>  
>  
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Sent*: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:43 PM
> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
>  
>
> ok, I thought Ed had done this but just in case I will mention it.
>
> SP
> On 2016-06-21 15:40, avri doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think you all agreed that Robin remain the WS2 rep for NCSg.
>>
>> Somebody on council should probably say so.  I would, but i am not
>> really on council, not even temporarily yet.
>>
>> ( Unless it was already said before i was resubscribed, in which case
>> ignore this redundant email )
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From stephanie.perrin  Tue Jun 21 23:17:37 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:17:37 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
In-Reply-To: <75fc87f01a664b539a79f7371bc0bf71@toast.net>
References: <f95818ea-9e8e-fe5b-4584-e2e0cca50ac6@apc.org>
	<26079d06-dd9a-134b-d356-8aadd6ff57c2@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<75fc87f01a664b539a79f7371bc0bf71@toast.net>
Message-ID: <7badeeb1-c0db-75ba-4a89-595fe8b7f4d7@mail.utoronto.ca>

Marilia has been busy.  I hope she will not object to me jumping in to 
respond to the fact that we were missing the deadline.

cheers SP


On 2016-06-21 15:53, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi,
> I felt the call should be made by Marilia, as PC Chair. Still do.
> I did call for Robin to be reappointed, received much support for the 
> nomination but wouldn't want to set a precedent by declaring the 
> nomination made. That's the job of the Chair. :)
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Sent*: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:43 PM
> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
>
> ok, I thought Ed had done this but just in case I will mention it.
>
> SP
> On 2016-06-21 15:40, avri doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think you all agreed that Robin remain the WS2 rep for NCSg.
>>
>> Somebody on council should probably say so.  I would, but i am not
>> really on council, not even temporarily yet.
>>
>> ( Unless it was already said before i was resubscribed, in which case
>> ignore this redundant email )
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160621/09457b14/attachment.html>


From mshears  Tue Jun 21 23:42:26 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:42:26 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
In-Reply-To: <d7099f48-970c-86b2-fd22-3c35dd4d0455@apc.org>
References: <f95818ea-9e8e-fe5b-4584-e2e0cca50ac6@apc.org>
	<26079d06-dd9a-134b-d356-8aadd6ff57c2@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<75fc87f01a664b539a79f7371bc0bf71@toast.net>
	<d7099f48-970c-86b2-fd22-3c35dd4d0455@apc.org>
Message-ID: <0fac0f2e-8be7-d59e-2b9d-418abb8b0128@cdt.org>

Thanks for ensuring that this happened.  Absolutely support Robin's 
continuation.

Matthew


On 6/21/2016 4:05 PM, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since the deadline had passed and there had been no objections, i think
> that it was probably forgivable for me to ask and for Stephanie to enter
> the breach.
>
> besides it had to be a council member since it was on the council list.
>
> cheers
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 21-Jun-16 15:53, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Hi,
>>   
>> I felt the call should be made by Marilia, as PC Chair. Still do.
>>   
>> I did call for Robin to be reappointed, received much support for the
>> nomination but wouldn't want to set a precedent by declaring the
>> nomination made. That's the job of the Chair. :)
>>   
>> Ed
>>   
>>   
>>   
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> *Sent*: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:43 PM
>> *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
>>   
>>
>> ok, I thought Ed had done this but just in case I will mention it.
>>
>> SP
>> On 2016-06-21 15:40, avri doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think you all agreed that Robin remain the WS2 rep for NCSg.
>>>
>>> Somebody on council should probably say so.  I would, but i am not
>>> really on council, not even temporarily yet.
>>>
>>> ( Unless it was already said before i was resubscribed, in which case
>>> ignore this redundant email )
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>   
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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




From egmorris1  Tue Jun 21 23:44:12 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:44:12 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin
In-Reply-To: <7badeeb1-c0db-75ba-4a89-595fe8b7f4d7@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <f95818ea-9e8e-fe5b-4584-e2e0cca50ac6@apc.org>
	<26079d06-dd9a-134b-d356-8aadd6ff57c2@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<75fc87f01a664b539a79f7371bc0bf71@toast.net>
	<7badeeb1-c0db-75ba-4a89-595fe8b7f4d7@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <aadc81987d1c4c6a921059975d5ff4ec@toast.net>

Stephanie,
  
 Thanks for doing it. I was just explaining why I hadn't when you thought I had. :)
  
 Ed
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 9:32 PM
To: egmorris1 at toast.net, pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org, "Mar?lia Maciel" <marilia.maciel at fgv.br>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin   

Marilia has been busy.  I hope she will not object to me jumping in to respond to the fact that we were missing the deadline.    

cheers SP      On 2016-06-21 15:53, Edward Morris wrote:
  Hi,
  
 I felt the call should be made by Marilia, as PC Chair. Still do.
  
 I did call for Robin to be reappointed, received much support for the nomination but wouldn't want to set a precedent by declaring the nomination made. That's the job of the Chair. :)
  
 Ed
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:43 PM
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCWG WS2 rep, i.e. Robin    

ok, I thought Ed had done this but just in case I will mention it.    SP   On 2016-06-21 15:40, avri doria wrote:

 Hi,  I think you all agreed that Robin remain the WS2 rep for NCSg.  Somebody on council should probably say so.  I would, but i am not really on council, not even temporarily yet.  ( Unless it was already said before i was resubscribed, in which case ignore this redundant email )  avri    --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus   _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg   
 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160621/3dfe3361/attachment.html>


From mshears  Wed Jun 22 04:24:05 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:24:05 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions
 to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
In-Reply-To: <EAAA791F-4789-4D80-8F38-CFC4682C3E33@toast.net>
References: <20160616120600.42df658c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
	<df841557-d7d4-8917-212c-b9d10eb3e3fa@article19.org>
	<CACpVkK2FxteKeuTkhVxjCKqDV4gWUOs32vYAidYrPKpL3MmK0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<EAAA791F-4789-4D80-8F38-CFC4682C3E33@toast.net>
Message-ID: <e0387a8d-f02f-5b03-f981-4056cf4e925a@cdt.org>

I am comfortable with this document - well done all.  Lets move this along.

Matthew


On 6/20/2016 6:57 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Marilia,
>
> Happy to support as a group comment with much thanks to Niels and 
> Corinne for doing the heavy lifting on this.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 20 Jun 2016, at 07:46, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com 
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear members of the PC,
>>
>> Please see the message below about the proposal of a statement on 
>> ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour. The PC was asked to review the 
>> statement in order to assess if it could be presented on behalf of 
>> NCSG. Please, present your objections or comments *until Wednesday, 
>> June 22 at 23:00 UTC*. The deadline of the public comment period is 
>> June 25.
>>
>> More information about this public comment can be found at: 
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
>>
>> All the best regards,
>> Marilia
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Niels ten Oever* <niels at article19.org 
>> <mailto:niels at article19.org>>
>> Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:29 PM
>> Subject: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions to ICANN 
>> Expected Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
>> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info 
>> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au 
>> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>>, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>, Marilia Maciel 
>> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>, Stephanie 
>> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, "Milan, Stefania" 
>> <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Policy Committee mebers,
>>
>> After a long constructive discussion we now have a statement for the
>> public comment for the revision to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors
>> [0].
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kb-LVkR-JSEA00aiHej5lNWWB49ASU8pNuxoSGaD85g/edit
>>
>> It would be great if you could review this and submit this on behalf of
>> the NCSG, or allow me to do so.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> PS The deadline is June 25, so some urgency is required
>>
>> [0]
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
>>
>>
>> <signature.asc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160621/398b3779/attachment.html>


From t.tropina  Wed Jun 22 11:03:50 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:03:50 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions
 to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
In-Reply-To: <EAAA791F-4789-4D80-8F38-CFC4682C3E33@toast.net>
References: <20160616120600.42df658c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
	<df841557-d7d4-8917-212c-b9d10eb3e3fa@article19.org>
	<CACpVkK2FxteKeuTkhVxjCKqDV4gWUOs32vYAidYrPKpL3MmK0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<EAAA791F-4789-4D80-8F38-CFC4682C3E33@toast.net>
Message-ID: <624ad072-20ea-7a3c-b6c9-6fe3c985467e@mpicc.de>

Dear all,

This draft comment is clearly better than the first draft, so I will
endorse it despite having problem with this document. The document we
are commenting on is the work in progress - this is clearly stated by
ICANN. Several people expressed their concerns after the first draft was
shared that one can't use such a negative language for something that is
work in progress. I agree with all the points in the document, but I
disagree with the language and the tone of it, it does look like we are
not recognising that it is a part of on-going work and expecting a lot
from the first step in this work.

However, I couldn't submit my comment on time because I was away from
keyboard and I have no time to address this and change anything, hence
my endorsement to move things forward.

Warm regards

Tatiana



On 20/06/16 12:57, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Marilia,
>
> Happy to support as a group comment with much thanks to Niels and
> Corinne for doing the heavy lifting on this. 
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 20 Jun 2016, at 07:46, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear members of the PC, 
>>
>> Please see the message below about the proposal of a statement on
>> ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour. The PC was asked to review the
>> statement in order to assess if it could be presented on behalf of
>> NCSG. Please, present your objections or comments *until Wednesday,
>> June 22 at 23:00 UTC*. The deadline of the public comment period is
>> June 25.
>>
>> More information about this public comment can be found
>> at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
>>
>> All the best regards,
>> Marilia
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Niels ten Oever* <niels at article19.org
>> <mailto:niels at article19.org>>
>> Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:29 PM
>> Subject: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions to ICANN
>> Expected Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
>> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au
>> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>>, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>, Marilia Maciel
>> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>, Stephanie
>> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, "Milan, Stefania"
>> <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Policy Committee mebers,
>>
>> After a long constructive discussion we now have a statement for the
>> public comment for the revision to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors
>> [0].
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kb-LVkR-JSEA00aiHej5lNWWB49ASU8pNuxoSGaD85g/edit
>>
>> It would be great if you could review this and submit this on behalf of
>> the NCSG, or allow me to do so.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> PS The deadline is June 25, so some urgency is required
>>
>> [0]
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
>>
>>
>> <signature.asc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160622/bf3eb131/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Wed Jun 22 20:28:24 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:28:24 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions
 to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
In-Reply-To: <624ad072-20ea-7a3c-b6c9-6fe3c985467e@mpicc.de>
References: <20160616120600.42df658c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
	<df841557-d7d4-8917-212c-b9d10eb3e3fa@article19.org>
	<CACpVkK2FxteKeuTkhVxjCKqDV4gWUOs32vYAidYrPKpL3MmK0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<EAAA791F-4789-4D80-8F38-CFC4682C3E33@toast.net>
	<624ad072-20ea-7a3c-b6c9-6fe3c985467e@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0NODoPyu_Afnu=Z7+BzYFUqH9=YKE5yYiAs__WHYBchw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you for your comments and endorsement. This is a quick reminder that
our deadline for comments will expire in a few hours 23:00 UTC. If there
are no objections, the document will be forwarded as a NCSG contribution to
the consultation process.

Thanks
Marilia

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> This draft comment is clearly better than the first draft, so I will
> endorse it despite having problem with this document. The document we are
> commenting on is the work in progress - this is clearly stated by ICANN.
> Several people expressed their concerns after the first draft was shared
> that one can't use such a negative language for something that is work in
> progress. I agree with all the points in the document, but I disagree with
> the language and the tone of it, it does look like we are not recognising
> that it is a part of on-going work and expecting a lot from the first step
> in this work.
>
> However, I couldn't submit my comment on time because I was away from
> keyboard and I have no time to address this and change anything, hence my
> endorsement to move things forward.
>
> Warm regards
>
> Tatiana
>
>
>
> On 20/06/16 12:57, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> Hi Marilia,
>
> Happy to support as a group comment with much thanks to Niels and Corinne
> for doing the heavy lifting on this.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 20 Jun 2016, at 07:46, Marilia Maciel < <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear members of the PC,
>
> Please see the message below about the proposal of a statement on ICANN
> Expected Standards of Behaviour. The PC was asked to review the statement
> in order to assess if it could be presented on behalf of NCSG. Please,
> present your objections or comments *until Wednesday, June 22 at 23:00
> UTC*. The deadline of the public comment period is June 25.
>
> More information about this public comment can be found at:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
>
> All the best regards,
> Marilia
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org>
> Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:29 PM
> Subject: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions to ICANN Expected
> Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>, Amr Elsadr <
> aelsadr at egyptig.org>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>, Edward Morris <
> egmorris1 at toast.net>, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>, Stephanie
> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, "Milan, Stefania" <
> Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>
>
>
> Dear Policy Committee mebers,
>
> After a long constructive discussion we now have a statement for the
> public comment for the revision to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors
> [0].
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kb-LVkR-JSEA00aiHej5lNWWB49ASU8pNuxoSGaD85g/edit
>
> It would be great if you could review this and submit this on behalf of
> the NCSG, or allow me to do so.
>
> All the best,
>
> Niels
>
> PS The deadline is June 25, so some urgency is required
>
> [0]
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
>
>
> <signature.asc>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160622/ef48263b/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Jun 23 16:41:10 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:41:10 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] FW: [community-finance] Report on
 Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan
 Update
In-Reply-To: <C567724B-2F06-4445-BF65-688D8C488BEF@icann.org>
References: <C567724B-2F06-4445-BF65-688D8C488BEF@icann.org>
Message-ID: <4c001f53-5b28-fdb0-b657-ba9d30f6036f@mail.utoronto.ca>

Does someone want to volunteer to check that our comments got captured?

SP

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [council] FW: [community-finance] Report on Draft ICANN 
FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update
Date: 	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:01:59 +0000
From: 	Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



GNSO Councilors,

Please find attached and extraction of the responses by ICANN Finance 
staff to the Council?s public comment submission regarding ICANN?s FY17 
draft budget.  The MS Word document only contains responses to the GNSO 
Council, as the original Public Comment report is well over 150 pages. 
  I also attached the original submission to the PCF for your reference. 
Links to the PCF and report are posted below.  It is expected that the 
ICANN Board will deliberate and vote on the FY17 Draft budget at its 
next meeting.

Public Comment Forum:

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

PCF Report from staff:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-op-budget-fy17-five-year-06jun16-en.pdf

Please let the Policy staff know if you have any additional questions or 
require clarification.

Thank you.

Marika

*Marika Konings*

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

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

//

/Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/

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

*From: *<owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings 
<marika.konings at icann.org>
*Date: *Tuesday 7 June 2016 at 02:07
*To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
*Subject: *[council] FW: [community-finance] Report on Draft ICANN FY17 
Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update

For your information.

Best regards,

Marika

*Marika Konings*

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

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

//

/Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/

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

*From: *<community-finance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Leo Vegoda 
<leo.vegoda at icann.org>
*Date: *Monday 6 June 2016 at 17:33
*To: *"community-finance at icann.org" <community-finance at icann.org>
*Subject: *[community-finance] Report on Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan 
& Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update

Dear Community Leaders and Members,

I have attached the Report on Public Comments for the Draft ICANN FY17 
Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update to this 
message. The scale of comments we received this year is much higher than 
last year. Providing substantive responses to the comments means that 
the report is over 100 pages long.

There is a high-level summary of the comments we received, organized by 
theme, at the start of the report. The detailed responses are structured 
using the same themes in an appendix to the main report. We appreciate 
that people might want to sort through the responses differently, so we 
have also provided them in a spreadsheet that can be sorted in a variety 
of ways, for the convenience of readers. As spreadsheets are not an 
ideal publication format for structured text, some of the formatting in 
the formal report is not present in this format.

We hope you find this report helpful.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160623/2b981d32/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Thu Jun 23 18:09:07 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:09:07 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions
 to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0NODoPyu_Afnu=Z7+BzYFUqH9=YKE5yYiAs__WHYBchw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160616120600.42df658c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
	<df841557-d7d4-8917-212c-b9d10eb3e3fa@article19.org>
	<CACpVkK2FxteKeuTkhVxjCKqDV4gWUOs32vYAidYrPKpL3MmK0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<EAAA791F-4789-4D80-8F38-CFC4682C3E33@toast.net>
	<624ad072-20ea-7a3c-b6c9-6fe3c985467e@mpicc.de>
	<CACpVkK0NODoPyu_Afnu=Z7+BzYFUqH9=YKE5yYiAs__WHYBchw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2eR4NYTGXEHbm+uGrkj6C_LE8JsfocBgEUh=NnecfmFQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear members of the PC,

This contribution has been submitted today. Thanks to everyone who worked
on it.

All the best wishes,
Marilia

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you for your comments and endorsement. This is a quick reminder that
> our deadline for comments will expire in a few hours 23:00 UTC. If there
> are no objections, the document will be forwarded as a NCSG contribution to
> the consultation process.
>
> Thanks
> Marilia
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> This draft comment is clearly better than the first draft, so I will
>> endorse it despite having problem with this document. The document we are
>> commenting on is the work in progress - this is clearly stated by ICANN.
>> Several people expressed their concerns after the first draft was shared
>> that one can't use such a negative language for something that is work in
>> progress. I agree with all the points in the document, but I disagree with
>> the language and the tone of it, it does look like we are not recognising
>> that it is a part of on-going work and expecting a lot from the first step
>> in this work.
>>
>> However, I couldn't submit my comment on time because I was away from
>> keyboard and I have no time to address this and change anything, hence my
>> endorsement to move things forward.
>>
>> Warm regards
>>
>> Tatiana
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20/06/16 12:57, Edward Morris wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marilia,
>>
>> Happy to support as a group comment with much thanks to Niels and Corinne
>> for doing the heavy lifting on this.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 20 Jun 2016, at 07:46, Marilia Maciel < <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear members of the PC,
>>
>> Please see the message below about the proposal of a statement on ICANN
>> Expected Standards of Behaviour. The PC was asked to review the statement
>> in order to assess if it could be presented on behalf of NCSG. Please,
>> present your objections or comments *until Wednesday, June 22 at 23:00
>> UTC*. The deadline of the public comment period is June 25.
>>
>> More information about this public comment can be found at:
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
>>
>> All the best regards,
>> Marilia
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org>
>> Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:29 PM
>> Subject: Policy Committee - Public Comments - Revisions to ICANN Expected
>> Standards of Behaviors - deadline june 25
>> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>, Amr Elsadr <
>> aelsadr at egyptig.org>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>, Edward Morris
>> <egmorris1 at toast.net>, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>,
>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, "Milan, Stefania" <
>> Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>
>>
>>
>> Dear Policy Committee mebers,
>>
>> After a long constructive discussion we now have a statement for the
>> public comment for the revision to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors
>> [0].
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kb-LVkR-JSEA00aiHej5lNWWB49ASU8pNuxoSGaD85g/edit
>>
>> It would be great if you could review this and submit this on behalf of
>> the NCSG, or allow me to do so.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> PS The deadline is June 25, so some urgency is required
>>
>> [0]
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-16-en
>>
>>
>> <signature.asc>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160623/d3146a24/attachment.html>


From kathy  Fri Jun 24 05:48:43 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 22:48:43 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO
 FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND
 OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
In-Reply-To: <9f56ef88f1c94057a1ca244d3ee0f0aa@toast.net>
References: <9f56ef88f1c94057a1ca244d3ee0f0aa@toast.net>
Message-ID: <dfd36e37-03e3-b401-ca2b-a063a2d73b24@kathykleiman.com>

A belated response, Ed, that this is very concerning. I think it will 
wind up with things "stacked" in favor of the IPC. Sigh. I support your 
idea of leaving this matter in Council - and hope we can discuss it at 
the NCSG Policy session on Tuesday.
Best, Kathy

On 6/20/2016 2:03 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Attached please find an IPC Motion to create a drafting team to 
> develop GNSO responses to changes brought by the transition.
> This is a different approach that what has previously been discussed. 
> What concerns me is the possibility under this plan for the NCSG to be 
> inadequately represented on the proposed drafting team. It would 
> appear to be an open call for volunteers with the following 
> qualifications:
> -
>
>  1. The Drafting Team shall comprise volunteers from the GNSO
>     community who can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or
>     experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws.
>
> I might like that language if I were from a constituency composed 
> principally of lawyers such as the IPC.
> I would prefer to have Council, working with staff, to make the needed 
> changes. We have a fairly collegial working environment and the 
> expertise to get this done in a fairly time efficient manner with full 
> representation of all stakeholder groups. If we are going to farm this 
> out I'd suggest we need to insist on equal representation of all 
> stakeholder groups on the Drafting Team with appointments being made 
> directly by the SG's themselves according to their own criteria.
> Thoughts?
> Best,
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
> *Sent*: Monday, June 20, 2016 6:35 PM
> *To*: council at gnso.icann.org
> *Cc*: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>, mary.wong at icann.org, 
> "Heather Forrest" <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>
> *Subject*: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER 
> DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND 
> OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
>
> Dear Council Colleagues:
>
> As we all know, making the Empowered Community a reality is going to 
> take a lot of effort by everyone.  To get us started in that process, 
> attached please find a MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER 
> DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO?S NEW ROLES AND 
> OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS which is being proposed by 
> the IPC for consideration at the next GNSO Council meeting in 
> Helsinki.  Safe travels!
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
> Paul McGrady
>
> GNSO Councilor for the IPC
>
> policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.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/20160623/183f6d23/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Jun 24 06:05:11 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:05:11 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO
 FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND
 OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
In-Reply-To: <dfd36e37-03e3-b401-ca2b-a063a2d73b24@kathykleiman.com>
References: <9f56ef88f1c94057a1ca244d3ee0f0aa@toast.net>
	<dfd36e37-03e3-b401-ca2b-a063a2d73b24@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <c46bc768-28cd-a96b-ef70-f59dec2facab@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think leaving it in Council is a good idea, lets see if we can get the 
registrars to support the idea....and fast.  We have an opportunity to 
do a little lobbying at the COuncil dinner.  ANyone know where the BC 
sits on this issue?

SP


On 2016-06-23 22:48, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> A belated response, Ed, that this is very concerning. I think it will 
> wind up with things "stacked" in favor of the IPC. Sigh. I support 
> your idea of leaving this matter in Council - and hope we can discuss 
> it at the NCSG Policy session on Tuesday.
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 6/20/2016 2:03 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> Attached please find an IPC Motion to create a drafting team to 
>> develop GNSO responses to changes brought by the transition.
>> This is a different approach that what has previously been discussed. 
>> What concerns me is the possibility under this plan for the NCSG to 
>> be inadequately represented on the proposed drafting team. It would 
>> appear to be an open call for volunteers with the following 
>> qualifications:
>> -
>>
>>  1. The Drafting Team shall comprise volunteers from the GNSO
>>     community who can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or
>>     experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws.
>>
>> I might like that language if I were from a constituency composed 
>> principally of lawyers such as the IPC.
>> I would prefer to have Council, working with staff, to make the 
>> needed changes. We have a fairly collegial working environment 
>> and the expertise to get this done in a fairly time efficient manner 
>> with full representation of all stakeholder groups. If we are going 
>> to farm this out I'd suggest we need to insist on equal 
>> representation of all stakeholder groups on the Drafting Team with 
>> appointments being made directly by the SG's themselves according to 
>> their own criteria.
>> Thoughts?
>> Best,
>> Ed
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
>> *Sent*: Monday, June 20, 2016 6:35 PM
>> *To*: council at gnso.icann.org
>> *Cc*: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>, mary.wong at icann.org, 
>> "Heather Forrest" <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>
>> *Subject*: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER 
>> DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND 
>> OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
>>
>> Dear Council Colleagues:
>>
>> As we all know, making the Empowered Community a reality is going to 
>> take a lot of effort by everyone.  To get us started in that process, 
>> attached please find a MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER 
>> DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO?S NEW ROLES AND 
>> OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS which is being proposed by 
>> the IPC for consideration at the next GNSO Council meeting in 
>> Helsinki.  Safe travels!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul McGrady
>>
>> GNSO Councilor for the IPC
>>
>> policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160623/4ec89f7c/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Fri Jun 24 10:03:55 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:03:55 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO
 FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND
 OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
In-Reply-To: <c46bc768-28cd-a96b-ef70-f59dec2facab@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <9f56ef88f1c94057a1ca244d3ee0f0aa@toast.net>
	<dfd36e37-03e3-b401-ca2b-a063a2d73b24@kathykleiman.com>
	<c46bc768-28cd-a96b-ef70-f59dec2facab@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK20Q+AotHv4M_w-oUDK2vXMAE18UjTdNcq2c2TuYsxNTw@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with the proposal. James G asked the PC to discuss the topic and I
suggested him to take to NCSG list. Whatever shape the discussions takes
from now on - small group working with councillors, etc - our SG members
will be aware and can potentially chime in.
M

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I think leaving it in Council is a good idea, lets see if we can get the
> registrars to support the idea....and fast.  We have an opportunity to do a
> little lobbying at the COuncil dinner.  ANyone know where the BC sits on
> this issue?
>
> SP
>
> On 2016-06-23 22:48, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> A belated response, Ed, that this is very concerning. I think it will wind
> up with things "stacked" in favor of the IPC. Sigh. I support your idea of
> leaving this matter in Council - and hope we can discuss it at the NCSG
> Policy session on Tuesday.
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 6/20/2016 2:03 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Attached please find an IPC Motion to create a drafting team to develop
> GNSO responses to changes brought by the transition.
>
> This is a different approach that what has previously been discussed. What
> concerns me is the possibility under this plan for the NCSG to be
> inadequately represented on the proposed drafting team. It would appear to
> be an open call for volunteers with the following qualifications:
>
> -
>
>    1. The Drafting Team shall comprise volunteers from the GNSO community
>    who can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process
>    of revising the ICANN Bylaws.
>
>
> I might like that language if I were from a constituency composed
> principally of lawyers such as the IPC.
>
> I would prefer to have Council, working with staff, to make the needed
> changes. We have a fairly collegial working environment and the expertise
> to get this done in a fairly time efficient manner with full representation
> of all stakeholder groups. If we are going to farm this out I'd suggest we
> need to insist on equal representation of all stakeholder groups on the
> Drafting Team with appointments being made directly by the SG's themselves
> according to their own criteria.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com><policy at paulmcgrady.com>
> <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
> *Sent*: Monday, June 20, 2016 6:35 PM
> *To*: council at gnso.icann.org
> *Cc*: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org> <Glen at icann.org>,
> mary.wong at icann.org, "Heather Forrest" <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>
> <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>
> *Subject*: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER DEVELOP
> RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
> REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
>
>
> Dear Council Colleagues:
>
>
>
> As we all know, making the Empowered Community a reality is going to take
> a lot of effort by everyone.  To get us started in that process, attached
> please find a MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER DEVELOP
> RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO?S NEW ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
> REVISED ICANN BYLAWS which is being proposed by the IPC for consideration
> at the next GNSO Council meeting in Helsinki.  Safe travels!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul McGrady
>
> GNSO Councilor for the IPC
>
> policy at paulmcgrady.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160624/8cb24bb0/attachment.html>


From director-general  Fri Jun 24 09:52:08 2016
From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:52:08 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO
 FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND
 OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK20Q+AotHv4M_w-oUDK2vXMAE18UjTdNcq2c2TuYsxNTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <525643508.1102.1466752169814.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>

Excellent solution, all boxes now ticked.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
To: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 7:03:55 AM
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS



I agree with the proposal. James G asked the PC to discuss the topic and I suggested him to take to NCSG list. Whatever shape the discussions takes from now on - small group working with councillors, etc - our SG members will be aware and can potentially chime in. 
M 


On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > wrote: 





I think leaving it in Council is a good idea, lets see if we can get the registrars to support the idea....and fast. We have an opportunity to do a little lobbying at the COuncil dinner. ANyone know where the BC sits on this issue? 

SP 




On 2016-06-23 22:48, Kathy Kleiman wrote: 


A belated response, Ed, that this is very concerning. I think it will wind up with things "stacked" in favor of the IPC. Sigh. I support your idea of leaving this matter in Council - and hope we can discuss it at the NCSG Policy session on Tuesday. 
Best, Kathy 


On 6/20/2016 2:03 PM, Edward Morris wrote: 



Hi everyone, 

Attached please find an IPC Motion to create a drafting team to develop GNSO responses to changes brought by the transition. 

This is a different approach that what has previously been discussed. What concerns me is the possibility under this plan for the NCSG to be inadequately represented on the proposed drafting team. It would appear to be an open call for volunteers with the following qualifications: 

- 

    1. The Drafting Team shall comprise volunteers from the GNSO community who can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws. 


I might like that language if I were from a constituency composed principally of lawyers such as the IPC. 

I would prefer to have Council, working with staff, to make the needed changes. We have a fairly collegial working environment and the expertise to get this done in a fairly time efficient manner with full representation of all stakeholder groups. If we are going to farm this out I'd suggest we need to insist on equal representation of all stakeholder groups on the Drafting Team with appointments being made directly by the SG's themselves according to their own criteria. 

Thoughts? 

Best, 

Ed 






>From : "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com> 
Sent : Monday, June 20, 2016 6:35 PM 
To : council at gnso.icann.org 
Cc : "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org> , mary.wong at icann.org , "Heather Forrest" <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au> 
Subject : [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS 



Dear Council Colleagues: 



As we all know, making the Empowered Community a reality is going to take a lot of effort by everyone. To get us started in that process, attached please find a MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO?S NEW ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS which is being proposed by the IPC for consideration at the next GNSO Council meeting in Helsinki. Safe travels! 



Best, 

Paul 



Paul McGrady 

GNSO Councilor for the IPC 

policy at paulmcgrady.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 

_______________________________________________ 
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 kathy  Fri Jun 24 19:25:43 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:25:43 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] special meeting midday Monday
Message-ID: <86557d51-4220-a922-91aa-29d265b5ac44@kathykleiman.com>

Hi All,

I want to share that I have asked Tapani to call a special midday lunch 
meeting on Monday (if the announcement already went out, I apologize.) 
There are two very important cross-community sessions /*on Monday 
afternoon */-- the Registration Direction Services WG and the Rights 
Protection Mechanism WG -- and our NCSG input will be timely and 
valuable. As you know, these are special Outreach Sessions and it is 
important to hear from more than the usual voices (more than the WG 
members).

All in the WGs, please bring your thoughts on our WGs' "big issues" and 
"flaming questions." Then we'll talk (quickly) together about ways to 
share our noncommercial and human rights issues, concerns and 
questions.  Your input is critical!  We'll eat lunch too! Tx for joining us!

Details of where/when to come from our amazing leader and local expert - 
Tapani!

Best, Kathy

p.s. nothing changes our Tuesday midday policy meeting...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160624/2380b3ff/attachment.html>


From mshears  Sat Jun 25 15:51:21 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:51:21 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO
 FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND
 OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK20Q+AotHv4M_w-oUDK2vXMAE18UjTdNcq2c2TuYsxNTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9f56ef88f1c94057a1ca244d3ee0f0aa@toast.net>
	<dfd36e37-03e3-b401-ca2b-a063a2d73b24@kathykleiman.com>
	<c46bc768-28cd-a96b-ef70-f59dec2facab@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CACpVkK20Q+AotHv4M_w-oUDK2vXMAE18UjTdNcq2c2TuYsxNTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a3f5c740-b10a-c843-e078-0e44c2f32e86@cdt.org>

I responded to Ed's mail, as follows (not sure but it seems some of my 
mails are not getting through):

 1. The Drafting Team shall comprise volunteers from the GNSO community
    who can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the
    process of revising the ICANN Bylaws.

I might like that language if I were from a constituency composed 
principally of lawyers such as the IPC.
Agree - although I think anyone who has been through the bylaws work in 
the CCWG should be fine.

> I would prefer to have Council, working with staff, to make the needed 
> changes. We have a fairly collegial working environment and the 
> expertise to get this done in a fairly time efficient manner with full 
> representation of all stakeholder groups.
Agree but we should also suggest inviting others if interested beyond 
the Council.
> If we are going to farm this out I'd suggest we need to insist on 
> equal representation of all stakeholder groups on the Drafting Team 
> with appointments being made directly by the SG's themselves according 
> to their own criteria.
Agree.

On 6/24/2016 10:03 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> I agree with the proposal. James G asked the PC to discuss the topic 
> and I suggested him to take to NCSG list. Whatever shape the 
> discussions takes from now on - small group working with councillors, 
> etc - our SG members will be aware and can potentially chime in.
> M
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     I think leaving it in Council is a good idea, lets see if we can
>     get the registrars to support the idea....and fast.  We have an
>     opportunity to do a little lobbying at the COuncil dinner.  ANyone
>     know where the BC sits on this issue?
>
>     SP
>
>
>     On 2016-06-23 22:48, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>     A belated response, Ed, that this is very concerning. I think it
>>     will wind up with things "stacked" in favor of the IPC. Sigh. I
>>     support your idea of leaving this matter in Council - and hope we
>>     can discuss it at the NCSG Policy session on Tuesday.
>>     Best, Kathy
>>
>>     On 6/20/2016 2:03 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>     Hi everyone,
>>>     Attached please find an IPC Motion to create a drafting team to
>>>     develop GNSO responses to changes brought by the transition.
>>>     This is a different approach that what has previously been
>>>     discussed. What concerns me is the possibility under this plan
>>>     for the NCSG to be inadequately represented on the proposed
>>>     drafting team. It would appear to be an open call for volunteers
>>>     with the following qualifications:
>>>     -
>>>
>>>      1. The Drafting Team shall comprise volunteers from the GNSO
>>>         community who can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or
>>>         experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws.
>>>
>>>     I might like that language if I were from a constituency
>>>     composed principally of lawyers such as the IPC.
>>>     I would prefer to have Council, working with staff, to make the
>>>     needed changes. We have a fairly collegial working environment
>>>     and the expertise to get this done in a fairly time efficient
>>>     manner with full representation of all stakeholder groups. If we
>>>     are going to farm this out I'd suggest we need to insist on
>>>     equal representation of all stakeholder groups on the Drafting
>>>     Team with appointments being made directly by the SG's
>>>     themselves according to their own criteria.
>>>     Thoughts?
>>>     Best,
>>>     Ed
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     *From*: "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
>>>     <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>
>>>     *Sent*: Monday, June 20, 2016 6:35 PM
>>>     *To*: council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>     *Cc*: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>
>>>     <mailto:Glen at icann.org>, mary.wong at icann.org
>>>     <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>, "Heather Forrest"
>>>     <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au> <mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>
>>>     *Subject*: [council] MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER
>>>     DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO'S NEW ROLES AND
>>>     OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS
>>>
>>>     Dear Council Colleagues:
>>>
>>>     As we all know, making the Empowered Community a reality is
>>>     going to take a lot of effort by everyone.  To get us started in
>>>     that process, attached please find a MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING
>>>     TEAM TO FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE GNSO?S
>>>     NEW ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED ICANN BYLAWS which
>>>     is being proposed by the IPC for consideration at the next GNSO
>>>     Council meeting in Helsinki.  Safe travels!
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Paul
>>>
>>>     Paul McGrady
>>>
>>>     GNSO Councilor for the IPC
>>>
>>>     policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     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
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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 | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160625/bfd6238e/attachment.html>


From mshears  Sun Jun 26 12:05:56 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:05:56 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Restated AoI public comment
Message-ID: <14669604-ca43-610b-d309-b6c16eebdf4a@cdt.org>

Hi all

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

Closing date: 6 July

Just drawing this to your attention and proposing some brief text for a 
possible comment:

    Thank you for the opportunity to contribute comments on the restated
    AoI.

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

    One particular issue where the restated AoI do not reflect the
    language nor the intent of the new Bylaws relates to the issue of
    global pubic interest or GPI.

    In the new bylaws, section new bylaws 1.2 (b) Core Value (ii), we
    find the following text:

    /(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, in the restated Articles of Incorporation Article 2, we
    find the following text:

    /... 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 new Bylaws state that the the global public interest should (the
    actual word is "to ensure") be ascertained through multistakeholder
    policy development processes.  In the restated AoI global public
    interest "may be determined from time to time" through a
    multistakeholder community process.  The language in the restated
    AoI is far from adequate and in no way reflects the intent of the
    new Bylaws.   This 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...".

    Etc.

Or words to this effect.  Thoughts/new text/comments very welcome. 
Please review the new Bylaws and restated AoI texts so as to ensure that 
the above proposal is appropriate.

Matthew

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160626/1a3e85ed/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sun Jun 26 14:16:45 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 13:16:45 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG support? Fwd: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE
 ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2beNPhzH-4bESTgTmNGQv-Z836U0+27TcaCZMybQAUhw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear members of the PC,

Carlos Afonso, from CGI.br council, has sent the letter below to NCSG list
seeking support from our members. Although significant individual support
has been expressed, it would be up to the PC to decide upon support coming
from NCSG.

Would PC members agree with supporting this letter?

Best wishes and safe travels
Marilia


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlos Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
Date: Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:34 PM
Subject: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND
MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR
To: BestBits List <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Civil Society Internet
Governance Caucus - IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, NCSG List <
NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>, internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org,
apc.lac at lists.apc.org, APC Forum <apc.forum at lists.apc.org>, LACNIC Lista
Politicas <politicas at lacnic.net>, latinoamericann at dgroups.org


[sorry for possible duplicates]

Note: given the recent transition in the Brazilian federal government
and the political uncertainties involved, a group of civil society and
academic organizations has produced this public declaration in defense
of the multistakeholder nature of CGI.br and its attributions.

LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR

24-6-2016

The Internet Steering Committe of Brazil, CGI.br, a multistakeholder
commission, has a crucial mission in the development of the Internet in
Brazil. In particular, CGI.br supervises the actions of NIC.br - a
non-profit private civil society organizationm in charge of carrying out
the management of all activities derived from policies defined by the
Committee. Decree Number 4829, of September, 2003, describes
attributions of CGI.br, which include:

- proposing policies and procedures regarding the regulation of Internet
activities;

- recommending standards for technical and operational procedures for
the Internet in Brazil;

- establishing strategic directives related to the use and development
of the Internet in Brazil;

- promoting studies and technical standards for network and service
security in the country;

- coordinating the allocation of Internet addresses (IPs) in Brazil and
registration in the ".br" domain;

- collecting, organizing and disseminating information on Internet
services, including indicators and statistics;

- be represented in national and international technical forums related
to the Internet;

- to adopt administrative and operational procedures so that Internet
governance in Brazil follows internationally accepted standards,
enabling it to celebrate agreements and partnerships.

These activities, fully funded by private income derived from
distribution of domain names and IP numbers, are essential for the
operation and development of the Internet in Brazil. These attributions
are being carried out in a multistakeholder approach, with participation
of civil society, academia, technical community, private sector and
government.

This pluralist feature has been the basis for the charter of principles
which is at the origin of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the
Internet ("Marco Civil da Internet"). The success of this pluralist
practice has turned CGI.br into a worldwide reference on Internet
governance, considering that since its creation in 1995, and even in the
preparation of the Decree of 2003, any change in its structure and
operation has been preceded by broad consultations with society,
including significant participation of civil society and academic
organizations.

In order to protect the stability, security and quality of the work
which has been and continues to be carried out and developed by the
Committee, the undersigned organizations affirm the centrality of CGI.br
to develop activities absolutely vital for the Internet of today and
tomorrow in the country, stressing the importance of preserving the
above attributions, as well as the pluralist, multissectorial nature of
CGI.br.

Actantes
Artigo 19
Bar?o de Itarar?
Coding Rights
Colab-USP
Coletivo Digital
CTS-FGV
GPoPAI/USP
Ibase
Ibidem
InternetLab
Instituto Bem Estar Brasil
Intervozes
ITSRio
Lavits
Medialab.UFRJ
Nupef
ProTeste
Safernet Brasil
ULEPICC-BR

--

Carlos A. Afonso
[emails s?o pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contr?rio]
[emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]

Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - http://cgi.br
ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br

GPG 0x9EE8F8E3


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160626/94f3fd62/attachment.html>


From mshears  Sun Jun 26 14:19:26 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 14:19:26 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG support? Fwd: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF
 THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2beNPhzH-4bESTgTmNGQv-Z836U0+27TcaCZMybQAUhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2beNPhzH-4bESTgTmNGQv-Z836U0+27TcaCZMybQAUhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b96af79c-9f2e-3359-8884-77c3b5e452df@cdt.org>

I had asked earlier on the list whether or not NCSG had supported 
similar letters in the past - is it within the mandate of/appropriate 
for NCSG to do so?  I support the letter but just wanted clarification.

Matthew


On 6/26/2016 2:16 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear members of the PC,
>
> Carlos Afonso, from CGI.br council, has sent the letter below to NCSG 
> list seeking support from our members. Although significant individual 
> support has been expressed, it would be up to the PC to decide upon 
> support coming from NCSG.
>
> Would PC members agree with supporting this letter?
>
> Best wishes and safe travels
> Marilia
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Carlos Afonso* <ca at cafonso.ca <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>>
> Date: Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:34 PM
> Subject: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND 
> MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR <http://CGI.BR>
> To: BestBits List <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, Civil Society Internet 
> Governance Caucus - IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, NCSG List 
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu 
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>, 
> internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org 
> <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>, apc.lac at lists.apc.org 
> <mailto:apc.lac at lists.apc.org>, APC Forum <apc.forum at lists.apc.org 
> <mailto:apc.forum at lists.apc.org>>, LACNIC Lista Politicas 
> <politicas at lacnic.net <mailto:politicas at lacnic.net>>, 
> latinoamericann at dgroups.org <mailto:latinoamericann at dgroups.org>
>
>
> [sorry for possible duplicates]
>
> Note: given the recent transition in the Brazilian federal government
> and the political uncertainties involved, a group of civil society and
> academic organizations has produced this public declaration in defense
> of the multistakeholder nature of CGI.br and its attributions.
>
> LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF 
> CGI.BR <http://CGI.BR>
>
> 24-6-2016
>
> The Internet Steering Committe of Brazil, CGI.br, a multistakeholder
> commission, has a crucial mission in the development of the Internet in
> Brazil. In particular, CGI.br supervises the actions of NIC.br - a
> non-profit private civil society organizationm in charge of carrying out
> the management of all activities derived from policies defined by the
> Committee. Decree Number 4829, of September, 2003, describes
> attributions of CGI.br, which include:
>
> - proposing policies and procedures regarding the regulation of Internet
> activities;
>
> - recommending standards for technical and operational procedures for
> the Internet in Brazil;
>
> - establishing strategic directives related to the use and development
> of the Internet in Brazil;
>
> - promoting studies and technical standards for network and service
> security in the country;
>
> - coordinating the allocation of Internet addresses (IPs) in Brazil and
> registration in the ".br" domain;
>
> - collecting, organizing and disseminating information on Internet
> services, including indicators and statistics;
>
> - be represented in national and international technical forums related
> to the Internet;
>
> - to adopt administrative and operational procedures so that Internet
> governance in Brazil follows internationally accepted standards,
> enabling it to celebrate agreements and partnerships.
>
> These activities, fully funded by private income derived from
> distribution of domain names and IP numbers, are essential for the
> operation and development of the Internet in Brazil. These attributions
> are being carried out in a multistakeholder approach, with participation
> of civil society, academia, technical community, private sector and
> government.
>
> This pluralist feature has been the basis for the charter of principles
> which is at the origin of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the
> Internet ("Marco Civil da Internet"). The success of this pluralist
> practice has turned CGI.br into a worldwide reference on Internet
> governance, considering that since its creation in 1995, and even in the
> preparation of the Decree of 2003, any change in its structure and
> operation has been preceded by broad consultations with society,
> including significant participation of civil society and academic
> organizations.
>
> In order to protect the stability, security and quality of the work
> which has been and continues to be carried out and developed by the
> Committee, the undersigned organizations affirm the centrality of CGI.br
> to develop activities absolutely vital for the Internet of today and
> tomorrow in the country, stressing the importance of preserving the
> above attributions, as well as the pluralist, multissectorial nature of
> CGI.br.
>
> Actantes
> Artigo 19
> Bar?o de Itarar?
> Coding Rights
> Colab-USP
> Coletivo Digital
> CTS-FGV
> GPoPAI/USP
> Ibase
> Ibidem
> InternetLab
> Instituto Bem Estar Brasil
> Intervozes
> ITSRio
> Lavits
> Medialab.UFRJ
> Nupef
> ProTeste
> Safernet Brasil
> ULEPICC-BR
>
> --
>
> Carlos A. Afonso
> [emails s?o pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contr?rio]
> [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]
>
> Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
> CGI.br - http://cgi.br
> ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br
>
> GPG 0x9EE8F8E3
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160626/4535d6bb/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Mon Jun 27 08:34:45 2016
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 08:34:45 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG support? Fwd: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF
	THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR
In-Reply-To: <b96af79c-9f2e-3359-8884-77c3b5e452df@cdt.org>
References: <CACpVkK2beNPhzH-4bESTgTmNGQv-Z836U0+27TcaCZMybQAUhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<b96af79c-9f2e-3359-8884-77c3b5e452df@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <4117E75E-069E-40A6-8881-06DF74FA0A20@gmail.com>

I had answered this from the peanut gallery to the effect that it is very much within our mandate, CGI.br <http://cgi.br/> is an active force in our ICANN space, and has financially supported NCUC.  So it?s not like endorsing a later about a global access scheme or whatever.  Busting it down to individual endorsements would carry less weight and be of less value to CGI.br <http://cgi.br/>.  They are pretty concerned about what?s going on and hanging onto their desks, so I?d think it highly appropriate that we?d have their backs as they have had ours.

Bill

> On Jun 26, 2016, at 14:19, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> I had asked earlier on the list whether or not NCSG had supported similar letters in the past - is it within the mandate of/appropriate for NCSG to do so?  I support the letter but just wanted clarification.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 6/26/2016 2:16 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> Dear members of the PC, 
>> 
>> Carlos Afonso, from CGI.br council, has sent the letter below to NCSG list seeking support from our members. Although significant individual support has been expressed, it would be up to the PC to decide upon support coming from NCSG. 
>> 
>> Would PC members agree with supporting this letter? 
>> 
>> Best wishes and safe travels
>> Marilia 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Carlos Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>>
>> Date: Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:34 PM
>> Subject: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR <http://cgi.br/>
>> To: BestBits List <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, NCSG List <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>, internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>, apc.lac at lists.apc.org <mailto:apc.lac at lists.apc.org>, APC Forum <apc.forum at lists.apc.org <mailto:apc.forum at lists.apc.org>>, LACNIC Lista Politicas <politicas at lacnic.net <mailto:politicas at lacnic.net>>, latinoamericann at dgroups.org <mailto:latinoamericann at dgroups.org>
>> 
>> 
>> [sorry for possible duplicates]
>> 
>> Note: given the recent transition in the Brazilian federal government
>> and the political uncertainties involved, a group of civil society and
>> academic organizations has produced this public declaration in defense
>> of the multistakeholder nature of CGI.br and its attributions.
>> 
>> LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR <http://cgi.br/>
>> 
>> 24-6-2016
>> 
>> The Internet Steering Committe of Brazil, CGI.br, a multistakeholder
>> commission, has a crucial mission in the development of the Internet in
>> Brazil. In particular, CGI.br supervises the actions of NIC.br - a
>> non-profit private civil society organizationm in charge of carrying out
>> the management of all activities derived from policies defined by the
>> Committee. Decree Number 4829, of September, 2003, describes
>> attributions of CGI.br, which include:
>> 
>> - proposing policies and procedures regarding the regulation of Internet
>> activities;
>> 
>> - recommending standards for technical and operational procedures for
>> the Internet in Brazil;
>> 
>> - establishing strategic directives related to the use and development
>> of the Internet in Brazil;
>> 
>> - promoting studies and technical standards for network and service
>> security in the country;
>> 
>> - coordinating the allocation of Internet addresses (IPs) in Brazil and
>> registration in the ".br" domain;
>> 
>> - collecting, organizing and disseminating information on Internet
>> services, including indicators and statistics;
>> 
>> - be represented in national and international technical forums related
>> to the Internet;
>> 
>> - to adopt administrative and operational procedures so that Internet
>> governance in Brazil follows internationally accepted standards,
>> enabling it to celebrate agreements and partnerships.
>> 
>> These activities, fully funded by private income derived from
>> distribution of domain names and IP numbers, are essential for the
>> operation and development of the Internet in Brazil. These attributions
>> are being carried out in a multistakeholder approach, with participation
>> of civil society, academia, technical community, private sector and
>> government.
>> 
>> This pluralist feature has been the basis for the charter of principles
>> which is at the origin of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the
>> Internet ("Marco Civil da Internet"). The success of this pluralist
>> practice has turned CGI.br into a worldwide reference on Internet
>> governance, considering that since its creation in 1995, and even in the
>> preparation of the Decree of 2003, any change in its structure and
>> operation has been preceded by broad consultations with society,
>> including significant participation of civil society and academic
>> organizations.
>> 
>> In order to protect the stability, security and quality of the work
>> which has been and continues to be carried out and developed by the
>> Committee, the undersigned organizations affirm the centrality of CGI.br
>> to develop activities absolutely vital for the Internet of today and
>> tomorrow in the country, stressing the importance of preserving the
>> above attributions, as well as the pluralist, multissectorial nature of
>> CGI.br.
>> 
>> Actantes
>> Artigo 19
>> Bar?o de Itarar?
>> Coding Rights
>> Colab-USP
>> Coletivo Digital
>> CTS-FGV
>> GPoPAI/USP
>> Ibase
>> Ibidem
>> InternetLab
>> Instituto Bem Estar Brasil
>> Intervozes
>> ITSRio
>> Lavits
>> Medialab.UFRJ
>> Nupef
>> ProTeste
>> Safernet Brasil
>> ULEPICC-BR
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Carlos A. Afonso
>> [emails s?o pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contr?rio]
>> [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]
>> 
>> Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br <https://nupef.org.br/>
>> CGI.br - http://cgi.br <http://cgi.br/>
>> ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br <https://isoc.org.br/>
>> 
>> GPG 0x9EE8F8E3
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> -- 
> 
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160627/b2fce422/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Mon Jun 27 09:39:33 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 06:39:33 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG support? Fwd: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT
 OF	THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR
In-Reply-To: <4117E75E-069E-40A6-8881-06DF74FA0A20@gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2beNPhzH-4bESTgTmNGQv-Z836U0+27TcaCZMybQAUhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<b96af79c-9f2e-3359-8884-77c3b5e452df@cdt.org>,
	<4117E75E-069E-40A6-8881-06DF74FA0A20@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB52114E0292966DD141EE43DF7210@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I agree with Bill. I was a bit puzzled by the "pre-emptive" request for support, which could indeed set in motion a flood of endorsement requests, some of which might be difficult to assess. But in recognition of the special relation between CGI.br and NCUC I am in favor of signing the letter as NCSG.
My two cents, stefi

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Inviato: luned? 27 giugno 2016 07.34.45
A: Matt Shears
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG support? Fwd: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF       THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR

I had answered this from the peanut gallery to the effect that it is very much within our mandate, CGI.br<http://cgi.br> is an active force in our ICANN space, and has financially supported NCUC.  So it?s not like endorsing a later about a global access scheme or whatever.  Busting it down to individual endorsements would carry less weight and be of less value to CGI.br<http://cgi.br>.  They are pretty concerned about what?s going on and hanging onto their desks, so I?d think it highly appropriate that we?d have their backs as they have had ours.

Bill

On Jun 26, 2016, at 14:19, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:


I had asked earlier on the list whether or not NCSG had supported similar letters in the past - is it within the mandate of/appropriate for NCSG to do so?  I support the letter but just wanted clarification.

Matthew

On 6/26/2016 2:16 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
Dear members of the PC,

Carlos Afonso, from CGI.br<http://cgi.br> council, has sent the letter below to NCSG list seeking support from our members. Although significant individual support has been expressed, it would be up to the PC to decide upon support coming from NCSG.

Would PC members agree with supporting this letter?

Best wishes and safe travels
Marilia


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlos Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca<mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>>
Date: Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:34 PM
Subject: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR<http://cgi.br/>
To: BestBits List <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC <<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, NCSG List <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>, internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org<mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>, apc.lac at lists.apc.org<mailto:apc.lac at lists.apc.org>, APC Forum <apc.forum at lists.apc.org<mailto:apc.forum at lists.apc.org>>, LACNIC Lista Politicas <politicas at lacnic.net<mailto:politicas at lacnic.net>>, latinoamericann at dgroups.org<mailto:latinoamericann at dgroups.org>


[sorry for possible duplicates]

Note: given the recent transition in the Brazilian federal government
and the political uncertainties involved, a group of civil society and
academic organizations has produced this public declaration in defense
of the multistakeholder nature of CGI.br<http://cgi.br> and its attributions.

LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR<http://cgi.br/>

24-6-2016

The Internet Steering Committe of Brazil, CGI.br<http://cgi.br>, a multistakeholder
commission, has a crucial mission in the development of the Internet in
Brazil. In particular, CGI.br<http://cgi.br> supervises the actions of NIC.br<http://nic.br> - a
non-profit private civil society organizationm in charge of carrying out
the management of all activities derived from policies defined by the
Committee. Decree Number 4829, of September, 2003, describes
attributions of CGI.br<http://cgi.br>, which include:

- proposing policies and procedures regarding the regulation of Internet
activities;

- recommending standards for technical and operational procedures for
the Internet in Brazil;

- establishing strategic directives related to the use and development
of the Internet in Brazil;

- promoting studies and technical standards for network and service
security in the country;

- coordinating the allocation of Internet addresses (IPs) in Brazil and
registration in the ".br" domain;

- collecting, organizing and disseminating information on Internet
services, including indicators and statistics;

- be represented in national and international technical forums related
to the Internet;

- to adopt administrative and operational procedures so that Internet
governance in Brazil follows internationally accepted standards,
enabling it to celebrate agreements and partnerships.

These activities, fully funded by private income derived from
distribution of domain names and IP numbers, are essential for the
operation and development of the Internet in Brazil. These attributions
are being carried out in a multistakeholder approach, with participation
of civil society, academia, technical community, private sector and
government.

This pluralist feature has been the basis for the charter of principles
which is at the origin of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the
Internet ("Marco Civil da Internet"). The success of this pluralist
practice has turned CGI.br<http://cgi.br> into a worldwide reference on Internet
governance, considering that since its creation in 1995, and even in the
preparation of the Decree of 2003, any change in its structure and
operation has been preceded by broad consultations with society,
including significant participation of civil society and academic
organizations.

In order to protect the stability, security and quality of the work
which has been and continues to be carried out and developed by the
Committee, the undersigned organizations affirm the centrality of CGI.br<http://cgi.br>
to develop activities absolutely vital for the Internet of today and
tomorrow in the country, stressing the importance of preserving the
above attributions, as well as the pluralist, multissectorial nature of
CGI.br<http://cgi.br>.

Actantes
Artigo 19
Bar?o de Itarar?
Coding Rights
Colab-USP
Coletivo Digital
CTS-FGV
GPoPAI/USP
Ibase
Ibidem
InternetLab
Instituto Bem Estar Brasil
Intervozes
ITSRio
Lavits
Medialab.UFRJ
Nupef
ProTeste
Safernet Brasil
ULEPICC-BR

--

Carlos A. Afonso
[emails s?o pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contr?rio]
[emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]

Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br<https://nupef.org.br/>
CGI.br<http://cgi.br> - http://cgi.br<http://cgi.br/>
ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br<https://isoc.org.br/>

GPG 0x9EE8F8E3


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




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



--

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



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


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



From stephanie.perrin  Mon Jun 27 09:48:28 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 02:48:28 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Regarding meeting to discuss contractual
 and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying out
 activities contrary to applicable law
In-Reply-To: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E8A465A107@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E8A465A107@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <67d67a31-1606-e3ab-2229-fceb1f73da87@mail.utoronto.ca>

Headsup, this is super important, we need one of our well informed 
privacy people to be there (cough cough yes I would volunteer).  Who is 
going to be there?

steph



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Regarding meeting to discuss contractual and 
compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying out 
activities contrary to applicable law
Date: 	Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:24:28 +0000
From: 	Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Hello All,

I want to make the GNSO council aware of the email below, by which I have invited the Chairs of key constituencies within ICANN to attend a session at ICANN 56 to encourage and enable a dialogue with interested stakeholders in the ICANN community regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit with respect to matters such as abuse, illegal activity, distribution of malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting and similar matters; and to facilitate a clearer understanding among the community of the key provisions in ICANN?s contracts that refer to such matters and the scope of ICANN?s enforcement of those provisions.
  
We recognize that we are scheduling this session on short notice, but want to take the opportunity to meet while members of the community are here in Helsinki.  One of the desired outcomes of the meeting is to discuss a structure and framework for future discussions of these issues, including at ICANN 57.   We will record the session and make a transcript available.     It is not an decisional meeting - it is an opportunity to share information and perspectives to help frame the issue.
  
As noted in the email below, due to space limitations, we have asked each of the Chairs to invite no more than two representatives to this initial session from their respective organizations.  We plan to conduct a longer session at ICANN 57 with greater capacity for participation.
  
Please feel free to coordinate with the Chairs regarding the appropriate representatives to attend this session.
  
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

ICANN Board Director



-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Sunday, 26 June 2016 10:20 AM

Subject: Invitation to Meeting Monday 1500 to 1630 to discuss contractual and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to applicable law

Hello All,

This is an invitation to the chairs of the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies, as well as the chairs of GNSO, ALAC and GAC.

As a result of discussions during a Board workshop on June 24, 2016 in Helsinki with respect to recent correspondence from the intellectual property constituency (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/shatan-to-crocker-11apr16-en.pdf),  the Board wishes to encourage and enable a dialogue with interested stakeholders in the ICANN community regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit with respect to matters such as abuse, illegal activity, distribution of malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting and similar matters; and to facilitate a clearer understanding among the community of the key provisions in ICANN?s contracts that refer to such matters and the scope of ICANN?s enforcement of those provisions.
  
We believe this will be an ongoing discussion, but we would like to begin that dialogue with a session at ICANN 56.  We are inviting each of you to attend (or send a representative to attend) a session from in Restaurant Hall 3 from 1500 to 1630 on Monday, June 27.  We will record the session and make a transcript available.  Because space in the room is limited, we ask that each of you send no more than two representatives from your respective committee/organization/group (including yourself).  I am sending this email to the Chairs of NCSG, Business Constituency, IPC, ISPs, NCUC, NPOC, RrSG, RySG, ALAC, GAC and GNSO.   We will send a separate email to the GNSO council members to make them aware of this meeting.

We recognize that we are scheduling this session on short notice, but want to take the opportunity to meet while members of the community are here in Helsinki.  As noted below, one of the desired outcomes of the meeting is to discuss a structure and framework for future discussions of these issues, including at ICANN 57.  We plan to conduct a longer session at ICANN 57 with greater capacity for participation from the broader community.
  
The preliminary agenda for the session is as follows:
  
ICANN to identify the key relevant provisions in the registry and registrar agreements -- 15 mins
  
ICANN contractual compliance to describe the general process for investigating allegations that a registrar or registrar is not complying with one or more of these provisions -- 15 mins
  
If available, a representative from the IPC and a representative of the GAC Public Safety Working Group to identify examples of instances where they believe they are not receiving appropriate responses -- 15 mins
  
If available, a representative from the Registrar Stakeholder Group and/or the Registry Stakeholder Group to explain how registrars and registries typically respond to allegations of non-compliance in these areas and to discuss what they believe is the appropriate role of ICANN in enforcing contractual provisions addressing these issues -- 15 mins
  
Open discussion to solicit views of others in attendance, to identify divergent views regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit in these areas and the appropriate interpretation and enforcement of key contractual provisions, and to determine how we can best frame these issues for further discussion at ICANN 57 in Hyderabad ? 30 minutes

Please feel free to reach out to me separately if you want some more background.

Regards,


Bruce Tonkin

ICANN Board Director

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160627/a28a649b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IPC Letter to Steve Crocker.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 133843 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160627/a28a649b/attachment-0001.pdf>


From ncsg  Mon Jun 27 14:32:44 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:32:44 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Regarding meeting to discuss
 contractual and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying
 out activities contrary to applicable law
In-Reply-To: <67d67a31-1606-e3ab-2229-fceb1f73da87@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E8A465A107@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
	<67d67a31-1606-e3ab-2229-fceb1f73da87@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20160627113244.GD1206@roller.tarvainen.info>

All,

Time being short, I propose to go myself with Stephanie
(we were asked to send max two people).

I know I'm no expert on the subject but I should try
to keep myself up to date on what's going on.

I understand Rafik and Tatiana are also going
to represent NCUC there, so I think we'll cope.

Tapani

On Jun 27 02:48, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> Headsup, this is super important, we need one of our well informed privacy
> people to be there (cough cough yes I would volunteer).  Who is going to be
> there?
> 
> steph
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[council] Regarding meeting to discuss contractual and compliance
> requirements that relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to
> applicable law
> Date: 	Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:24:28 +0000
> From: 	Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I want to make the GNSO council aware of the email below, by which I have invited the Chairs of key constituencies within ICANN to attend a session at ICANN 56 to encourage and enable a dialogue with interested stakeholders in the ICANN community regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit with respect to matters such as abuse, illegal activity, distribution of malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting and similar matters; and to facilitate a clearer understanding among the community of the key provisions in ICANN?s contracts that refer to such matters and the scope of ICANN?s enforcement of those provisions.
> We recognize that we are scheduling this session on short notice, but want to take the opportunity to meet while members of the community are here in Helsinki.  One of the desired outcomes of the meeting is to discuss a structure and framework for future discussions of these issues, including at ICANN 57.   We will record the session and make a transcript available.     It is not an decisional meeting - it is an opportunity to share information and perspectives to help frame the issue.
> As noted in the email below, due to space limitations, we have asked each of the Chairs to invite no more than two representatives to this initial session from their respective organizations.  We plan to conduct a longer session at ICANN 57 with greater capacity for participation.
> Please feel free to coordinate with the Chairs regarding the appropriate representatives to attend this session.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> ICANN Board Director
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Sunday, 26 June 2016 10:20 AM
> 
> Subject: Invitation to Meeting Monday 1500 to 1630 to discuss contractual and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to applicable law
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> This is an invitation to the chairs of the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies, as well as the chairs of GNSO, ALAC and GAC.
> 
> As a result of discussions during a Board workshop on June 24, 2016 in Helsinki with respect to recent correspondence from the intellectual property constituency (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/shatan-to-crocker-11apr16-en.pdf),  the Board wishes to encourage and enable a dialogue with interested stakeholders in the ICANN community regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit with respect to matters such as abuse, illegal activity, distribution of malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting and similar matters; and to facilitate a clearer understanding among the community of the key provisions in ICANN?s contracts that refer to such matters and the scope of ICANN?s enforcement of those provisions.
> We believe this will be an ongoing discussion, but we would like to begin that dialogue with a session at ICANN 56.  We are inviting each of you to attend (or send a representative to attend) a session from in Restaurant Hall 3 from 1500 to 1630 on Monday, June 27.  We will record the session and make a transcript available.  Because space in the room is limited, we ask that each of you send no more than two representatives from your respective committee/organization/group (including yourself).  I am sending this email to the Chairs of NCSG, Business Constituency, IPC, ISPs, NCUC, NPOC, RrSG, RySG, ALAC, GAC and GNSO.   We will send a separate email to the GNSO council members to make them aware of this meeting.
> 
> We recognize that we are scheduling this session on short notice, but want to take the opportunity to meet while members of the community are here in Helsinki.  As noted below, one of the desired outcomes of the meeting is to discuss a structure and framework for future discussions of these issues, including at ICANN 57.  We plan to conduct a longer session at ICANN 57 with greater capacity for participation from the broader community.
> The preliminary agenda for the session is as follows:
> ICANN to identify the key relevant provisions in the registry and registrar agreements -- 15 mins
> ICANN contractual compliance to describe the general process for investigating allegations that a registrar or registrar is not complying with one or more of these provisions -- 15 mins
> If available, a representative from the IPC and a representative of the GAC Public Safety Working Group to identify examples of instances where they believe they are not receiving appropriate responses -- 15 mins
> If available, a representative from the Registrar Stakeholder Group and/or the Registry Stakeholder Group to explain how registrars and registries typically respond to allegations of non-compliance in these areas and to discuss what they believe is the appropriate role of ICANN in enforcing contractual provisions addressing these issues -- 15 mins
> Open discussion to solicit views of others in attendance, to identify divergent views regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit in these areas and the appropriate interpretation and enforcement of key contractual provisions, and to determine how we can best frame these issues for further discussion at ICANN 57 in Hyderabad ? 30 minutes
> 
> Please feel free to reach out to me separately if you want some more background.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> ICANN Board Director
> 


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



From Stefania.Milan  Mon Jun 27 14:41:44 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:41:44 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Regarding meeting to discuss
 contractual and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying
 out activities contrary to applicable law
In-Reply-To: <20160627113244.GD1206@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E8A465A107@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
	<67d67a31-1606-e3ab-2229-fceb1f73da87@mail.utoronto.ca>,
	<20160627113244.GD1206@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521DD1EFA560209BB5B96A4F7210@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Sounds like a very solid group of people :-)
Thanks all. Any chance you will find some time to report back to the list?


________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Inviato: luned? 27 giugno 2016 13.32.44
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Regarding meeting to discuss contractual and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to applicable law

All,

Time being short, I propose to go myself with Stephanie
(we were asked to send max two people).

I know I'm no expert on the subject but I should try
to keep myself up to date on what's going on.

I understand Rafik and Tatiana are also going
to represent NCUC there, so I think we'll cope.

Tapani

On Jun 27 02:48, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> Headsup, this is super important, we need one of our well informed privacy
> people to be there (cough cough yes I would volunteer).  Who is going to be
> there?
>
> steph
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:      [council] Regarding meeting to discuss contractual and compliance
> requirements that relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to
> applicable law
> Date:         Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:24:28 +0000
> From:         Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> To:   council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> I want to make the GNSO council aware of the email below, by which I have invited the Chairs of key constituencies within ICANN to attend a session at ICANN 56 to encourage and enable a dialogue with interested stakeholders in the ICANN community regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit with respect to matters such as abuse, illegal activity, distribution of malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting and similar matters; and to facilitate a clearer understanding among the community of the key provisions in ICANN?s contracts that refer to such matters and the scope of ICANN?s enforcement of those provisions.
> We recognize that we are scheduling this session on short notice, but want to take the opportunity to meet while members of the community are here in Helsinki.  One of the desired outcomes of the meeting is to discuss a structure and framework for future discussions of these issues, including at ICANN 57.   We will record the session and make a transcript available.     It is not an decisional meeting - it is an opportunity to share information and perspectives to help frame the issue.
> As noted in the email below, due to space limitations, we have asked each of the Chairs to invite no more than two representatives to this initial session from their respective organizations.  We plan to conduct a longer session at ICANN 57 with greater capacity for participation.
> Please feel free to coordinate with the Chairs regarding the appropriate representatives to attend this session.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> ICANN Board Director
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Sunday, 26 June 2016 10:20 AM
>
> Subject: Invitation to Meeting Monday 1500 to 1630 to discuss contractual and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to applicable law
>
> Hello All,
>
> This is an invitation to the chairs of the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies, as well as the chairs of GNSO, ALAC and GAC.
>
> As a result of discussions during a Board workshop on June 24, 2016 in Helsinki with respect to recent correspondence from the intellectual property constituency (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/shatan-to-crocker-11apr16-en.pdf),  the Board wishes to encourage and enable a dialogue with interested stakeholders in the ICANN community regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit with respect to matters such as abuse, illegal activity, distribution of malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting and similar matters; and to facilitate a clearer understanding among the community of the key provisions in ICANN?s contracts that refer to such matters and the scope of ICANN?s enforcement of those provisions.
> We believe this will be an ongoing discussion, but we would like to begin that dialogue with a session at ICANN 56.  We are inviting each of you to attend (or send a representative to attend) a session from in Restaurant Hall 3 from 1500 to 1630 on Monday, June 27.  We will record the session and make a transcript available.  Because space in the room is limited, we ask that each of you send no more than two representatives from your respective committee/organization/group (including yourself).  I am sending this email to the Chairs of NCSG, Business Constituency, IPC, ISPs, NCUC, NPOC, RrSG, RySG, ALAC, GAC and GNSO.   We will send a separate email to the GNSO council members to make them aware of this meeting.
>
> We recognize that we are scheduling this session on short notice, but want to take the opportunity to meet while members of the community are here in Helsinki.  As noted below, one of the desired outcomes of the meeting is to discuss a structure and framework for future discussions of these issues, including at ICANN 57.  We plan to conduct a longer session at ICANN 57 with greater capacity for participation from the broader community.
> The preliminary agenda for the session is as follows:
> ICANN to identify the key relevant provisions in the registry and registrar agreements -- 15 mins
> ICANN contractual compliance to describe the general process for investigating allegations that a registrar or registrar is not complying with one or more of these provisions -- 15 mins
> If available, a representative from the IPC and a representative of the GAC Public Safety Working Group to identify examples of instances where they believe they are not receiving appropriate responses -- 15 mins
> If available, a representative from the Registrar Stakeholder Group and/or the Registry Stakeholder Group to explain how registrars and registries typically respond to allegations of non-compliance in these areas and to discuss what they believe is the appropriate role of ICANN in enforcing contractual provisions addressing these issues -- 15 mins
> Open discussion to solicit views of others in attendance, to identify divergent views regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit in these areas and the appropriate interpretation and enforcement of key contractual provisions, and to determine how we can best frame these issues for further discussion at ICANN 57 in Hyderabad ? 30 minutes
>
> Please feel free to reach out to me separately if you want some more background.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> ICANN Board Director
>


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

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

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



From stephanie.perrin  Mon Jun 27 14:51:37 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:51:37 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Regarding meeting to discuss
 contractual and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying
 out activities contrary to applicable law
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521DD1EFA560209BB5B96A4F7210@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E8A465A107@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
	<67d67a31-1606-e3ab-2229-fceb1f73da87@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20160627113244.GD1206@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB521DD1EFA560209BB5B96A4F7210@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <2c9610ef-ed90-0ee7-0d4b-df1f0f48e200@mail.utoronto.ca>

Absolutely.  Live tweeting.  (joke)

Sp


On 2016-06-27 7:41, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> Sounds like a very solid group of people :-)
> Thanks all. Any chance you will find some time to report back to the list?
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> Inviato: luned? 27 giugno 2016 13.32.44
> A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Regarding meeting to discuss contractual and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to applicable law
>
> All,
>
> Time being short, I propose to go myself with Stephanie
> (we were asked to send max two people).
>
> I know I'm no expert on the subject but I should try
> to keep myself up to date on what's going on.
>
> I understand Rafik and Tatiana are also going
> to represent NCUC there, so I think we'll cope.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Jun 27 02:48, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> Headsup, this is super important, we need one of our well informed privacy
>> people to be there (cough cough yes I would volunteer).  Who is going to be
>> there?
>>
>> steph
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:      [council] Regarding meeting to discuss contractual and compliance
>> requirements that relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to
>> applicable law
>> Date:         Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:24:28 +0000
>> From:         Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>> To:   council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I want to make the GNSO council aware of the email below, by which I have invited the Chairs of key constituencies within ICANN to attend a session at ICANN 56 to encourage and enable a dialogue with interested stakeholders in the ICANN community regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit with respect to matters such as abuse, illegal activity, distribution of malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting and similar matters; and to facilitate a clearer understanding among the community of the key provisions in ICANN?s contracts that refer to such matters and the scope of ICANN?s enforcement of those provisions.
>> We recognize that we are scheduling this session on short notice, but want to take the opportunity to meet while members of the community are here in Helsinki.  One of the desired outcomes of the meeting is to discuss a structure and framework for future discussions of these issues, including at ICANN 57.   We will record the session and make a transcript available.     It is not an decisional meeting - it is an opportunity to share information and perspectives to help frame the issue.
>> As noted in the email below, due to space limitations, we have asked each of the Chairs to invite no more than two representatives to this initial session from their respective organizations.  We plan to conduct a longer session at ICANN 57 with greater capacity for participation.
>> Please feel free to coordinate with the Chairs regarding the appropriate representatives to attend this session.
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>> ICANN Board Director
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Tonkin
>> Sent: Sunday, 26 June 2016 10:20 AM
>>
>> Subject: Invitation to Meeting Monday 1500 to 1630 to discuss contractual and compliance requirements that relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to applicable law
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> This is an invitation to the chairs of the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies, as well as the chairs of GNSO, ALAC and GAC.
>>
>> As a result of discussions during a Board workshop on June 24, 2016 in Helsinki with respect to recent correspondence from the intellectual property constituency (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/shatan-to-crocker-11apr16-en.pdf),  the Board wishes to encourage and enable a dialogue with interested stakeholders in the ICANN community regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit with respect to matters such as abuse, illegal activity, distribution of malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting and similar matters; and to facilitate a clearer understanding among the community of the key provisions in ICANN?s contracts that refer to such matters and the scope of ICANN?s enforcement of those provisions.
>> We believe this will be an ongoing discussion, but we would like to begin that dialogue with a session at ICANN 56.  We are inviting each of you to attend (or send a representative to attend) a session from in Restaurant Hall 3 from 1500 to 1630 on Monday, June 27.  We will record the session and make a transcript available.  Because space in the room is limited, we ask that each of you send no more than two representatives from your respective committee/organization/group (including yourself).  I am sending this email to the Chairs of NCSG, Business Constituency, IPC, ISPs, NCUC, NPOC, RrSG, RySG, ALAC, GAC and GNSO.   We will send a separate email to the GNSO council members to make them aware of this meeting.
>>
>> We recognize that we are scheduling this session on short notice, but want to take the opportunity to meet while members of the community are here in Helsinki.  As noted below, one of the desired outcomes of the meeting is to discuss a structure and framework for future discussions of these issues, including at ICANN 57.  We plan to conduct a longer session at ICANN 57 with greater capacity for participation from the broader community.
>> The preliminary agenda for the session is as follows:
>> ICANN to identify the key relevant provisions in the registry and registrar agreements -- 15 mins
>> ICANN contractual compliance to describe the general process for investigating allegations that a registrar or registrar is not complying with one or more of these provisions -- 15 mins
>> If available, a representative from the IPC and a representative of the GAC Public Safety Working Group to identify examples of instances where they believe they are not receiving appropriate responses -- 15 mins
>> If available, a representative from the Registrar Stakeholder Group and/or the Registry Stakeholder Group to explain how registrars and registries typically respond to allegations of non-compliance in these areas and to discuss what they believe is the appropriate role of ICANN in enforcing contractual provisions addressing these issues -- 15 mins
>> Open discussion to solicit views of others in attendance, to identify divergent views regarding the scope of ICANN?s responsibilities and remit in these areas and the appropriate interpretation and enforcement of key contractual provisions, and to determine how we can best frame these issues for further discussion at ICANN 57 in Hyderabad ? 30 minutes
>>
>> Please feel free to reach out to me separately if you want some more background.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>> ICANN Board Director
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160627/2175948e/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Mon Jun 27 16:09:08 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:09:08 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Moving forward: PC in Trello Re:  PC using Trello
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2xOm_j8AqssV7j2jAg6Xo3ZUkTPz8N35ExzAtUr7Cn5A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear colleagues from the PC,

This is a follow-up of the message sent to the list (below) about the use
of Trello by the Policy Committee. We have just added all PC members to the
platform. We believe it will be a key instrument for streamlining the work
of the PC, specially in this time of heavy work in PDPs.

Maryam has just sent invitations to all of you. Could you kindly make sure
that you accept the invitation and also set your preferences to receive
notifications immediately? This way you will receive e-mails with updates
about the "card" of the task you have subscribed to.

Next week we will organize a call to give a tour of of Trello and its
features to PC members. Maryam will send a doodle so we can identify the
best day and time for it.

Thank you very much for setting your accounts. We are almost ready to go
there.

All the best wishes,
Marilia, Matthew and Dave

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Great, thanks for doing this.  I do not have a clue about Trello but will
> sign up, brace yourself for dumb questions.
> cheers Steph
>
>
> On 2016-04-14 10:14, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Today Rafik and Maryam kindly gave a tour to Matt and I showing us how
> they have been using Trello <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trello> to
> organise NCSG work, particularly when it comes to public comments. We
> believe this could be an important tool to keep the PC running smoothly by
> providing us an efficient way to share and keep track of tasks.
>
> We know many of us already have Trello accounts, but could you please
> check if you do and, if not, could you create an account in the next days?
> Interaction over Trello is encouraged to all NCSG members, but we would
> like to make it more effectively used, focusing on its adoption by members
> of the policy committee, as a start, if all agree.
>
> Maryam will follow-up with the members of the PC and help us so we make
> sure we are ready to use it smoothy by the end of the present month.
>
> Does it sound ok to everyone?
>
> All the best
> Mar?lia
>
>
>
> --
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -  <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> http://www.politics.org.br/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160627/ae9c6d9c/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Mon Jun 27 17:03:37 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:03:37 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle Poll for Trello Training
Message-ID: <D3970CDE.20F42%maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>

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/20160627/4352ff3b/attachment.html>


From mshears  Tue Jun 28 12:18:02 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:18:02 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH GNSO Futures Discussion Group - meeting tomorrow Wed
In-Reply-To: <20160628090748.GB11940@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20160628090748.GB11940@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <5f801ec8-8ee0-daba-c459-e14d76238b58@cdt.org>

Hi all

Following on from the emails from Maryam and Tapani  these are the 
questions that were asked earlier this year (post NCPH) and a 
compilation of which will be discussed tomorrow.

If you are available to attend please do so.  If there are specific 
issues related to the questions you think should be raised in the 
meeting please share them here.

Thanks.

Matthew


----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----

Subject: [Ncph-gnsofutures] INPUT REQUEST: NCPH GNSO Futures Discussion Group
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:16:57 +0100
From: tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
To: ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org
List-Id: NCPH GNSO Futures <ncph-gnsofutures.icann.org>

Dear NCPH Delegates and Community Members,

  

As a reminder, we are requesting your valuable feedback to help shape our discussion over the next few months and have extended the deadline for input to 11th May.

  

Specifically we require input on the following items:

  

1. to identify 3 key challenges facing ICANN, and 3 key challenges facing GNSO,

2. to revise a list of questions first shared during the Intersessional. These questions will help guide the discussion group moving forward and can be reviewed at,  <https://community.icann.org/x/5kiAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/5kiAAw .

  

  

Kindly send your responses/feedback to Chantelle Doerksen,  <mailto:chantelle.doerksen at icann.org> chantelle.doerksen at icann.org, by no later than 11 MAY 2016 at 23:59 UTC.

Chantelle will collect the responses, and work with Maryam Bakoshi, Rudi Vansnick, and Tony Holmes, to compile/organize them for the next call.

  

The next call will be scheduled after May 11th. Call recordings, transcripts, and other relevant materials will be available on the Wiki Space,  https://community.icann.org/x/ckaAAw. The purpose of this space is collaborative and facilitate further discussion. As such, your input is greatly appreciated to ensure this space is effective for community members within the NCPH.

  

We look forward to hearing from you and request that any input/comments that you may have be submitted.

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  




From stephanie.perrin  Tue Jun 28 15:51:44 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:51:44 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Slides on contractual requirements that
 relate to registrants carrying out activities contrary to applicable law
In-Reply-To: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E8A46752F9@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E8A46752F9@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <9e618210-0888-c54d-d4bf-b9e951fb7061@mail.utoronto.ca>

Slides from the extraordinary meeting yesterday.

No transcript yet.

Stephanie



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Slides on contractual requirements that relate to 
registrants carrying out activities contrary to applicable law
Date: 	Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:47:56 +0000
From: 	Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Hello All,

Attached is a copy of the slides presented by Allen Grogan in the session yesterday.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160628/b6ed8cbb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Key Contract Provisions Re Abuse.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 188516 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160628/b6ed8cbb/attachment-0001.pdf>


From ncsg  Tue Jun 28 17:30:30 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:30:30 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO-GAC meeting on Wed
Message-ID: <20160628143030.GA9880@roller.tarvainen.info>

As you probably have noticed, the NCUC session tomorrow overlaps
with GNSO-GAC meeting. Who's going where? Should we coordinate?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From mariliamaciel  Tue Jun 28 18:06:00 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:06:00 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO-GAC meeting on Wed
In-Reply-To: <20160628143030.GA9880@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20160628143030.GA9880@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0D4M8hcZLuq1Em9Y9fOKrixKY6ZDWByDO6w2682xHx+A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani,
Anyone is free to go anywhere:) In my personal view, NCUCers would be
better off in NCUC session. When it comes to GNSO councillors, I think each
one should evaluate what to do. If they are not working on particular
agenda items that will be debated tomorrow, we should be flexible and
accept they go to constituency.  The absence of colleagues that may decide
to go to NCUC should be justified and we should formally complain on the
mic tomorrow and via NCUC leadership about this obvious clash that harms
discussions in our constituency.
Marilia

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> As you probably have noticed, the NCUC session tomorrow overlaps
> with GNSO-GAC meeting. Who's going where? Should we coordinate?
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160628/c035b623/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Jun 29 00:20:37 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:20:37 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised IPC Motion
Message-ID: <974FACC7-9DB5-4113-A861-DC7A6C27FA6D@toast.net>

Hi everyone,

I just received this revised IPC motion  concerning creation of a drafting team to implement GNSO reforms associated with the transition. It certainly leaves much to be desired.

At our PC meeting yesterday (congrats to Marilia, Matt and David - our PC leadership team - for putting together one of the best NCSG PC meetings I've attended !) the importance of having Team members selected in numbers equal to and in proportion of SG representation was stressed. This revised motion contains no such guarantees. We need to work with other SG's - particularly those in the CPH - to ensure that it does. 

Best,

Ed

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: REVISED - MOTION TO CREATE A DRAFTING TEAM TO FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDA....docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 27744 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160629/5ff3313b/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------



Sent from my iPhone


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jun 29 01:27:14 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:27:14 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO-GAC meeting on Wed
In-Reply-To: <20160628143030.GA9880@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20160628143030.GA9880@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <7eb4099f-b12e-95bb-6f7e-0e745967ec2b@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think I can watch the GAC meeting from the NCUC meeting... not sure 
that my presence is required there or would even be noticed, so perhaps 
I will come to the NCUC meeting.

Steph


On 2016-06-28 10:30, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> As you probably have noticed, the NCUC session tomorrow overlaps
> with GNSO-GAC meeting. Who's going where? Should we coordinate?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160628/f861d14e/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Jun 29 06:45:43 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 06:45:43 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Revised Motion on Drafting Team/Empowerment
In-Reply-To: <019c01d1d180$22e8db80$68ba9280$@paulmcgrady.com>
References: <019c01d1d180$22e8db80$68ba9280$@paulmcgrady.com>
Message-ID: <291e97df-74b8-a80e-e651-950ce85cbf46@apc.org>

Hi,

In terms of the changes, I find it problematic that is still refers
solely to modifying bylaws.  I think most of the work will involve
modifying operating procedures and thus the council should consider the
following ammendment:

> 2. The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the GNSO
> community which are identified by their Constituencies and Stakeholder
> Groups who express interests and can demonstrate reasonable knowledge
> of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws. 
> Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify
> volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by 22 July 2016.

to

2. The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the GNSO
community which are identified by their Constituencies and Stakeholder
Groups who express interests and can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of
or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws _or GNSO
operating procedures_.  Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are
requested to identify volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by
22 July 2016.

avri

On 29-Jun-16 00:00, Paul McGrady wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>  
>
> Attached is a revised version (with track changes) of my motion which
> we discussed on Monday.  Thank you all for your input into improving
> this.  I look forward to discussing the revised version with you all soon.
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>  
>
> Paul McGrady
>
> policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>
>
>  
>
>  
>



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




From avri  Wed Jun 29 07:16:26 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:16:26 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO-GAC meeting on Wed
In-Reply-To: <7eb4099f-b12e-95bb-6f7e-0e745967ec2b@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20160628143030.GA9880@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<7eb4099f-b12e-95bb-6f7e-0e745967ec2b@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <ca9b7db0-6da5-c30f-021c-a34ecc544ea0@apc.org>

Hi,

since my coming here was funded as a council alternate, i figure I will
stick with the council track and go to the GAC-GNSO mtg.

avri


On 29-Jun-16 01:27, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I think I can watch the GAC meeting from the NCUC meeting... not sure
> that my presence is required there or would even be noticed, so
> perhaps I will come to the NCUC meeting.
>
> Steph
>
>
> On 2016-06-28 10:30, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> As you probably have noticed, the NCUC session tomorrow overlaps
>> with GNSO-GAC meeting. Who's going where? Should we coordinate?
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jun 29 08:14:45 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:14:45 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO-GAC meeting on Wed
In-Reply-To: <ca9b7db0-6da5-c30f-021c-a34ecc544ea0@apc.org>
References: <20160628143030.GA9880@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<7eb4099f-b12e-95bb-6f7e-0e745967ec2b@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<ca9b7db0-6da5-c30f-021c-a34ecc544ea0@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20160629051445.GA14961@roller.tarvainen.info>

I guess in principle councillors should be in the GAC session,
but I think we're ok as long as we've got all issues covered.
That is, for every issue there should be at least one councillor
present who knows it well.

(But, though I do suspect Avri knows everything, let's not
leave her alone there anyway.)

--
Tapani

On Jun 29 07:16, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> since my coming here was funded as a council alternate, i figure I will
> stick with the council track and go to the GAC-GNSO mtg.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 29-Jun-16 01:27, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >
> > I think I can watch the GAC meeting from the NCUC meeting... not sure
> > that my presence is required there or would even be noticed, so
> > perhaps I will come to the NCUC meeting.
> >
> > Steph
> >
> >
> > On 2016-06-28 10:30, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >> As you probably have noticed, the NCUC session tomorrow overlaps
> >> with GNSO-GAC meeting. Who's going where? Should we coordinate?



From Stefania.Milan  Wed Jun 29 09:07:29 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 06:07:29 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO-GAC meeting on Wed
In-Reply-To: <20160629051445.GA14961@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20160628143030.GA9880@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<7eb4099f-b12e-95bb-6f7e-0e745967ec2b@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<ca9b7db0-6da5-c30f-021c-a34ecc544ea0@apc.org>,
	<20160629051445.GA14961@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <08824CBB-9A48-423E-B35A-D46F3F182014@EUI.eu>

I will go to the meeting with the GAC, at least for the first half

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 08:15, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
> I guess in principle councillors should be in the GAC session,
> but I think we're ok as long as we've got all issues covered.
> That is, for every issue there should be at least one councillor
> present who knows it well.
>
> (But, though I do suspect Avri knows everything, let's not
> leave her alone there anyway.)
>
> --
> Tapani
>
>> On Jun 29 07:16, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> since my coming here was funded as a council alternate, i figure I will
>> stick with the council track and go to the GAC-GNSO mtg.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>> On 29-Jun-16 01:27, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I can watch the GAC meeting from the NCUC meeting... not sure
>>> that my presence is required there or would even be noticed, so
>>> perhaps I will come to the NCUC meeting.
>>>
>>> Steph
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2016-06-28 10:30, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>> As you probably have noticed, the NCUC session tomorrow overlaps
>>>> with GNSO-GAC meeting. Who's going where? Should we coordinate?
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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



From avri  Wed Jun 29 09:43:20 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 09:43:20 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting
	Team/Empowerment
In-Reply-To: <002d01d1d1cf$90e72d40$b2b587c0$@paulmcgrady.com>
References: <002d01d1d1cf$90e72d40$b2b587c0$@paulmcgrady.com>
Message-ID: <71b84cc0-b54e-5a8f-2564-54899e76691b@apc.org>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	RE: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting Team/Empowerment
Date: 	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 01:29:16 -0500
From: 	Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
To: 	'avri doria' <avri at apc.org>, council at gnso.icann.org



Avri,

Thank you for this very friendly amendment!  I appreciate your help
improving this motion.

Best,
Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of avri doria
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:46 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting Team/Empowerment


Hi,

In terms of the changes, I find it problematic that is still refers solely
to modifying bylaws.  I think most of the work will involve modifying
operating procedures and thus the council should consider the following
ammendment:

> 2. The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the GNSO 
> community which are identified by their Constituencies and Stakeholder 
> Groups who express interests and can demonstrate reasonable knowledge 
> of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws.
> Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify 
> volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by 22 July 2016.

to

2. The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the GNSO community
which are identified by their Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups who
express interests and can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience
with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws _or GNSO operating
procedures_.  Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are requested to
identify volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by
22 July 2016.

avri

On 29-Jun-16 00:00, Paul McGrady wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>  
>
> Attached is a revised version (with track changes) of my motion which 
> we discussed on Monday.  Thank you all for your input into improving 
> this.  I look forward to discussing the revised version with you all soon.
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>  
>
> Paul McGrady
>
> policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>
>
>  
>
>  
>



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





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




From mshears  Wed Jun 29 11:40:16 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:40:16 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised IPC Motion
In-Reply-To: <974FACC7-9DB5-4113-A861-DC7A6C27FA6D@toast.net>
References: <974FACC7-9DB5-4113-A861-DC7A6C27FA6D@toast.net>
Message-ID: <152edaa4-76a2-cf45-e796-360ebaeb3c83@cdt.org>

I thought yesterday that we agreed that while bylaws ad operating 
procedures knowledge were important criteria we did not want to shut out 
others?

I agree with Avri's edit that she has circulated to this list and would 
like to add anothers to reflect the above (and to remove "can 
demonstrate reasonable " which is subjective and awkward):

2. The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the GNSO
community which are identified by their Constituencies and Stakeholder
Groups who express interests*and/or have a*  [can demonstrate reasonable] knowledge of
or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws _or GNSO
operating procedures_.  Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are
requested to identify volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by
22 July 2016.

If we want this to be done at the SG level do we need/want a reference 
to constituencies?

Matthew

On 6/29/2016 12:20 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just received this revised IPC motion  concerning creation of a drafting team to implement GNSO reforms associated with the transition. It certainly leaves much to be desired.
>
> At our PC meeting yesterday (congrats to Marilia, Matt and David - our PC leadership team - for putting together one of the best NCSG PC meetings I've attended !) the importance of having Team members selected in numbers equal to and in proportion of SG representation was stressed. This revised motion contains no such guarantees. We need to work with other SG's - particularly those in the CPH - to ensure that it does.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160629/35373a29/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Wed Jun 29 11:48:29 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:48:29 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised IPC Motion
In-Reply-To: <152edaa4-76a2-cf45-e796-360ebaeb3c83@cdt.org>
References: <974FACC7-9DB5-4113-A861-DC7A6C27FA6D@toast.net>
	<152edaa4-76a2-cf45-e796-360ebaeb3c83@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <20160629084829.GC17892@roller.tarvainen.info>

On Jun 29 11:40, Matthew Shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:

> 2. The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the GNSO
> community which are identified by their Constituencies and
> Stakeholder Groups who express interests*and/or have a* [can
> demonstrate reasonable] knowledge of or experience with the process
> of revising the ICANN Bylaws _or GNSO operating procedures_.
> Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify
> volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by 22 July 2016.

Question: who should they demonstrate their knowledge or experience?

To me such language suggests SGs/constituencies would not be allowed
to choose their own representatives but only suggest then for someone
higher up to approve, or not.

> If we want this to be done at the SG level do we need/want a reference to
> constituencies?

Don't we want language to ensure there will be enough our people,
that is, something explicitly specifying equal numbers by SG
(by constituency count we'd lose)?

Or am I missing something?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From mshears  Wed Jun 29 11:51:41 2016
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:51:41 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised IPC Motion
In-Reply-To: <20160629084829.GC17892@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <974FACC7-9DB5-4113-A861-DC7A6C27FA6D@toast.net>
	<152edaa4-76a2-cf45-e796-360ebaeb3c83@cdt.org>
	<20160629084829.GC17892@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <4d325c11-baa4-7da3-9a8a-5fe475f04fa6@cdt.org>

See inline


On 6/29/2016 11:48 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> On Jun 29 11:40, Matthew Shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>
>> 2. The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the GNSO
>> community which are identified by their Constituencies and
>> Stakeholder Groups who express interests*and/or have a* [can
>> demonstrate reasonable] knowledge of or experience with the process
>> of revising the ICANN Bylaws _or GNSO operating procedures_.
>> Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify
>> volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by 22 July 2016.
> Question: who should they demonstrate their knowledge or experience?
I am suggesting that the language in the brackets be taken out.
>
> To me such language suggests SGs/constituencies would not be allowed
> to choose their own representatives but only suggest then for someone
> higher up to approve, or not.
Agree - "select" would be better
>
>> If we want this to be done at the SG level do we need/want a reference to
>> constituencies?
> Don't we want language to ensure there will be enough our people,
> that is, something explicitly specifying equal numbers by SG
> (by constituency count we'd lose)?
>
> Or am I missing something?
Agree.
>

-- 

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




From ncsg  Wed Jun 29 11:57:47 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:57:47 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised IPC Motion
In-Reply-To: <4d325c11-baa4-7da3-9a8a-5fe475f04fa6@cdt.org>
References: <974FACC7-9DB5-4113-A861-DC7A6C27FA6D@toast.net>
	<152edaa4-76a2-cf45-e796-360ebaeb3c83@cdt.org>
	<20160629084829.GC17892@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4d325c11-baa4-7da3-9a8a-5fe475f04fa6@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <20160629085747.GD17892@roller.tarvainen.info>

On Jun 29 11:51, Matthew Shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:

> >>2. The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the GNSO
> >>community which are identified by their Constituencies and
> >>Stakeholder Groups who express interests*and/or have a* [can
> >>demonstrate reasonable] knowledge of or experience with the process
> >>of revising the ICANN Bylaws _or GNSO operating procedures_.
> >>Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify
> >>volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by 22 July 2016.
> >Question: who should they demonstrate their knowledge or experience?

> I am suggesting that the language in the brackets be taken out.

Ah. So we're in perfect agreement there.

> >To me such language suggests SGs/constituencies would not be allowed
> >to choose their own representatives but only suggest then for someone
> >higher up to approve, or not.
> Agree - "select" would be better

Yes.

> >>If we want this to be done at the SG level do we need/want a reference to
> >>constituencies?
> >Don't we want language to ensure there will be enough our people,
> >that is, something explicitly specifying equal numbers by SG
> >(by constituency count we'd lose)?
> >
> >Or am I missing something?
> Agree.

So something like "... are selected by their Stakeholder Groups ..."?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From mariliamaciel  Wed Jun 29 12:26:33 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:26:33 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting Team/Empowerment
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3XJCbMQGKKW77p8VVb7UEaV8Z05pPR5CD2D4cTGZ+hsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <019c01d1d180$22e8db80$68ba9280$@paulmcgrady.com>
	<57737577.5010700@julf.com>
	<CACpVkK3XJCbMQGKKW77p8VVb7UEaV8Z05pPR5CD2D4cTGZ+hsA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2qcdz1TmParBCXOcvW_TQJEF7aaBT5XQUa4=67bzOQTw@mail.gmail.com>

Please, see a proposal of amendment that attempts to translate the outcome
of our discussions in the PC yesterday.
Thanks
Marilia

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting Team/Empowerment
To: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
Cc: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <
council at gnso.icann.org>


Dear colleagues,

I support the friendly amendments proposed by Avri with some additional
points. From NCSG's perspective it is important that the members of the
group are appointed by GNSO stakeholder groups. How each SG will carry out
their internal process of selection (consulting their constituencies, for
instance) is a matter for each SG to define, of course. We also believe
that it is important that the group is small and manageable. We believe
that the best way to achieve that in a fair and balanced manner is to have
a group comprised by an equal number of volunteers per SG. Please see our
suggested paragraph below.

We hope that these suggestions can be accepted as friendly amendments and
we look forward to further discuss these points in our informal GNSO
session tonight.

All the best wishes,
Marilia

2. The Drafting Team shall comprise an equal number of volunteers from and
selected by each stakeholder group of the GNSO

community. Volunteers should express interest and reasonable knowledge or
experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO operating
procedures.  Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify volunteers by
letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by

22 July 2016.




On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:

>
> Paul,
>
> "The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the
>  GNSO community which are identified by their Constituencies
>  and Stakeholder Groups"
>
> Does that mean NCA's are excluded, or are NCA's considered
> to be their own 1-person stakeholder groups?
>
>         Julf
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160629/a512f48f/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Jun 29 17:00:03 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:00:03 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting
	Team/Empowerment
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2qcdz1TmParBCXOcvW_TQJEF7aaBT5XQUa4=67bzOQTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <019c01d1d180$22e8db80$68ba9280$@paulmcgrady.com>
	<57737577.5010700@julf.com>
	<CACpVkK3XJCbMQGKKW77p8VVb7UEaV8Z05pPR5CD2D4cTGZ+hsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2qcdz1TmParBCXOcvW_TQJEF7aaBT5XQUa4=67bzOQTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B14FF432-0433-47F8-8242-24BBE6012AB1@ipjustice.org>

Thank you, Marilia, this is a VERY important amendment to make.  We need parity in that group among the SGs.

Good luck in Helsinki on this!!

Best,
Robin

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 2:26 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Please, see a proposal of amendment that attempts to translate the outcome of our discussions in the PC yesterday.
> Thanks 
> Marilia
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
> Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting Team/Empowerment
> To: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>>
> Cc: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>, "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> 
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I support the friendly amendments proposed by Avri with some additional points. From NCSG's perspective it is important that the members of the group are appointed by GNSO stakeholder groups. How each SG will carry out their internal process of selection (consulting their constituencies, for instance) is a matter for each SG to define, of course. We also believe that it is important that the group is small and manageable. We believe that the best way to achieve that in a fair and balanced manner is to have a group comprised by an equal number of volunteers per SG. Please see our suggested paragraph below. 
> 
> We hope that these suggestions can be accepted as friendly amendments and we look forward to further discuss these points in our informal GNSO session tonight.
> 
> All the best wishes,
> Marilia 
> 
> 2. The Drafting Team shall comprise an equal number of volunteers from and selected by each stakeholder group of the GNSO
> 
> community. Volunteers should express interest and reasonable knowledge or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO operating procedures.  Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by
> 
> 
> 22 July 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>> wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> 
> "The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the
>  GNSO community which are identified by their Constituencies
>  and Stakeholder Groups"
> 
> Does that mean NCA's are excluded, or are NCA's considered
> to be their own 1-person stakeholder groups?
> 
>         Julf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160629/28752033/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Wed Jun 29 19:37:15 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 19:37:15 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting
	Team/Empowerment
In-Reply-To: <B14FF432-0433-47F8-8242-24BBE6012AB1@ipjustice.org>
References: <019c01d1d180$22e8db80$68ba9280$@paulmcgrady.com>
	<57737577.5010700@julf.com>
	<CACpVkK3XJCbMQGKKW77p8VVb7UEaV8Z05pPR5CD2D4cTGZ+hsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK2qcdz1TmParBCXOcvW_TQJEF7aaBT5XQUa4=67bzOQTw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B14FF432-0433-47F8-8242-24BBE6012AB1@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK01VtoHknCV4=TWKETm3c6QOvOr14_5gB26F8m+jjB4Yw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all, we just discussed the topic in the council meeting.

Paul McGrady did not consider our amendment a friendly amendment. The
consensus proposal now on the table says:
a) that the drafting group should reflect the composition of the council.
McGrady spoke about reflecting the council at constituency level, but I did
not see it captured on screen;
b) The motion now mentions that the drafting group should decide by
consensus;
c) The output of the drafting group needs to be approved by supermajority
at the council.

Since we had a clear position about it coming from the PC meeting, I am
running this through you to make sure that everyone has the chance to voice
concerns. The vote on this motion will take place tomorrow.

Thanks
Marilia

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Thank you, Marilia, this is a VERY important amendment to make.  We need
> parity in that group among the SGs.
>
> Good luck in Helsinki on this!!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 2:26 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Please, see a proposal of amendment that attempts to translate the outcome
> of our discussions in the PC yesterday.
> Thanks
> Marilia
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting Team/Empowerment
> To: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
> Cc: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I support the friendly amendments proposed by Avri with some additional
> points. From NCSG's perspective it is important that the members of the
> group are appointed by GNSO stakeholder groups. How each SG will carry out
> their internal process of selection (consulting their constituencies, for
> instance) is a matter for each SG to define, of course. We also believe
> that it is important that the group is small and manageable. We believe
> that the best way to achieve that in a fair and balanced manner is to have
> a group comprised by an equal number of volunteers per SG. Please see our
> suggested paragraph below.
>
> We hope that these suggestions can be accepted as friendly amendments and
> we look forward to further discuss these points in our informal GNSO
> session tonight.
>
> All the best wishes,
> Marilia
>
> 2. The Drafting Team shall comprise an equal number of volunteers from and
> selected by each stakeholder group of the GNSO
>
> community. Volunteers should express interest and reasonable knowledge or
> experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO operating
> procedures.  Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify volunteers by
> letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by
>
> 22 July 2016.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> "The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the
>>  GNSO community which are identified by their Constituencies
>>  and Stakeholder Groups"
>>
>> Does that mean NCA's are excluded, or are NCA's considered
>> to be their own 1-person stakeholder groups?
>>
>>         Julf
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160629/801ff321/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Jun 29 21:00:13 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:00:13 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Motion
Message-ID: <B9591EEE-FC67-4E91-AAC5-6BC38EB8776B@toast.net>

Hi everyone,

Here is the revised motion that will be offered tomorrow, assuming a sign off by the proposer and seconder. I think we've achieved a good result as a result of tonight's discussion, combined with the earlier amendments and proposals. We'll be voting on it at tomorrow's Council meeting so if someone disagrees or spots something that we should discuss please highlight ASAP.

Thanks,

Ed

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MOTION Clean version ? 29 JUNE 2016.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 123751 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160629/4f62754a/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------



Sent from my iPhone


From egmorris1  Wed Jun 29 23:45:12 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:45:12 +0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] transition budget
Message-ID: <8469486D-246D-4AF4-A40A-D4B292D81E2E@toast.net>

Hello,

Attached please find a memo concerning the budget and cost controls being implemented for transition related activities going forward.

We will be beginning our GNSO discussion on the proposal during tomorrow morning's Council meeting as an AOB item. 

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

Thanks,

Ed

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Cost Control Mechanisms for Transition and Accountability Work in FY17V1.1BT-TC-SE.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 367202 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160629/92562b39/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------



Sent from my iPhone