From stephanie.perrin Tue Mar 1 05:08:19 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:08:19 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG In-Reply-To: <07A12605-BCBD-4881-BE2C-D1542055E9EF@egyptig.org> References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E1E082987@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> <07A12605-BCBD-4881-BE2C-D1542055E9EF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <56D507A3.3060006@mail.utoronto.ca> Great summary Amr, and thanks for taking on the fight! It does seem a little hopeless. Maybe I am just depressed by the frost-bite warnings we are getting here on the Eve of March 1.... cheers Steph On 2016-02-29 9:53, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Following up on the topic of the RPMs review again. Fellow Councillors > will have seen this email from Phil proposing a motion to adopt a > charter for the PDP WG. > > Negotiations on the Council sub-team did not turn out well at all, as > you will have gathered. As Phil reports, the sub-team did not achieve > consensus, and the charter remains unchanged in that regard. Let me > try to convey my perspective of what?s going on. > > First, we have to assume that we are the only group within the GNSO > that is not in a rush to get a new round of new gTLDs going. The > contracted parties, naturally, have an interest in doing this, and the > BC and IPC seem to have an interest in applications for new brand > gTLDs. There is concern among all of them that a review of the UDRP > has the potential to take years, which would mean if that goes first, > it will delay the process for a subsequent round of new gTLDs. The > dependancy of the PDP for the new gTLDs subsequent procedures on this > one?s review of the RPMs is the major concern. > > During the sub-team calls, I?ve had to defend the NCSG?s desire of a > UDRP review preceding the review of the RPMs for the new gTLD a number > of times, but have also always tried to keep the discussion on the > process to review input, rather than the substantive issue. My > argument was that the NCSG input hadn?t received the due consideration > by the community, as it was not part of the preliminary issues report, > which was subject to public comment. We used to have reply periods to > public comments, but that is not the case any more. > > At this point, the NCSG input has been considered by: > > 1. Policy staff, in their review of the public comments, and > preparation of the final issues report. Staff did note that other > options for methods to tackle this PDP were provided, but recommended > to proceed with the current two-phased approach. Apart from our input, > there was input from the WIPO and INTA recommending that no review of > the UDRP be conducted at all, and that the GNSO should limit its > review to the new gTLD RPMs. > > 2. A sub-team of the GNSO Council limited to councillors from the > NCSG, IPC and BC. > > This is the language I finally proposed as alternative language in the > charter under ?Mission and Scope?: > >> This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all >> RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One will focus on a review of >> all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase >> Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. However, because additional >> approaches beyond those initially noted in the Preliminary Issue >> Report had been suggested as part of public comments to that report, >> the Working Group is requested to perform the following task during >> the development of its initial Work Plan: consider whether or not >> reversing Phases One and Two, such that the review of the UDRP takes >> place during Phase One, is a preferable approach. If there is >> consensus (as determined by the Working Group chair(s) in >> consultation with the GNSO Council liaison) to proceed in this >> manner, the Working Group shall submit a request to amend its Charter >> to the GNSO Council, who shall consider whether or not to grant the >> request in light of information it considers relevant, including the >> progress of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) >> Review Team and the GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. In >> the absence of consensus to change the two-phased approach, the >> Working Group shall proceed with the two-phased approach already in >> place. > > This was basically an attempt of mine to ask for the WG to consider > the NCSG input, while respecting the input provided by other groups. > After considerable debate that was going nowhere, I was hoping this > would make the proposal less unappealing to the BC and IPC. They > didn?t budge. I suspect that CPH has no interest in budging either. A > repeated argument by the IPC was that the NCSG input was being > considered by the GNSO Council, and no further consideration is > necessary. I don?t agree with this. > > What we can do at this point is suggest changes to the charter to the > GNSO Council in response to Phil?s motion (below). What would happen > then is that the Council would vote on the two versions of the charter > (the one we suggest vs. the current draft), with a simple majority of > each house required to support either one. I don?t believe we would > win this vote. As I said, unless I?m missing something, we have no > support within the GNSO on this. > > Following this vote, a vote in response to the motion to adopt the > charter would take place requiring a very low voting threshold to pass > (1/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of one house). > > I am certainly open to suggestion on how to proceed, but now the ball > is in the full Council?s court. My suggestion is to proceed with > suggesting the language I had suggested to the sub-team. I don?t > believe we will manage to get this passed, but it is an option. > Furthermore, to be honest, if we do somehow pass this on Council, I > don?t believe the PDP WG will agree to making the charter change that > we are asking for after it is discussed at that level. I?m offering > what I believe to be a realistic assessment following about a month of > debating this issue. > > Since this discussion began, we did get two minor wins: > > 1. We moved the list of issues to be discussed by the WG (including > NCSG?s inputs in our comment) from an annex of the issue report to the > charter itself. This was certainly a good thing, although possibly not > crucial. The NCSG input was captured accurately in the staff report, > and would have been in scope of the PDP under the first scenario, > although it may have taken a little bit of a debate to have it considered. > > 2. This language was added to the background of the PDP in the charter > to stress that the purpose of the PDP is not limited to the protection > of trademarks: > > As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection > mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs > to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the > gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect > registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names. > > Again?, this is a good thing, but given how the STI group?s final > recommendations are phrased, we would have (possibly after another > debate on the WG) this part pertaining to protection of legitimate > registrations also be given its due respect. > > The one change that was truly significant (reversal of the two phases) > is the one we didn?t get. > > I apologize for the length of this email, but thought to try to keep > you all as informed as possible on what?s going on. > > Would very much welcome the thoughts of others. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Phil Corwin > >> *Subject: **[council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG* >> *Date: *February 29, 2016 at 2:32:50 AM GMT+2 >> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org " >> > >> *Cc: *"Mary Wong (mary.wong at icann.org )" >> > >> >> Councilors: >> On behalf of the subgroup which met twice this past week to discuss >> the best way to conduct a PDP on the review of all RPMs in all gTLDs, >> I am pleased to forward for your consideration updated versions of >> the Motion and draft Charter for same._I am hereby proposing them in >> order to meet the deadline for items to be considered by the Council >> in Marrakech._ >> The Motion has been altered since the version that we adopted at the >> last Council meeting to include a reference to our subgroup. >> The Charter has been altered to include a new clause in the second >> sentence of the first paragraph under ?Background?, as follows (new >> language in Bold): >> As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection >> mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and >> costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion >> of the gTLD namespace,*which included certain safeguards to protect >> registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names*: the >> Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse >> (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise >> periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the >> Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs). >> That language was offered by Amr and was deemed non-controversial by >> members of the subgroup. >> The subgroup was unable to reach consensus to include draft Charter >> language proposed by Amr to subsection (a) of the Mission and Scope >> portion of the Charter. That language would have delegated to the WG >> the decision as to whether the two-phased approach should start first >> with review of new gTLD RPMs or of the UDRP. However, there was >> general consensus among subgroup members that, as the rationale for >> such delegation of decision-making was that some public comments had >> taken positions not included within the three staff options contained >> in the Preliminary Issues Report, the WG should, if Council does not >> decide scope and priorities, be free to consider any public comment >> suggestions beyond the staff options ? which would include the >> comments of WIPO and INTA that the UDRP should not undergo any review >> at all. >> It will be up to Amr and other supporters of altering the Charter to >> decide whether they wish to offer such a decisional delegation >> amendment to the draft Charter when we meet in Marrakech. >> Let me know if any of you have questions. >> Safe travel to Marrakech, and best regards, >> Philip >> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* >> *Virtualaw LLC* >> *1155 F Street, NW* >> *Suite 1050* >> *Washington, DC 20004* >> *202-559-8597/Direct* >> *202-559-8750/Fax* >> *202-255-6172/cell*** >> ** >> *Twitter: @VlawDC* >> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/* > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue Mar 1 16:47:35 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 16:47:35 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org> <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> Hi, Thanks for those nominations Ed. Marilia, Matt and David?, please indicate your acceptance (or lack thereof) before the nomination deadline (Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59). The nomination period is still open, and more nominations/self-nominations are welcome. And again?, if there are any questions or concerns with the election timetable, please raise them. Thanks. Amr > On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > It's time to reboot our policy committee and fortunately we have great people who can do it! > > > I am very proud to nominate Marillia Maciel as Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee. I'm so excited by this nomination. The PC is something we've had trouble with over the years and Marilia has the perfect skill set to make it both operational and effective. She knows the wide range of issues involved, she knows the personalities and she knows how to manage people and priorities. I hope she will accept this nomination. > > She'll need help from all of us though. I hereby pledge to up my production of public comments and to mentor new members who want to help do the same. I hope other PC members, from both the NPOC and the NCUC, will pitch in and help us up our production of public comments in the coming year. > > In a more formal vein, though, I've noticed on list two PC members who are willing to help in a formal way. Let's give Marilia all the help she can undoubtedly use. > > I wish to nominate both Matthew Shears and David Cake for the position of Vice Chairs of the Policy Committee. David brings the experience that comes with being both the former VC of the GNSO Council and Chair of the NCUC. Matt brings a comparatively fresher perspective to the role but his intelligence, diplomacy and hard work have made him a key member of our PC and community in recent times. > > Marilia, Matt and David - a team that can make our policy committee an effective and key part of the NCSG's advocacy for noncommercial users at ICANN. Let's hope they accept these nominations and we can come to Marrakech and hit the ground running! > > Best, > > Ed > > > >> On 29 Feb 2016, at 07:31, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week: >> >> Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s). >> >> You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know. >> >> We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition. >> >> If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote: >>> >>>> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member? >>> >>> Yes. From NCSG charter: >>> >>> "2.5.3. NCSG?PC Leadership >>> >>> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the >>> NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis. >>> - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role. >>> >>> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis." >>> >>> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply >>> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair. >>> >>> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not >>> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for >>> argument that observers would be members but not "full members", >>> but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.) >>> >>> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several >>> Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help. >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From maryam.bakoshi Tue Mar 1 19:26:03 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:26:03 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Civil Society Community Outreach Event Reception | 05 March 2016 | 18:30 - 20:00 | J. Andalou Message-ID: <45210e5a3a1443eebc08b36da2077db9@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> - https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/sat-ncuc-outreach-reception -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 1753 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maryam.bakoshi Tue Mar 1 19:44:19 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:44:19 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Reception and Informal Meeting: CSG with the NCSG [C] | 09 March 2016 |18:30 - 19:30 | Jardin Andalou Message-ID: <8ee4d0c5fdb04f429171e8d09f364d58@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> - https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-ncph-csg-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 1760 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dave Tue Mar 1 20:00:24 2016 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 02:00:24 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org> <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> I accept the nomination David > On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:47 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for those nominations Ed. > > Marilia, Matt and David?, please indicate your acceptance (or lack thereof) before the nomination deadline (Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59). > > The nomination period is still open, and more nominations/self-nominations are welcome. And again?, if there are any questions or concerns with the election timetable, please raise them. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> It's time to reboot our policy committee and fortunately we have great people who can do it! >> >> >> I am very proud to nominate Marillia Maciel as Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee. I'm so excited by this nomination. The PC is something we've had trouble with over the years and Marilia has the perfect skill set to make it both operational and effective. She knows the wide range of issues involved, she knows the personalities and she knows how to manage people and priorities. I hope she will accept this nomination. >> >> She'll need help from all of us though. I hereby pledge to up my production of public comments and to mentor new members who want to help do the same. I hope other PC members, from both the NPOC and the NCUC, will pitch in and help us up our production of public comments in the coming year. >> >> In a more formal vein, though, I've noticed on list two PC members who are willing to help in a formal way. Let's give Marilia all the help she can undoubtedly use. >> >> I wish to nominate both Matthew Shears and David Cake for the position of Vice Chairs of the Policy Committee. David brings the experience that comes with being both the former VC of the GNSO Council and Chair of the NCUC. Matt brings a comparatively fresher perspective to the role but his intelligence, diplomacy and hard work have made him a key member of our PC and community in recent times. >> >> Marilia, Matt and David - a team that can make our policy committee an effective and key part of the NCSG's advocacy for noncommercial users at ICANN. Let's hope they accept these nominations and we can come to Marrakech and hit the ground running! >> >> Best, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >>> On 29 Feb 2016, at 07:31, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week: >>> >>> Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s). >>> >>> You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know. >>> >>> We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition. >>> >>> If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>> >>>> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member? >>>> >>>> Yes. From NCSG charter: >>>> >>>> "2.5.3. NCSG?PC Leadership >>>> >>>> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the >>>> NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis. >>>> - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role. >>>> >>>> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis." >>>> >>>> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply >>>> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair. >>>> >>>> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not >>>> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for >>>> argument that observers would be members but not "full members", >>>> but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.) >>>> >>>> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several >>>> Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From mshears Tue Mar 1 20:06:29 2016 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:06:29 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org> <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> Message-ID: <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> As do I. On 3/1/2016 6:00 PM, David Cake wrote: > I accept the nomination > > > David > >> On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:47 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for those nominations Ed. >> >> Marilia, Matt and David?, please indicate your acceptance (or lack thereof) before the nomination deadline (Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59). >> >> The nomination period is still open, and more nominations/self-nominations are welcome. And again?, if there are any questions or concerns with the election timetable, please raise them. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >>> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> It's time to reboot our policy committee and fortunately we have great people who can do it! >>> >>> >>> I am very proud to nominate Marillia Maciel as Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee. I'm so excited by this nomination. The PC is something we've had trouble with over the years and Marilia has the perfect skill set to make it both operational and effective. She knows the wide range of issues involved, she knows the personalities and she knows how to manage people and priorities. I hope she will accept this nomination. >>> >>> She'll need help from all of us though. I hereby pledge to up my production of public comments and to mentor new members who want to help do the same. I hope other PC members, from both the NPOC and the NCUC, will pitch in and help us up our production of public comments in the coming year. >>> >>> In a more formal vein, though, I've noticed on list two PC members who are willing to help in a formal way. Let's give Marilia all the help she can undoubtedly use. >>> >>> I wish to nominate both Matthew Shears and David Cake for the position of Vice Chairs of the Policy Committee. David brings the experience that comes with being both the former VC of the GNSO Council and Chair of the NCUC. Matt brings a comparatively fresher perspective to the role but his intelligence, diplomacy and hard work have made him a key member of our PC and community in recent times. >>> >>> Marilia, Matt and David - a team that can make our policy committee an effective and key part of the NCSG's advocacy for noncommercial users at ICANN. Let's hope they accept these nominations and we can come to Marrakech and hit the ground running! >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 29 Feb 2016, at 07:31, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week: >>>> >>>> Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s). >>>> >>>> You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know. >>>> >>>> We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition. >>>> >>>> If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member? >>>>> Yes. From NCSG charter: >>>>> >>>>> "2.5.3. NCSG?PC Leadership >>>>> >>>>> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the >>>>> NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis. >>>>> - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role. >>>>> >>>>> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis." >>>>> >>>>> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply >>>>> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair. >>>>> >>>>> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not >>>>> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for >>>>> argument that observers would be members but not "full members", >>>>> but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.) >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several >>>>> Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From kathy Tue Mar 1 21:45:56 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:45:56 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: TMCH Discussion with Noncommercial Stakeholders Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56D5F174.3090902@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, ICANN put out a call for comments for their contractor from the Analysis Group which is looking at GAC requests to unilaterally change the Trademark Clearinghouse. I think someone needs to tell them why the proposals are not very fair or balanced. The session is on Wednesday from 2:15-3:15pm. If you could like to attend, please let me know. Robin, Wendy and I will be there -- all members of the STI which drafted the rules for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Happy to have new folks too! Best regards, Kathy From maryam.bakoshi Wed Mar 2 14:01:22 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:01:22 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) Message-ID: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, Please find below participation details for ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting on Sunday 06 March 2016 at 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/zuu4e8d Time in some other locations: Sydney: Monday, 7 March 2016, 04:00 Tokyo: Monday, 7 March 2016, 02:00 Beijing: Monday, 7 March 2016, 01:00 Moscow: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 20:00 New Delhi: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 22:30 Paris: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 18:00 Buenos Aires: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 14:00 New York: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 12:00 Los Angeles: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 09:00 Agenda: TBC Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: NCSG PC For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Mobile: +44 7737 698036 Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 6329 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maryam.bakoshi Wed Mar 2 14:04:41 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:04:41 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Executive Committee Meeting with the Board | 10 March 2016 | 0730 - 0900 WET | Orangeraie Message-ID: <5b1e2b323806465f9ab89cebcca2b15b@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, Please find below participation details for ICANN 55: NCSG Executive Committee Meeting with the Board on Thursday 10 March 2016 at 07:30 UTC (07:30 WET) Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ Time Zones: Marrakech: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 07:30 Sydney: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 18:30 Tokyo: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 16:30 Beijing: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 15:30 Moscow: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 10:30 New Delhi: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 13:00 Paris: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 08:30 London: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 07:30 Buenos Aires: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 04:30 New York: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 02:30 Los Angeles: Wednesday, 9 March 2016, 23:30 Time in some other locations: http://tinyurl.com/zolw44e Agenda: TBC Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: NCSG BOARD For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Mobile: +44 7737 698036 Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 6635 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mariliamaciel Wed Mar 2 17:29:04 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:29:04 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org> <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> Message-ID: Dear Ed, thank you very much for the nomination and for all your kind words. Dear colleagues, I accept Ed's nomination to serve as PC chair. Special thanks to Matt and to David, who I deeply admire personally and professionally, who have accepted to be nominated as co-chairs. Their acceptance provides me the reassurance that, together, we will be able to keep the PC running smoothly and effectively if these nominations are confirmed. There will be opportunities to thank Amr later in Marrakech, but I would like to thank you in advance Amr, for accepting to serve as PC chair in a time of intense change for you, and for all the hard work and achievements we had this past working year. Thanks so much for your leadership. All the best wishes! Mar?lia On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > As do I. > > > On 3/1/2016 6:00 PM, David Cake wrote: > >> I accept the nomination >> >> >> David >> >> On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:47 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for those nominations Ed. >>> >>> Marilia, Matt and David?, please indicate your acceptance (or lack >>> thereof) before the nomination deadline (Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59). >>> >>> The nomination period is still open, and more >>> nominations/self-nominations are welcome. And again?, if there are any >>> questions or concerns with the election timetable, please raise them. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everybody, >>>> >>>> It's time to reboot our policy committee and fortunately we have great >>>> people who can do it! >>>> >>>> >>>> I am very proud to nominate Marillia Maciel as Chair of the NCSG Policy >>>> Committee. I'm so excited by this nomination. The PC is something we've had >>>> trouble with over the years and Marilia has the perfect skill set to make >>>> it both operational and effective. She knows the wide range of issues >>>> involved, she knows the personalities and she knows how to manage people >>>> and priorities. I hope she will accept this nomination. >>>> >>>> She'll need help from all of us though. I hereby pledge to up my >>>> production of public comments and to mentor new members who want to help do >>>> the same. I hope other PC members, from both the NPOC and the NCUC, will >>>> pitch in and help us up our production of public comments in the coming >>>> year. >>>> >>>> In a more formal vein, though, I've noticed on list two PC members who >>>> are willing to help in a formal way. Let's give Marilia all the help she >>>> can undoubtedly use. >>>> >>>> I wish to nominate both Matthew Shears and David Cake for the position >>>> of Vice Chairs of the Policy Committee. David brings the experience that >>>> comes with being both the former VC of the GNSO Council and Chair of the >>>> NCUC. Matt brings a comparatively fresher perspective to the role but his >>>> intelligence, diplomacy and hard work have made him a key member of our PC >>>> and community in recent times. >>>> >>>> Marilia, Matt and David - a team that can make our policy committee an >>>> effective and key part of the NCSG's advocacy for noncommercial users at >>>> ICANN. Let's hope they accept these nominations and we can come to >>>> Marrakech and hit the ground running! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Feb 2016, at 07:31, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new >>>>> election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this >>>>> week: >>>>> >>>>> Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, >>>>> March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of >>>>> the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s). >>>>> >>>>> You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and >>>>> voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The >>>>> PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting >>>>> agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech >>>>> and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via >>>>> email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online >>>>> electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the >>>>> agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC >>>>> meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know. >>>>> >>>>> We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes >>>>> after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be >>>>> announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft >>>>> agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that >>>>> discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to >>>>> the new leadership to assist with the transition. >>>>> >>>>> If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please >>>>> speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving >>>>> parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the >>>>> next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen < >>>>>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC >>>>>>> member? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. From NCSG charter: >>>>>> >>>>>> "2.5.3. NCSG?PC Leadership >>>>>> >>>>>> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the >>>>>> NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis. >>>>>> - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role. >>>>>> >>>>>> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly >>>>>> basis." >>>>>> >>>>>> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply >>>>>> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not >>>>>> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for >>>>>> argument that observers would be members but not "full members", >>>>>> but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.) >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several >>>>>> Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > -- > > Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project > Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org > E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 > > CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - > register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Mar 2 21:02:38 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 21:02:38 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG In-Reply-To: <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca> <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <90971CE6-C129-466B-A362-7303D3C27D7C@egyptig.org> Hi Bill, I?m not terribly well informed on the work of the CCWG-IG, and was interested to hear the opinions of others in response to your question. Since nobody?s offered an answer, may I ask another one of my own? > On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:25 PM, William Drake wrote: [SNIP] > Which brings me to question that?s been percolating for awhile and may finally get discussed in Marrakech: the CCW-IG was initially set up after the 2013 BA meeting to provide a written input to the NETmundial meeting. Since then it has drifted with no ability to work on common texts of any kind (due to resistance from various biz actors we know), and indeed no ability to have a coherent discussion of this or other matters. If that was indeed the reason why the CCWG-IG was set up, was this clearly reflected in its charter? I don?t have it handy, but I imagine as with any ICANN group, when a group completes its mandate, it is then disbanded. In this case, wouldn?t it make sense to disband the CCWG-IG altogether since the NetMundial meeting has come and gone, as opposed to winding it down to a CCWP? I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success because it?s a CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been focused on specific objectives since it was established, and has worked hard to achieve them. Anyway?, I?m interested in thoughts on this, and a response to Bill?s question as well from others who have been more involved. Thanks. Amr From aelsadr Wed Mar 2 21:33:28 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 21:33:28 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org> <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> Message-ID: <128F9E94-C6FE-451A-BCA1-ED413ED7736A@egyptig.org> Hi, Thanks to all the candidates for accepting their nominations, and thank you Marilia for the kind words. There are still a few hours left until the closing of the nomination period should anyone else care to step forward. As of now, the ballot should include Marilia Maciel as a candidate for the NCSG PC Chair, and Matt Shears and David Cake as candidates for the position(s) of NCSG PC Vice Chair. Thanks again. Amr > On Mar 2, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Dear Ed, thank you very much for the nomination and for all your kind words. > > Dear colleagues, I accept Ed's nomination to serve as PC chair. Special thanks to Matt and to David, who I deeply admire personally and professionally, who have accepted to be nominated as co-chairs. Their acceptance provides me the reassurance that, together, we will be able to keep the PC running smoothly and effectively if these nominations are confirmed. > > There will be opportunities to thank Amr later in Marrakech, but I would like to thank you in advance Amr, for accepting to serve as PC chair in a time of intense change for you, and for all the hard work and achievements we had this past working year. Thanks so much for your leadership. > > All the best wishes! > Mar?lia > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > As do I. > > > On 3/1/2016 6:00 PM, David Cake wrote: > I accept the nomination > > > David > > On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:47 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for those nominations Ed. > > Marilia, Matt and David?, please indicate your acceptance (or lack thereof) before the nomination deadline (Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59). > > The nomination period is still open, and more nominations/self-nominations are welcome. And again?, if there are any questions or concerns with the election timetable, please raise them. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > It's time to reboot our policy committee and fortunately we have great people who can do it! > > > I am very proud to nominate Marillia Maciel as Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee. I'm so excited by this nomination. The PC is something we've had trouble with over the years and Marilia has the perfect skill set to make it both operational and effective. She knows the wide range of issues involved, she knows the personalities and she knows how to manage people and priorities. I hope she will accept this nomination. > > She'll need help from all of us though. I hereby pledge to up my production of public comments and to mentor new members who want to help do the same. I hope other PC members, from both the NPOC and the NCUC, will pitch in and help us up our production of public comments in the coming year. > > In a more formal vein, though, I've noticed on list two PC members who are willing to help in a formal way. Let's give Marilia all the help she can undoubtedly use. > > I wish to nominate both Matthew Shears and David Cake for the position of Vice Chairs of the Policy Committee. David brings the experience that comes with being both the former VC of the GNSO Council and Chair of the NCUC. Matt brings a comparatively fresher perspective to the role but his intelligence, diplomacy and hard work have made him a key member of our PC and community in recent times. > > Marilia, Matt and David - a team that can make our policy committee an effective and key part of the NCSG's advocacy for noncommercial users at ICANN. Let's hope they accept these nominations and we can come to Marrakech and hit the ground running! > > Best, > > Ed > > > > On 29 Feb 2016, at 07:31, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week: > > Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s). > > You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know. > > We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition. > > If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote: > > Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member? > Yes. From NCSG charter: > > "2.5.3. NCSG?PC Leadership > > * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the > NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis. > - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role. > > * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis." > > While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply > that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair. > > However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not > considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for > argument that observers would be members but not "full members", > but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.) > > On the other hand it's clear that we could have several > Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- > > Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project > Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org > E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 > > CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > -- > Mar?lia Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > From mariliamaciel Wed Mar 2 21:35:27 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:35:27 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG In-Reply-To: <90971CE6-C129-466B-A362-7303D3C27D7C@egyptig.org> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca> <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com> <90971CE6-C129-466B-A362-7303D3C27D7C@egyptig.org> Message-ID: The charter is here: https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/CCWG+on+IG+Charter?preview=/52888213/53281052/Charter%20ccWG%20IG%202014%20v05.pdf The CCWG is not explicitly linked to NetMundial, it should facilitate the information about and involvement in any IG process. However, what happened in practice is that after NM the CCWG lost momentum and although there is a faithful crowd that attends the public sessions, it is not so many people. It is serving as a discussion forum to those that participate in ICANN but look further to other IG spaces. On the practical aspect of Bill's message, I do not see clearly why a CCWG nature is being an obstacle. Looking back, I do agree it should have ben created as a CCWP, but now that it is a CCWG should take active steps to change this? In what that would benefit the CCWG? Maybe Bill has more insights, I have followed it less closely. Best wishes, Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi Bill, > > I?m not terribly well informed on the work of the CCWG-IG, and was > interested to hear the opinions of others in response to your question. > Since nobody?s offered an answer, may I ask another one of my own? > > > On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:25 PM, William Drake wrote: > > [SNIP] > > > Which brings me to question that?s been percolating for awhile and may > finally get discussed in Marrakech: the CCW-IG was initially set up after > the 2013 BA meeting to provide a written input to the NETmundial meeting. > Since then it has drifted with no ability to work on common texts of any > kind (due to resistance from various biz actors we know), and indeed no > ability to have a coherent discussion of this or other matters. > > If that was indeed the reason why the CCWG-IG was set up, was this clearly > reflected in its charter? I don?t have it handy, but I imagine as with any > ICANN group, when a group completes its mandate, it is then disbanded. In > this case, wouldn?t it make sense to disband the CCWG-IG altogether since > the NetMundial meeting has come and gone, as opposed to winding it down to > a CCWP? > > I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success because it?s a > CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been focused on specific > objectives since it was established, and has worked hard to achieve them. > > Anyway?, I?m interested in thoughts on this, and a response to Bill?s > question as well from others who have been more involved. > > Thanks. > > Amr > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Mar 2 21:52:17 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 21:52:17 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) In-Reply-To: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Hi, As indicated in the email below, the agenda for the open NCSG PC meeting on March 6th in Marrakech has not been set yet. This is largely due to the fact that the GNSO Council public meeting in Marrakech on March 9th has not been published. When it is, it will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+March+2016 What we do have now are the two motions that have been submitted, and will require a vote by the Council on it March 9th meeting. Those are already published online (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016), and are the only two confirmed items we will need to discuss during the PC?s meeting on Sunday. I was wondering if members of the PC have potential topics that may be worth discussing, irrespective of whether they are agenda items for the GNSO Council. These would need to be policy issues that are within the remit of the PC, and not topics that should be discussed on constituency day on Tuesday at the open NCSG meeting. If anyone does have any ideas, please share them. We have previously held discussions at the Sunday PC meetings regarding topics to discuss during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. I hope you have all been following the massive thread regarding this on NCSG-DISCUSS. We could put some time aside on Sunday to discuss this, but I would like to stress that whatever we decide, we do need to make sure that enough time during the meeting is dedicated to the motions before the GNSO Council. Both motions ? one for the adoption of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and the other to adopt the charter for the PDP WG conducting the review of all RPMs ? are very contentious issues, and will likely require a significant amount of discussion. Anyway?, just wanted to share my thoughts. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others. Thanks. Amr > On Mar 2, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Maryam Bakoshi wrote: > > Dear All, > > Please find below participation details for ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting on Sunday 06 March 2016 at 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) > > Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ > > Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/zuu4e8d > > Time in some other locations: > > Sydney: Monday, 7 March 2016, 04:00 > Tokyo: Monday, 7 March 2016, 02:00 > Beijing: Monday, 7 March 2016, 01:00 > Moscow: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 20:00 > New Delhi: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 22:30 > Paris: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 18:00 > Buenos Aires: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 14:00 > New York: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 12:00 > Los Angeles: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 09:00 > > Agenda: TBC > > Passcodes/Pin codes: > Participant passcode: NCSG PC > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. > > > > Dial in numbers: > Country > Toll Numbers > Freephone/ > Toll Free Number > ARGENTINA > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > ADELAIDE: > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > BRISBANE: > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > CANBERRA: > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > MELBOURNE: > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > PERTH: > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > SYDNEY: > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > CHINA A: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > CHINA B: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > 45-7014-0284 > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > > 358-9-5424-7162 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > LYON: > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > MARSEILLE: > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > PARIS: > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > 852-3001-3863 > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > INDIA A: > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > INDIA B: > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > INDIA C: > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > MILAN: > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > OSAKA: > > 81-6-7739-4799 > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > TOKYO: > > 81-3-5539-5191 > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > MALAYSIA > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > 47-21-590-062 > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > POLAND > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > 8008-14052 > > RUSSIA > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > 65-6883-9230 > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > BIRMINGHAM: > > 44-121-210-9025 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > GLASGOW: > > 44-141-202-3225 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LEEDS: > > 44-113-301-2125 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LONDON: > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > MANCHESTER: > > 44-161-601-1425 > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. > > Many thanks, > -- > Maryam Bakoshi > Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > Mobile: +44 7737 698036 > Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From rafik.dammak Thu Mar 3 05:58:06 2016 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:58:06 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca> <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com> <90971CE6-C129-466B-A362-7303D3C27D7C@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi, same questions here, I don't see clearly the benefit of having of CCWP instead of CCWG. both needs some charter and goals setting. I had discussion with my co-chairs and I think that we can take the opportunity of having new CEO and see after he starts his term what he can expect from us. the CCWG-IG was formed as response to Fadi idea and supposed to give guidance. I raised the point that the group never interacted with the board or reported its activities, it is something we have to fix (among other tasks of co-chairs). having this in mind, we are working on getting things in place and taking some corrective actions to move from doing only public session planning. we submitted workshop proposals before to IGF and WSIS, but we didn't replicate the success of drafting a statement as we did for netmundial. the relations with ICANN staff is getting improved and someone like Nigel is quite cooperative. there are some positive things, but a lot of room of improvement. I acknowledge that co-chairs are not doing enough and bear the responsibility. Best, Rafik 2016-03-03 4:35 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : > The charter is here: > https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/CCWG+on+IG+Charter?preview=/52888213/53281052/Charter%20ccWG%20IG%202014%20v05.pdf > > The CCWG is not explicitly linked to NetMundial, it should facilitate the > information about and involvement in any IG process. However, what happened > in practice is that after NM the CCWG lost momentum and although there is a > faithful crowd that attends the public sessions, it is not so many people. > It is serving as a discussion forum to those that participate in ICANN but > look further to other IG spaces. > > On the practical aspect of Bill's message, I do not see clearly why a CCWG > nature is being an obstacle. Looking back, I do agree it should have ben > created as a CCWP, but now that it is a CCWG should take active steps to > change this? In what that would benefit the CCWG? Maybe Bill has more > insights, I have followed it less closely. > > Best wishes, > Mar?lia > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> I?m not terribly well informed on the work of the CCWG-IG, and was >> interested to hear the opinions of others in response to your question. >> Since nobody?s offered an answer, may I ask another one of my own? >> >> > On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:25 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> [SNIP] >> >> > Which brings me to question that?s been percolating for awhile and may >> finally get discussed in Marrakech: the CCW-IG was initially set up after >> the 2013 BA meeting to provide a written input to the NETmundial meeting. >> Since then it has drifted with no ability to work on common texts of any >> kind (due to resistance from various biz actors we know), and indeed no >> ability to have a coherent discussion of this or other matters. >> >> If that was indeed the reason why the CCWG-IG was set up, was this >> clearly reflected in its charter? I don?t have it handy, but I imagine as >> with any ICANN group, when a group completes its mandate, it is then >> disbanded. In this case, wouldn?t it make sense to disband the CCWG-IG >> altogether since the NetMundial meeting has come and gone, as opposed to >> winding it down to a CCWP? >> >> I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success because it?s a >> CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been focused on specific >> objectives since it was established, and has worked hard to achieve them. >> >> Anyway?, I?m interested in thoughts on this, and a response to Bill?s >> question as well from others who have been more involved. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Thu Mar 3 10:12:16 2016 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 09:12:16 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca> <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com> <90971CE6-C129-466B-A362-7303D3C27D7C@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <3D83ED88-5FD4-4BE7-9F95-7E19CD090E38@gmail.com> Hi > On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:35, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > On the practical aspect of Bill's message, I do not see clearly why a CCWG nature is being an obstacle. Looking back, I do agree it should have ben created as a CCWP, but now that it is a CCWG should take active steps to change this? In what that would benefit the CCWG? Maybe Bill has more insights, I have followed it less closely. One of the reasons we?ve been unable to get consensus to do anything is that some participants have consistently said my SOACSGC which is a charted member would never agree to xyz so we can?t even discuss it. Which allows us to skip the difficult process of securing SOACSGC endorsements of statements/position papers etc. but also means we are inert. A WP charter can mitigate the principles/agents thing and provide more flexibility for coalitions of the willing. > On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:02, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success because it?s a CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been focused on specific objectives since it was established, and has worked hard to achieve them. I wouldn?t contend that it?s shown progress simply or solely because it?s a CCWP, but think not having the structural constraints certainly has not hurt, either. I don?t think there?s a compelling rationale to just eliminate the thing, or that there could be consensus to do so. It?s not just that institutional stickiness and sunk costs make it hard to wind up something, especially when the substantive issue that?s supposed to be the focus remains live. There?s enough people who do genuinely believe that it's useful to have a place within ICANN where the community can consider broader IG issues that configure ICANN?s environment and interact with staff on how they manage those linkages. But it?d be nice if the community itself was able to say or do anything about those linkages, and currently we cannot. In any event it seems we don?t have a consensus to encourage change so I won?t push it and we?ll see how things evolve. Thanks Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears Thu Mar 3 12:43:16 2016 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:43:16 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca> <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com> <90971CE6-C129-466B-A362-7303D3C27D7C@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <56D81544.2040105@cdt.org> I would like to see the CCWG-IG spend less time on figuring out what external events its going to do workshops at and more time determining where, when and how ICANN should (or not) be engaging in IG processes, developing the criteria for such engagement, and importantly, suggesting what ICANN's positions on IG issues should be. The CCWG-IG's work should primarily comprise recommendations to the Board and community on what ICANN should be going in the broader IG space and how the organization should engage in it. Matthew On 3/3/2016 3:58 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > same questions here, I don't see clearly the benefit of having of CCWP > instead of CCWG. both needs some charter and goals setting. > > I had discussion with my co-chairs and I think that we can take the > opportunity of having new CEO and see after he starts his term what he > can expect from us. the CCWG-IG was formed as response to Fadi idea > and supposed to give guidance. I raised the point that the group never > interacted with the board or reported its activities, it is something > we have to fix (among other tasks of co-chairs). having this in mind, > we are working on getting things in place and taking some corrective > actions to move from doing only public session planning. > > we submitted workshop proposals before to IGF and WSIS, but we didn't > replicate the success of drafting a statement as we did for > netmundial. the relations with ICANN staff is getting improved and > someone like Nigel is quite cooperative. there are some positive > things, but a lot of room of improvement. I acknowledge that co-chairs > are not doing enough and bear the responsibility. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2016-03-03 4:35 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel >: > > The charter is here: > https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/CCWG+on+IG+Charter?preview=/52888213/53281052/Charter%20ccWG%20IG%202014%20v05.pdf > > > The CCWG is not explicitly linked to NetMundial, it should > facilitate the information about and involvement in any IG > process. However, what happened in practice is that after NM the > CCWG lost momentum and although there is a faithful crowd that > attends the public sessions, it is not so many people. It is > serving as a discussion forum to those that participate in ICANN > but look further to other IG spaces. > > On the practical aspect of Bill's message, I do not see clearly > why a CCWG nature is being an obstacle. Looking back, I do agree > it should have ben created as a CCWP, but now that it is a CCWG > should take active steps to change this? In what that would > benefit the CCWG? Maybe Bill has more insights, I have followed it > less closely. > > Best wishes, > Mar?lia > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Amr Elsadr > wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > I?m not terribly well informed on the work of the CCWG-IG, and > was interested to hear the opinions of others in response to > your question. Since nobody?s offered an answer, may I ask > another one of my own? > > > On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:25 PM, William Drake > > wrote: > > [SNIP] > > > Which brings me to question that?s been percolating for > awhile and may finally get discussed in Marrakech: the CCW-IG > was initially set up after the 2013 BA meeting to provide a > written input to the NETmundial meeting. Since then it has > drifted with no ability to work on common texts of any kind > (due to resistance from various biz actors we know), and > indeed no ability to have a coherent discussion of this or > other matters. > > If that was indeed the reason why the CCWG-IG was set up, was > this clearly reflected in its charter? I don?t have it handy, > but I imagine as with any ICANN group, when a group completes > its mandate, it is then disbanded. In this case, wouldn?t it > make sense to disband the CCWG-IG altogether since the > NetMundial meeting has come and gone, as opposed to winding it > down to a CCWP? > > I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success > because it?s a CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been > focused on specific objectives since it was established, and > has worked hard to achieve them. > > Anyway?, I?m interested in thoughts on this, and a response to > Bill?s question as well from others who have been more involved. > > Thanks. > > Amr > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV > Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV > Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Mar 3 12:58:34 2016 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:58:34 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG In-Reply-To: <3D83ED88-5FD4-4BE7-9F95-7E19CD090E38@gmail.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca> <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com> <90971CE6-C129-466B-A362-7303D3C27D7C@egyptig.org> <3D83ED88-5FD4-4BE7-9F95-7E19CD090E38@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56D818DA.6090504@acm.org> Hi, Interesting distinction. Do I understand: A WG is of chartered SOAC+ A WP is of individuals from various SOAC+ avri On 03-Mar-16 03:12, William Drake wrote: > Hi > >> On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:35, Marilia Maciel > > wrote: >> >> On the practical aspect of Bill's message, I do not see clearly why a >> CCWG nature is being an obstacle. Looking back, I do agree it should >> have ben created as a CCWP, but now that it is a CCWG should take >> active steps to change this? In what that would benefit the CCWG? >> Maybe Bill has more insights, I have followed it less closely. > > One of the reasons we?ve been unable to get consensus to do anything > is that some participants have consistently said my SOACSGC which is a > charted member would never agree to xyz so we can?t even discuss it. > Which allows us to skip the difficult process of securing SOACSGC > endorsements of statements/position papers etc. but also means we are > inert. A WP charter can mitigate the principles/agents thing and > provide more flexibility for coalitions of the willing. > >> On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:02, Amr Elsadr > > wrote: >> >> I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success because >> it?s a CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been focused on >> specific objectives since it was established, and has worked hard to >> achieve them. > > I wouldn?t contend that it?s shown progress simply or solely because > it?s a CCWP, but think not having the structural constraints certainly > has not hurt, either. > > I don?t think there?s a compelling rationale to just eliminate the > thing, or that there could be consensus to do so. It?s not just that > institutional stickiness and sunk costs make it hard to wind up > something, especially when the substantive issue that?s supposed to be > the focus remains live. There?s enough people who do genuinely > believe that it's useful to have a place within ICANN where the > community can consider broader IG issues that configure ICANN?s > environment and interact with staff on how they manage those linkages. > But it?d be nice if the community itself was able to say or do > anything about those linkages, and currently we cannot. > > In any event it seems we don?t have a consensus to encourage change so > I won?t push it and we?ll see how things evolve. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri Thu Mar 3 12:58:53 2016 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:58:53 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <128F9E94-C6FE-451A-BCA1-ED413ED7736A@egyptig.org> References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org> <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> <128F9E94-C6FE-451A-BCA1-ED413ED7736A@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <56D818ED.4030608@acm.org> Hi, Congratulations on having candidates this time around. I guess you did not like my ideas of picking a name out of a hat or rotation. ( : I do think this is better. avri On 02-Mar-16 14:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks to all the candidates for accepting their nominations, and thank you Marilia for the kind words. > > There are still a few hours left until the closing of the nomination period should anyone else care to step forward. As of now, the ballot should include Marilia Maciel as a candidate for the NCSG PC Chair, and Matt Shears and David Cake as candidates for the position(s) of NCSG PC Vice Chair. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > >> On Mar 2, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> Dear Ed, thank you very much for the nomination and for all your kind words. >> >> Dear colleagues, I accept Ed's nomination to serve as PC chair. Special thanks to Matt and to David, who I deeply admire personally and professionally, who have accepted to be nominated as co-chairs. Their acceptance provides me the reassurance that, together, we will be able to keep the PC running smoothly and effectively if these nominations are confirmed. >> >> There will be opportunities to thank Amr later in Marrakech, but I would like to thank you in advance Amr, for accepting to serve as PC chair in a time of intense change for you, and for all the hard work and achievements we had this past working year. Thanks so much for your leadership. >> >> All the best wishes! >> Mar?lia >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: >> As do I. >> >> >> On 3/1/2016 6:00 PM, David Cake wrote: >> I accept the nomination >> >> >> David >> >> On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:47 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for those nominations Ed. >> >> Marilia, Matt and David?, please indicate your acceptance (or lack thereof) before the nomination deadline (Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59). >> >> The nomination period is still open, and more nominations/self-nominations are welcome. And again?, if there are any questions or concerns with the election timetable, please raise them. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> It's time to reboot our policy committee and fortunately we have great people who can do it! >> >> >> I am very proud to nominate Marillia Maciel as Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee. I'm so excited by this nomination. The PC is something we've had trouble with over the years and Marilia has the perfect skill set to make it both operational and effective. She knows the wide range of issues involved, she knows the personalities and she knows how to manage people and priorities. I hope she will accept this nomination. >> >> She'll need help from all of us though. I hereby pledge to up my production of public comments and to mentor new members who want to help do the same. I hope other PC members, from both the NPOC and the NCUC, will pitch in and help us up our production of public comments in the coming year. >> >> In a more formal vein, though, I've noticed on list two PC members who are willing to help in a formal way. Let's give Marilia all the help she can undoubtedly use. >> >> I wish to nominate both Matthew Shears and David Cake for the position of Vice Chairs of the Policy Committee. David brings the experience that comes with being both the former VC of the GNSO Council and Chair of the NCUC. Matt brings a comparatively fresher perspective to the role but his intelligence, diplomacy and hard work have made him a key member of our PC and community in recent times. >> >> Marilia, Matt and David - a team that can make our policy committee an effective and key part of the NCSG's advocacy for noncommercial users at ICANN. Let's hope they accept these nominations and we can come to Marrakech and hit the ground running! >> >> Best, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> On 29 Feb 2016, at 07:31, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week: >> >> Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s). >> >> You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know. >> >> We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition. >> >> If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote: >> >> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member? >> Yes. From NCSG charter: >> >> "2.5.3. NCSG?PC Leadership >> >> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the >> NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis. >> - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role. >> >> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis." >> >> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply >> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair. >> >> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not >> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for >> argument that observers would be members but not "full members", >> but I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.) >> >> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several >> Vice Chairs, if such a solution would help. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project >> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org >> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 >> >> CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> -- >> Mar?lia Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From aelsadr Thu Mar 3 13:41:53 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:41:53 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG In-Reply-To: <3D83ED88-5FD4-4BE7-9F95-7E19CD090E38@gmail.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca> <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com> <90971CE6-C129-466B-A362-7303D3C27D7C@egyptig.org> <3D83ED88-5FD4-4BE7-9F95-7E19CD090E38@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2A4C14B0-14B0-4CAE-B78D-1518D9BCB380@egyptig.org> Hi Bill, We can?t have a consensus without first having a discussion. I was hoping to encourage a discussion, which seems to be going on. ;-) Thanks. Amr > On Mar 3, 2016, at 10:12 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > >> On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:35, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> On the practical aspect of Bill's message, I do not see clearly why a CCWG nature is being an obstacle. Looking back, I do agree it should have ben created as a CCWP, but now that it is a CCWG should take active steps to change this? In what that would benefit the CCWG? Maybe Bill has more insights, I have followed it less closely. > > One of the reasons we?ve been unable to get consensus to do anything is that some participants have consistently said my SOACSGC which is a charted member would never agree to xyz so we can?t even discuss it. Which allows us to skip the difficult process of securing SOACSGC endorsements of statements/position papers etc. but also means we are inert. A WP charter can mitigate the principles/agents thing and provide more flexibility for coalitions of the willing. > >> On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:02, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success because it?s a CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been focused on specific objectives since it was established, and has worked hard to achieve them. > > I wouldn?t contend that it?s shown progress simply or solely because it?s a CCWP, but think not having the structural constraints certainly has not hurt, either. > > I don?t think there?s a compelling rationale to just eliminate the thing, or that there could be consensus to do so. It?s not just that institutional stickiness and sunk costs make it hard to wind up something, especially when the substantive issue that?s supposed to be the focus remains live. There?s enough people who do genuinely believe that it's useful to have a place within ICANN where the community can consider broader IG issues that configure ICANN?s environment and interact with staff on how they manage those linkages. But it?d be nice if the community itself was able to say or do anything about those linkages, and currently we cannot. > > In any event it seems we don?t have a consensus to encourage change so I won?t push it and we?ll see how things evolve. > > Thanks > > Bill From wjdrake Thu Mar 3 13:48:22 2016 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:48:22 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG In-Reply-To: <2A4C14B0-14B0-4CAE-B78D-1518D9BCB380@egyptig.org> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40FFC4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <56CF2BFA.3080303@mail.utoronto.ca> <969676F9-FB68-47FF-97F1-197DB07815BB@gmail.com> <90971CE6-C129-466B-A362-7303D3C27D7C@egyptig.org> <3D83ED88-5FD4-4BE7-9F95-7E19CD090E38@gmail.com> <2A4C14B0-14B0-4CAE-B78D-1518D9BCB380@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <147B3160-A67E-49FB-9B20-3CA5A71A8A59@gmail.com> Hi Amr > On Mar 3, 2016, at 12:41, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > We can?t have a consensus without first having a discussion. I was hoping to encourage a discussion, which seems to be going on. ;-) Right, and couple people said they saw no reason to change things. In any event per previous I can?t participate directly in the F2F due to NomCom so others here who are involved could reflect in the meeting any shared viewpoint that arises. Cheers BD > > >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 10:12 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:35, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>> On the practical aspect of Bill's message, I do not see clearly why a CCWG nature is being an obstacle. Looking back, I do agree it should have ben created as a CCWP, but now that it is a CCWG should take active steps to change this? In what that would benefit the CCWG? Maybe Bill has more insights, I have followed it less closely. >> >> One of the reasons we?ve been unable to get consensus to do anything is that some participants have consistently said my SOACSGC which is a charted member would never agree to xyz so we can?t even discuss it. Which allows us to skip the difficult process of securing SOACSGC endorsements of statements/position papers etc. but also means we are inert. A WP charter can mitigate the principles/agents thing and provide more flexibility for coalitions of the willing. >> >>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:02, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>> I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success because it?s a CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been focused on specific objectives since it was established, and has worked hard to achieve them. >> >> I wouldn?t contend that it?s shown progress simply or solely because it?s a CCWP, but think not having the structural constraints certainly has not hurt, either. >> >> I don?t think there?s a compelling rationale to just eliminate the thing, or that there could be consensus to do so. It?s not just that institutional stickiness and sunk costs make it hard to wind up something, especially when the substantive issue that?s supposed to be the focus remains live. There?s enough people who do genuinely believe that it's useful to have a place within ICANN where the community can consider broader IG issues that configure ICANN?s environment and interact with staff on how they manage those linkages. But it?d be nice if the community itself was able to say or do anything about those linkages, and currently we cannot. >> >> In any event it seems we don?t have a consensus to encourage change so I won?t push it and we?ll see how things evolve. >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill > From ncsg Thu Mar 3 15:49:05 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:49:05 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <128F9E94-C6FE-451A-BCA1-ED413ED7736A@egyptig.org> References: <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> <128F9E94-C6FE-451A-BCA1-ED413ED7736A@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <20160303134905.GM25044@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> On Mar 02 21:33, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: > Thanks to all the candidates for accepting their nominations, and > thank you Marilia for the kind words. Thank you to all candidates from me as well. > There are still a few hours left until the closing of the nomination > period should anyone else care to step forward. As of now, the > ballot should include Marilia Maciel as a candidate for the NCSG PC > Chair, and Matt Shears and David Cake as candidates for the > position(s) of NCSG PC Vice Chair. No additional nominations were submitted, so that's it. But I have a question about how we'll vote. The plan was to vote in the PC meeting in Marrakech, with remote voting option for those who can't make it. It turns out somewhat difficult to arrange remote (or advance) voting that would work in this scenario at this short notice (we'd need some means to remove advance votes from people who do turn up after all), so I would like to ask if you'd be willing to dispense with it. That is, let's just vote with paper ballots in Marrakech. Given the rule that 2/3 of PC members' votes are needed for Chair election, the effect would be that if someone can't make it there after all their vote would count as "none". As the election doesn't appear to be heavily contested and as far as we know everybody's going to be present, I think this would be acceptable in this case. I don't see any formal reason for it either, indeed a vote by those present in a physical meeting used to be the norm, even if in ICANN world it's a rarity. But if people feel strongly that absentee votes are important, I'll keep looking for a workable setup. Thank you, -- Tapani Tarvainen From mariliamaciel Thu Mar 3 17:41:03 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:41:03 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) In-Reply-To: References: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Hi Amr and all, The agenda is now published in the link you posted before: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+March+2016 I agree that most of our time should be dedicated to the two motions that will be before us. These should be the first agenda items and after them we should do a time check. If there is time left, I think we could address other topics in the following order: - Any urgent issues of concern related to the approval of the approach for implementing the GNSO review (if there is no controversy, we can skip it) - Questions to the board: it would be great if can have a summary of the discussions on the list. If we have concrete options and language formulation in front of us it would be easier to make a decision in a speedy manner. Thanks Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > As indicated in the email below, the agenda for the open NCSG PC meeting > on March 6th in Marrakech has not been set yet. This is largely due to the > fact that the GNSO Council public meeting in Marrakech on March 9th has not > been published. When it is, it will be available here: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+March+2016 > > What we do have now are the two motions that have been submitted, and will > require a vote by the Council on it March 9th meeting. Those are already > published online ( > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016), > and are the only two confirmed items we will need to discuss during the > PC?s meeting on Sunday. > > I was wondering if members of the PC have potential topics that may be > worth discussing, irrespective of whether they are agenda items for the > GNSO Council. These would need to be policy issues that are within the > remit of the PC, and not topics that should be discussed on constituency > day on Tuesday at the open NCSG meeting. If anyone does have any ideas, > please share them. > > We have previously held discussions at the Sunday PC meetings regarding > topics to discuss during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. I hope you > have all been following the massive thread regarding this on NCSG-DISCUSS. > We could put some time aside on Sunday to discuss this, but I would like to > stress that whatever we decide, we do need to make sure that enough time > during the meeting is dedicated to the motions before the GNSO Council. > Both motions ? one for the adoption of the CCWG-Accountability > recommendations, and the other to adopt the charter for the PDP WG > conducting the review of all RPMs ? are very contentious issues, and will > likely require a significant amount of discussion. > > Anyway?, just wanted to share my thoughts. I look forward to hearing the > thoughts of others. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > On Mar 2, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Maryam Bakoshi > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find below participation details for ICANN 55: NCSG Policy > Committee Meeting on Sunday 06 March 2016 at 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) > > > > Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ > > > > Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/zuu4e8d > > > > Time in some other locations: > > > > Sydney: Monday, 7 March 2016, 04:00 > > Tokyo: Monday, 7 March 2016, 02:00 > > Beijing: Monday, 7 March 2016, 01:00 > > Moscow: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 20:00 > > New Delhi: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 22:30 > > Paris: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 18:00 > > Buenos Aires: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 14:00 > > New York: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 12:00 > > Los Angeles: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 09:00 > > > > Agenda: TBC > > > > Passcodes/Pin codes: > > Participant passcode: NCSG PC > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the > conference. > > > > > > > > Dial in numbers: > > Country > > Toll Numbers > > Freephone/ > > Toll Free Number > > ARGENTINA > > > > > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > > > AUSTRALIA > > > > ADELAIDE: > > > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > > > AUSTRALIA > > > > BRISBANE: > > > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > > > AUSTRALIA > > > > CANBERRA: > > > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > > > AUSTRALIA > > > > MELBOURNE: > > > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > > > AUSTRALIA > > > > PERTH: > > > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > > > AUSTRALIA > > > > SYDNEY: > > > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > > > AUSTRIA > > > > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > > > 0800-005-259 > > > > BELGIUM > > > > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > > > 0800-3-8795 > > > > BRAZIL > > > > > > > > 0800-7610651 > > > > CHILE > > > > > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > > > CHINA > > > > CHINA A: > > > > 86-400-810-4789 > > > > 10800-712-1670 > > > > CHINA > > > > CHINA B: > > > > 86-400-810-4789 > > > > 10800-120-1670 > > > > COLOMBIA > > > > > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > > > 800-700-177 > > > > DENMARK > > > > > > 45-7014-0284 > > > > 8088-8324 > > > > ESTONIA > > > > > > > > 800-011-1093 > > > > FINLAND > > > > > > 358-9-5424-7162 > > > > 0-800-9-14610 > > > > FRANCE > > > > LYON: > > > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > > > 080-511-1496 > > > > FRANCE > > > > MARSEILLE: > > > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > > > 080-511-1496 > > > > FRANCE > > > > PARIS: > > > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > > > 080-511-1496 > > > > GERMANY > > > > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > > > 0800-664-4247 > > > > GREECE > > > > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > > > 00800-12-7312 > > > > HONG KONG > > > > > > 852-3001-3863 > > > > 800-962-856 > > > > HUNGARY > > > > > > > > 06-800-12755 > > > > INDIA > > > > INDIA A: > > > > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > > > INDIA > > > > INDIA B: > > > > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > > > INDIA > > > > INDIA C: > > > > > > 1800-300-00491 > > > > INDONESIA > > > > > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > > > IRELAND > > > > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > > > 1800-992-368 > > > > ISRAEL > > > > > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > > > ITALY > > > > MILAN: > > > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > > > 800-986-383 > > > > JAPAN > > > > OSAKA: > > > > 81-6-7739-4799 > > > > 0066-33-132439 > > > > JAPAN > > > > TOKYO: > > > > 81-3-5539-5191 > > > > 0066-33-132439 > > > > LATVIA > > > > > > > > 8000-3185 > > > > LUXEMBOURG > > > > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > > > MALAYSIA > > > > > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > > > MEXICO > > > > > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > > > NETHERLANDS > > > > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > > > 0800-023-4378 > > > > NEW ZEALAND > > > > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > > > 0800-447-722 > > > > NORWAY > > > > > > 47-21-590-062 > > > > 800-15157 > > > > PANAMA > > > > > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > > > PERU > > > > > > > > 0800-53713 > > > > PHILIPPINES > > > > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > > > POLAND > > > > > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > > > PORTUGAL > > > > > > > > 8008-14052 > > > > RUSSIA > > > > > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > > > > > 800-8-110087 > > > > SINGAPORE > > > > > > 65-6883-9230 > > > > 800-120-4663 > > > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > > > > > 080-09-80414 > > > > SOUTH KOREA > > > > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > > > 00798-14800-7352 > > > > SPAIN > > > > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > > > 800-300-053 > > > > SWEDEN > > > > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > > > 0200-884-622 > > > > SWITZERLAND > > > > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > > > 0800-120-032 > > > > TAIWAN > > > > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > > > 00801-137-797 > > > > THAILAND > > > > > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > BIRMINGHAM: > > > > 44-121-210-9025 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > GLASGOW: > > > > 44-141-202-3225 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > LEEDS: > > > > 44-113-301-2125 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > LONDON: > > > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > MANCHESTER: > > > > 44-161-601-1425 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > > > URUGUAY > > > > > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > > > USA > > > > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > > > 866-692-5726 > > > > VENEZUELA > > > > > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > > Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using > a mobile telephone. > > > > Many thanks, > > -- > > Maryam Bakoshi > > Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > > Mobile: +44 7737 698036 > > Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Thu Mar 3 17:41:53 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:41:53 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <20160303134905.GM25044@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> <128F9E94-C6FE-451A-BCA1-ED413ED7736A@egyptig.org> <20160303134905.GM25044@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <6665D690-5A83-4B75-9373-38D30378547D@toast.net> I think this is fine, Tapani. At least it is with me. Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Mar 2016, at 14:49, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> On Mar 02 21:33, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: >> >> Thanks to all the candidates for accepting their nominations, and >> thank you Marilia for the kind words. > > Thank you to all candidates from me as well. > >> There are still a few hours left until the closing of the nomination >> period should anyone else care to step forward. As of now, the >> ballot should include Marilia Maciel as a candidate for the NCSG PC >> Chair, and Matt Shears and David Cake as candidates for the >> position(s) of NCSG PC Vice Chair. > > No additional nominations were submitted, so that's it. > > But I have a question about how we'll vote. > > The plan was to vote in the PC meeting in Marrakech, with > remote voting option for those who can't make it. > > It turns out somewhat difficult to arrange remote (or advance) voting > that would work in this scenario at this short notice (we'd need some > means to remove advance votes from people who do turn up after all), > so I would like to ask if you'd be willing to dispense with it. > > That is, let's just vote with paper ballots in Marrakech. > > Given the rule that 2/3 of PC members' votes are needed for > Chair election, the effect would be that if someone can't make > it there after all their vote would count as "none". > > As the election doesn't appear to be heavily contested > and as far as we know everybody's going to be present, > I think this would be acceptable in this case. > > I don't see any formal reason for it either, indeed > a vote by those present in a physical meeting used > to be the norm, even if in ICANN world it's a rarity. > > But if people feel strongly that absentee votes are > important, I'll keep looking for a workable setup. > > Thank you, > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From egmorris1 Thu Mar 3 17:50:04 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:50:04 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) In-Reply-To: References: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <1B7CED1B-DC9E-4E58-B3F7-1C653F248176@toast.net> Hi guys, Just arrived. I'm right by the train station in case anyone is headed this way. A question: 1. Are we going to be talking at all about our CCWG vote at the PC meeting? It's probably the most consequential action, in terms of impact on the world, of anything most of us Councillors are likely to do. Ever. At least me. I just want to make sure we have some interplay and discussion with our PC members before our vote. 2. Another proposed question for the Board, after speaking with a number of people on the flights here: Were the transition not to take place for whatever reason, Congressional opposition for example, would the Board still consider proceeding with the accountability mechanism reforms (IRP, reconsideration, transparency) independently of any transition? More than a few people were asking that question. The flight from Washington was not particularly full of optimists in this regard. Thanks for considering, Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Mar 2016, at 16:41, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hi Amr and all, > > The agenda is now published in the link you posted before: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+March+2016 > > I agree that most of our time should be dedicated to the two motions that will be before us. These should be the first agenda items and after them we should do a time check. If there is time left, I think we could address other topics in the following order: > - Any urgent issues of concern related to the approval of the approach for implementing the GNSO review (if there is no controversy, we can skip it) > - Questions to the board: it would be great if can have a summary of the discussions on the list. If we have concrete options and language formulation in front of us it would be easier to make a decision in a speedy manner. > > Thanks > Mar?lia > >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As indicated in the email below, the agenda for the open NCSG PC meeting on March 6th in Marrakech has not been set yet. This is largely due to the fact that the GNSO Council public meeting in Marrakech on March 9th has not been published. When it is, it will be available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+March+2016 >> >> What we do have now are the two motions that have been submitted, and will require a vote by the Council on it March 9th meeting. Those are already published online (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016), and are the only two confirmed items we will need to discuss during the PC?s meeting on Sunday. >> >> I was wondering if members of the PC have potential topics that may be worth discussing, irrespective of whether they are agenda items for the GNSO Council. These would need to be policy issues that are within the remit of the PC, and not topics that should be discussed on constituency day on Tuesday at the open NCSG meeting. If anyone does have any ideas, please share them. >> >> We have previously held discussions at the Sunday PC meetings regarding topics to discuss during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. I hope you have all been following the massive thread regarding this on NCSG-DISCUSS. We could put some time aside on Sunday to discuss this, but I would like to stress that whatever we decide, we do need to make sure that enough time during the meeting is dedicated to the motions before the GNSO Council. Both motions ? one for the adoption of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and the other to adopt the charter for the PDP WG conducting the review of all RPMs ? are very contentious issues, and will likely require a significant amount of discussion. >> >> Anyway?, just wanted to share my thoughts. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> > On Mar 2, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Maryam Bakoshi wrote: >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Please find below participation details for ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting on Sunday 06 March 2016 at 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) >> > >> > Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ >> > >> > Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/zuu4e8d >> > >> > Time in some other locations: >> > >> > Sydney: Monday, 7 March 2016, 04:00 >> > Tokyo: Monday, 7 March 2016, 02:00 >> > Beijing: Monday, 7 March 2016, 01:00 >> > Moscow: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 20:00 >> > New Delhi: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 22:30 >> > Paris: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 18:00 >> > Buenos Aires: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 14:00 >> > New York: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 12:00 >> > Los Angeles: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 09:00 >> > >> > Agenda: TBC >> > >> > Passcodes/Pin codes: >> > Participant passcode: NCSG PC >> > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. >> > >> > >> > >> > Dial in numbers: >> > Country >> > Toll Numbers >> > Freephone/ >> > Toll Free Number >> > ARGENTINA >> > >> > >> > >> > 0800-777-0519 >> > >> > AUSTRALIA >> > >> > ADELAIDE: >> > >> > 61-8-8121-4842 >> > >> > 1-800-657-260 >> > >> > AUSTRALIA >> > >> > BRISBANE: >> > >> > 61-7-3102-0944 >> > >> > 1-800-657-260 >> > >> > AUSTRALIA >> > >> > CANBERRA: >> > >> > 61-2-6100-1944 >> > >> > 1-800-657-260 >> > >> > AUSTRALIA >> > >> > MELBOURNE: >> > >> > 61-3-9010-7713 >> > >> > 1-800-657-260 >> > >> > AUSTRALIA >> > >> > PERTH: >> > >> > 61-8-9467-5223 >> > >> > 1-800-657-260 >> > >> > AUSTRALIA >> > >> > SYDNEY: >> > >> > 61-2-8205-8129 >> > >> > 1-800-657-260 >> > >> > AUSTRIA >> > >> > >> > 43-1-92-81-113 >> > >> > 0800-005-259 >> > >> > BELGIUM >> > >> > >> > 32-2-400-9861 >> > >> > 0800-3-8795 >> > >> > BRAZIL >> > >> > >> > >> > 0800-7610651 >> > >> > CHILE >> > >> > >> > >> > 1230-020-2863 >> > >> > CHINA >> > >> > CHINA A: >> > >> > 86-400-810-4789 >> > >> > 10800-712-1670 >> > >> > CHINA >> > >> > CHINA B: >> > >> > 86-400-810-4789 >> > >> > 10800-120-1670 >> > >> > COLOMBIA >> > >> > >> > >> > 01800-9-156474 >> > >> > CZECH REPUBLIC >> > >> > >> > 420-2-25-98-56-64 >> > >> > 800-700-177 >> > >> > DENMARK >> > >> > >> > 45-7014-0284 >> > >> > 8088-8324 >> > >> > ESTONIA >> > >> > >> > >> > 800-011-1093 >> > >> > FINLAND >> > >> > >> > 358-9-5424-7162 >> > >> > 0-800-9-14610 >> > >> > FRANCE >> > >> > LYON: >> > >> > 33-4-26-69-12-85 >> > >> > 080-511-1496 >> > >> > FRANCE >> > >> > MARSEILLE: >> > >> > 33-4-86-06-00-85 >> > >> > 080-511-1496 >> > >> > FRANCE >> > >> > PARIS: >> > >> > 33-1-70-70-60-72 >> > >> > 080-511-1496 >> > >> > GERMANY >> > >> > >> > 49-69-2222-20362 >> > >> > 0800-664-4247 >> > >> > GREECE >> > >> > >> > 30-80-1-100-0687 >> > >> > 00800-12-7312 >> > >> > HONG KONG >> > >> > >> > 852-3001-3863 >> > >> > 800-962-856 >> > >> > HUNGARY >> > >> > >> > >> > 06-800-12755 >> > >> > INDIA >> > >> > INDIA A: >> > >> > >> > 000-800-852-1268 >> > >> > INDIA >> > >> > INDIA B: >> > >> > >> > 000-800-001-6305 >> > >> > INDIA >> > >> > INDIA C: >> > >> > >> > 1800-300-00491 >> > >> > INDONESIA >> > >> > >> > >> > 001-803-011-3982 >> > >> > IRELAND >> > >> > >> > 353-1-246-7646 >> > >> > 1800-992-368 >> > >> > ISRAEL >> > >> > >> > >> > 1-80-9216162 >> > >> > ITALY >> > >> > MILAN: >> > >> > 39-02-3600-6007 >> > >> > 800-986-383 >> > >> > JAPAN >> > >> > OSAKA: >> > >> > 81-6-7739-4799 >> > >> > 0066-33-132439 >> > >> > JAPAN >> > >> > TOKYO: >> > >> > 81-3-5539-5191 >> > >> > 0066-33-132439 >> > >> > LATVIA >> > >> > >> > >> > 8000-3185 >> > >> > LUXEMBOURG >> > >> > >> > 352-27-000-1364 >> > >> > MALAYSIA >> > >> > >> > >> > 1-800-81-3065 >> > >> > MEXICO >> > >> > >> > >> > 001-866-376-9696 >> > >> > NETHERLANDS >> > >> > >> > 31-20-718-8588 >> > >> > 0800-023-4378 >> > >> > NEW ZEALAND >> > >> > >> > 64-9-970-4771 >> > >> > 0800-447-722 >> > >> > NORWAY >> > >> > >> > 47-21-590-062 >> > >> > 800-15157 >> > >> > PANAMA >> > >> > >> > >> > 011-001-800-5072065 >> > >> > PERU >> > >> > >> > >> > 0800-53713 >> > >> > PHILIPPINES >> > >> > >> > 63-2-858-3716 >> > >> > POLAND >> > >> > >> > >> > 00-800-1212572 >> > >> > PORTUGAL >> > >> > >> > >> > 8008-14052 >> > >> > RUSSIA >> > >> > >> > >> > 8-10-8002-0144011 >> > >> > SAUDI ARABIA >> > >> > >> > >> > 800-8-110087 >> > >> > SINGAPORE >> > >> > >> > 65-6883-9230 >> > >> > 800-120-4663 >> > >> > SLOVAK REPUBLIC >> > >> > >> > 421-2-322-422-25 >> > >> > SOUTH AFRICA >> > >> > >> > >> > 080-09-80414 >> > >> > SOUTH KOREA >> > >> > >> > 82-2-6744-1083 >> > >> > 00798-14800-7352 >> > >> > SPAIN >> > >> > >> > 34-91-414-25-33 >> > >> > 800-300-053 >> > >> > SWEDEN >> > >> > >> > 46-8-566-19-348 >> > >> > 0200-884-622 >> > >> > SWITZERLAND >> > >> > >> > 41-44-580-6398 >> > >> > 0800-120-032 >> > >> > TAIWAN >> > >> > >> > 886-2-2795-7379 >> > >> > 00801-137-797 >> > >> > THAILAND >> > >> > >> > >> > 001-800-1206-66056 >> > >> > UNITED KINGDOM >> > >> > BIRMINGHAM: >> > >> > 44-121-210-9025 >> > >> > 0808-238-6029 >> > >> > UNITED KINGDOM >> > >> > GLASGOW: >> > >> > 44-141-202-3225 >> > >> > 0808-238-6029 >> > >> > UNITED KINGDOM >> > >> > LEEDS: >> > >> > 44-113-301-2125 >> > >> > 0808-238-6029 >> > >> > UNITED KINGDOM >> > >> > LONDON: >> > >> > 44-20-7108-6370 >> > >> > 0808-238-6029 >> > >> > UNITED KINGDOM >> > >> > MANCHESTER: >> > >> > 44-161-601-1425 >> > >> > 0808-238-6029 >> > >> > URUGUAY >> > >> > >> > >> > 000-413-598-3421 >> > >> > USA >> > >> > >> > 1-517-345-9004 >> > >> > 866-692-5726 >> > >> > VENEZUELA >> > >> > >> > >> > 0800-1-00-3702 >> > >> > Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. >> > >> > Many thanks, >> > -- >> > Maryam Bakoshi >> > Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC >> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> > >> > Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org >> > Mobile: +44 7737 698036 >> > Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > -- > Mar?lia Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Thu Mar 3 18:24:17 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:24:17 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <6665D690-5A83-4B75-9373-38D30378547D@toast.net> References: <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> <128F9E94-C6FE-451A-BCA1-ED413ED7736A@egyptig.org> <20160303134905.GM25044@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6665D690-5A83-4B75-9373-38D30378547D@toast.net> Message-ID: <672AF0B4-E891-4FAF-AFFC-745595928D0F@egyptig.org> Hi, Also fine with me, but I would like to know if there are any objections. I will note that this is how the GNSO Council normally elects its Chairs, so not unheard of in ICANN-land. Thanks. Amr > On Mar 3, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > I think this is fine, Tapani. At least it is with me. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 3 Mar 2016, at 14:49, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >>> On Mar 02 21:33, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: >>> >>> Thanks to all the candidates for accepting their nominations, and >>> thank you Marilia for the kind words. >> >> Thank you to all candidates from me as well. >> >>> There are still a few hours left until the closing of the nomination >>> period should anyone else care to step forward. As of now, the >>> ballot should include Marilia Maciel as a candidate for the NCSG PC >>> Chair, and Matt Shears and David Cake as candidates for the >>> position(s) of NCSG PC Vice Chair. >> >> No additional nominations were submitted, so that's it. >> >> But I have a question about how we'll vote. >> >> The plan was to vote in the PC meeting in Marrakech, with >> remote voting option for those who can't make it. >> >> It turns out somewhat difficult to arrange remote (or advance) voting >> that would work in this scenario at this short notice (we'd need some >> means to remove advance votes from people who do turn up after all), >> so I would like to ask if you'd be willing to dispense with it. >> >> That is, let's just vote with paper ballots in Marrakech. >> >> Given the rule that 2/3 of PC members' votes are needed for >> Chair election, the effect would be that if someone can't make >> it there after all their vote would count as "none". >> >> As the election doesn't appear to be heavily contested >> and as far as we know everybody's going to be present, >> I think this would be acceptable in this case. >> >> I don't see any formal reason for it either, indeed >> a vote by those present in a physical meeting used >> to be the norm, even if in ICANN world it's a rarity. >> >> But if people feel strongly that absentee votes are >> important, I'll keep looking for a workable setup. >> >> Thank you, >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Thu Mar 3 18:28:47 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:28:47 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) In-Reply-To: References: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Hi Marilia, > On Mar 3, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hi Amr and all, > > The agenda is now published in the link you posted before: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+March+2016 Thanks for the heads-up. > I agree that most of our time should be dedicated to the two motions that will be before us. These should be the first agenda items and after them we should do a time check. If there is time left, I think we could address other topics in the following order: > - Any urgent issues of concern related to the approval of the approach for implementing the GNSO review (if there is no controversy, we can skip it) I don?t mind including this on the agenda, and would be happy to give a briefing about what?s going on with the review. If I?m not mistaken one of the questions to the board suggested on NCSG-DISCUSS was about what the Board OEC would do with these recommendations. I believe this is a worthy topic to bring up with them. So this can be an agenda item during the PC meeting serving two purposes (a discussion to bring NCSGers up-to-speed, as well as a potential topic to bring up during the NCSG/Board meeting). > - Questions to the board: it would be great if can have a summary of the discussions on the list. If we have concrete options and language formulation in front of us it would be easier to make a decision in a speedy manner. Not sure I will have the time to get that done between now and Sunday. If Maryam?s willing to help with that (or anyone else willing to volunteer), I wouldn?t mind. :) Thanks. Amr From t.tropina Thu Mar 3 18:27:10 2016 From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:27:10 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <672AF0B4-E891-4FAF-AFFC-745595928D0F@egyptig.org> References: <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> <128F9E94-C6FE-451A-BCA1-ED413ED7736A@egyptig.org> <20160303134905.GM25044@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6665D690-5A83-4B75-9373-38D30378547D@toast.net> <672AF0B4-E891-4FAF-AFFC-745595928D0F@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <56D865DE.2080506@mpicc.de> Hi all, I don't have any objection: perfectly fine with Tapani's suggestions. See you all in Marrakesh soon! Cheers Tanya On 03/03/16 17:24, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Also fine with me, but I would like to know if there are any objections. I will note that this is how the GNSO Council normally elects its Chairs, so not unheard of in ICANN-land. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> >> I think this is fine, Tapani. At least it is with me. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 3 Mar 2016, at 14:49, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 02 21:33, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks to all the candidates for accepting their nominations, and >>>> thank you Marilia for the kind words. >>> Thank you to all candidates from me as well. >>> >>>> There are still a few hours left until the closing of the nomination >>>> period should anyone else care to step forward. As of now, the >>>> ballot should include Marilia Maciel as a candidate for the NCSG PC >>>> Chair, and Matt Shears and David Cake as candidates for the >>>> position(s) of NCSG PC Vice Chair. >>> No additional nominations were submitted, so that's it. >>> >>> But I have a question about how we'll vote. >>> >>> The plan was to vote in the PC meeting in Marrakech, with >>> remote voting option for those who can't make it. >>> >>> It turns out somewhat difficult to arrange remote (or advance) voting >>> that would work in this scenario at this short notice (we'd need some >>> means to remove advance votes from people who do turn up after all), >>> so I would like to ask if you'd be willing to dispense with it. >>> >>> That is, let's just vote with paper ballots in Marrakech. >>> >>> Given the rule that 2/3 of PC members' votes are needed for >>> Chair election, the effect would be that if someone can't make >>> it there after all their vote would count as "none". >>> >>> As the election doesn't appear to be heavily contested >>> and as far as we know everybody's going to be present, >>> I think this would be acceptable in this case. >>> >>> I don't see any formal reason for it either, indeed >>> a vote by those present in a physical meeting used >>> to be the norm, even if in ICANN world it's a rarity. >>> >>> But if people feel strongly that absentee votes are >>> important, I'll keep looking for a workable setup. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Thu Mar 3 18:34:09 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:34:09 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) In-Reply-To: <1B7CED1B-DC9E-4E58-B3F7-1C653F248176@toast.net> References: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <1B7CED1B-DC9E-4E58-B3F7-1C653F248176@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ed, > On Mar 3, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > Hi guys, > > Just arrived. I'm right by the train station in case anyone is headed this way. Glad you made it there in one piece. > > A question: > > 1. Are we going to be talking at all about our CCWG vote at the PC meeting? It's probably the most consequential action, in terms of impact on the world, of anything most of us Councillors are likely to do. Ever. At least me. > > I just want to make sure we have some interplay and discussion with our PC members before our vote. Since that is one of the motions on the Council?s plate in Marrakech, my answer would be ?yes?. In fact, I suspect (and hope) that this will take up the majority of the time of the meeting. My personal take on this is that I plan to vote as advised by the NCSG members who have been active on the CCWG, so if you fine folks could agree on how to advise the Councillors from NCSG, that?d be great. > > 2. Another proposed question for the Board, after speaking with a number of people on the flights here: > > Were the transition not to take place for whatever reason, Congressional opposition for example, would the Board still consider proceeding with the accountability mechanism reforms (IRP, reconsideration, transparency) independently of any transition? More than a few people were asking that question. The flight from Washington was not particularly full of optimists in this regard. I believe that to be a pretty excellent question. Surprised I haven?t heard it come up before. Thanks. Amr From maryam.bakoshi Thu Mar 3 18:33:23 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:33:23 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) In-Reply-To: References: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> , Message-ID: Hi Amr, Sure, I will collate the questions. Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann T: +44 7737698036 > On 3 Mar 2016, at 16:25, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi Marilia, > >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> Hi Amr and all, >> >> The agenda is now published in the link you posted before: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+March+2016 > > Thanks for the heads-up. > >> I agree that most of our time should be dedicated to the two motions that will be before us. These should be the first agenda items and after them we should do a time check. If there is time left, I think we could address other topics in the following order: >> - Any urgent issues of concern related to the approval of the approach for implementing the GNSO review (if there is no controversy, we can skip it) > > I don?t mind including this on the agenda, and would be happy to give a briefing about what?s going on with the review. If I?m not mistaken one of the questions to the board suggested on NCSG-DISCUSS was about what the Board OEC would do with these recommendations. I believe this is a worthy topic to bring up with them. So this can be an agenda item during the PC meeting serving two purposes (a discussion to bring NCSGers up-to-speed, as well as a potential topic to bring up during the NCSG/Board meeting). > >> - Questions to the board: it would be great if can have a summary of the discussions on the list. If we have concrete options and language formulation in front of us it would be easier to make a decision in a speedy manner. > > Not sure I will have the time to get that done between now and Sunday. If Maryam?s willing to help with that (or anyone else willing to volunteer), I wouldn?t mind. :) > > Thanks. > > Amr From aelsadr Thu Mar 3 18:44:15 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:44:15 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) In-Reply-To: References: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <165663C3-CFB0-46A3-B40D-4F63BF90B8EF@egyptig.org> Thanks Maryam. Truly appreciated. Amr Sent from mobile > On Mar 3, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Maryam Bakoshi wrote: > > Hi Amr, > > Sure, I will collate the questions. > > Many thanks, > > Maryam Bakoshi > Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann > T: +44 7737698036 > > >> On 3 Mar 2016, at 16:25, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi Marilia, >> >>> On Mar 3, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>> Hi Amr and all, >>> >>> The agenda is now published in the link you posted before: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+March+2016 >> >> Thanks for the heads-up. >> >>> I agree that most of our time should be dedicated to the two motions that will be before us. These should be the first agenda items and after them we should do a time check. If there is time left, I think we could address other topics in the following order: >>> - Any urgent issues of concern related to the approval of the approach for implementing the GNSO review (if there is no controversy, we can skip it) >> >> I don?t mind including this on the agenda, and would be happy to give a briefing about what?s going on with the review. If I?m not mistaken one of the questions to the board suggested on NCSG-DISCUSS was about what the Board OEC would do with these recommendations. I believe this is a worthy topic to bring up with them. So this can be an agenda item during the PC meeting serving two purposes (a discussion to bring NCSGers up-to-speed, as well as a potential topic to bring up during the NCSG/Board meeting). >> >>> - Questions to the board: it would be great if can have a summary of the discussions on the list. If we have concrete options and language formulation in front of us it would be easier to make a decision in a speedy manner. >> >> Not sure I will have the time to get that done between now and Sunday. If Maryam?s willing to help with that (or anyone else willing to volunteer), I wouldn?t mind. :) >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr From kathy Thu Mar 3 19:14:54 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG In-Reply-To: <07A12605-BCBD-4881-BE2C-D1542055E9EF@egyptig.org> References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E1E082987@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> <07A12605-BCBD-4881-BE2C-D1542055E9EF@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <56D8710E.9090800@kathykleiman.com> Hi Amr, I apologize for my belated response to this important email message. As you know, although this week is supposed to be "quiet" as people are traveling, the RDS WG moved forward on a draft work plan that needs significant changes and the response took a lot of time and effort. As I read below, the only thing I can say now is how grateful I am that you undertook the challenge. Against the odds, you fought hard for our rights and for the balance this draft charter needs. >From my perspective, it sounds like you moved some mountains. Revising and expanding the Mission and Scope is huge! Expanding the purpose of work of the WG is monumental. Moving our concerns from appendices to main text changes everything! I will read more closely on the plane, but before I departed, I wanted to share my heartfelt thanks for putting yourself in an almost-impossible position -- and coming out ahead :-)!!! Best, Kathy On 2/29/2016 9:53 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Following up on the topic of the RPMs review again. Fellow Councillors > will have seen this email from Phil proposing a motion to adopt a > charter for the PDP WG. > > Negotiations on the Council sub-team did not turn out well at all, as > you will have gathered. As Phil reports, the sub-team did not achieve > consensus, and the charter remains unchanged in that regard. Let me > try to convey my perspective of what?s going on. > > First, we have to assume that we are the only group within the GNSO > that is not in a rush to get a new round of new gTLDs going. The > contracted parties, naturally, have an interest in doing this, and the > BC and IPC seem to have an interest in applications for new brand > gTLDs. There is concern among all of them that a review of the UDRP > has the potential to take years, which would mean if that goes first, > it will delay the process for a subsequent round of new gTLDs. The > dependancy of the PDP for the new gTLDs subsequent procedures on this > one?s review of the RPMs is the major concern. > > During the sub-team calls, I?ve had to defend the NCSG?s desire of a > UDRP review preceding the review of the RPMs for the new gTLD a number > of times, but have also always tried to keep the discussion on the > process to review input, rather than the substantive issue. My > argument was that the NCSG input hadn?t received the due consideration > by the community, as it was not part of the preliminary issues report, > which was subject to public comment. We used to have reply periods to > public comments, but that is not the case any more. > > At this point, the NCSG input has been considered by: > > 1. Policy staff, in their review of the public comments, and > preparation of the final issues report. Staff did note that other > options for methods to tackle this PDP were provided, but recommended > to proceed with the current two-phased approach. Apart from our input, > there was input from the WIPO and INTA recommending that no review of > the UDRP be conducted at all, and that the GNSO should limit its > review to the new gTLD RPMs. > > 2. A sub-team of the GNSO Council limited to councillors from the > NCSG, IPC and BC. > > This is the language I finally proposed as alternative language in the > charter under ?Mission and Scope?: > >> This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all >> RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One will focus on a review of >> all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase >> Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. However, because additional >> approaches beyond those initially noted in the Preliminary Issue >> Report had been suggested as part of public comments to that report, >> the Working Group is requested to perform the following task during >> the development of its initial Work Plan: consider whether or not >> reversing Phases One and Two, such that the review of the UDRP takes >> place during Phase One, is a preferable approach. If there is >> consensus (as determined by the Working Group chair(s) in >> consultation with the GNSO Council liaison) to proceed in this >> manner, the Working Group shall submit a request to amend its Charter >> to the GNSO Council, who shall consider whether or not to grant the >> request in light of information it considers relevant, including the >> progress of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) >> Review Team and the GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. In >> the absence of consensus to change the two-phased approach, the >> Working Group shall proceed with the two-phased approach already in >> place. > > This was basically an attempt of mine to ask for the WG to consider > the NCSG input, while respecting the input provided by other groups. > After considerable debate that was going nowhere, I was hoping this > would make the proposal less unappealing to the BC and IPC. They > didn?t budge. I suspect that CPH has no interest in budging either. A > repeated argument by the IPC was that the NCSG input was being > considered by the GNSO Council, and no further consideration is > necessary. I don?t agree with this. > > What we can do at this point is suggest changes to the charter to the > GNSO Council in response to Phil?s motion (below). What would happen > then is that the Council would vote on the two versions of the charter > (the one we suggest vs. the current draft), with a simple majority of > each house required to support either one. I don?t believe we would > win this vote. As I said, unless I?m missing something, we have no > support within the GNSO on this. > > Following this vote, a vote in response to the motion to adopt the > charter would take place requiring a very low voting threshold to pass > (1/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of one house). > > I am certainly open to suggestion on how to proceed, but now the ball > is in the full Council?s court. My suggestion is to proceed with > suggesting the language I had suggested to the sub-team. I don?t > believe we will manage to get this passed, but it is an option. > Furthermore, to be honest, if we do somehow pass this on Council, I > don?t believe the PDP WG will agree to making the charter change that > we are asking for after it is discussed at that level. I?m offering > what I believe to be a realistic assessment following about a month of > debating this issue. > > Since this discussion began, we did get two minor wins: > > 1. We moved the list of issues to be discussed by the WG (including > NCSG?s inputs in our comment) from an annex of the issue report to the > charter itself. This was certainly a good thing, although possibly not > crucial. The NCSG input was captured accurately in the staff report, > and would have been in scope of the PDP under the first scenario, > although it may have taken a little bit of a debate to have it considered. > > 2. This language was added to the background of the PDP in the charter > to stress that the purpose of the PDP is not limited to the protection > of trademarks: > > As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection > mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs > to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the > gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect > registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names. > > Again?, this is a good thing, but given how the STI group?s final > recommendations are phrased, we would have (possibly after another > debate on the WG) this part pertaining to protection of legitimate > registrations also be given its due respect. > > The one change that was truly significant (reversal of the two phases) > is the one we didn?t get. > > I apologize for the length of this email, but thought to try to keep > you all as informed as possible on what?s going on. > > Would very much welcome the thoughts of others. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Phil Corwin > >> *Subject: **[council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG* >> *Date: *February 29, 2016 at 2:32:50 AM GMT+2 >> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org " >> > >> *Cc: *"Mary Wong (mary.wong at icann.org )" >> > >> >> Councilors: >> On behalf of the subgroup which met twice this past week to discuss >> the best way to conduct a PDP on the review of all RPMs in all gTLDs, >> I am pleased to forward for your consideration updated versions of >> the Motion and draft Charter for same._I am hereby proposing them in >> order to meet the deadline for items to be considered by the Council >> in Marrakech._ >> The Motion has been altered since the version that we adopted at the >> last Council meeting to include a reference to our subgroup. >> The Charter has been altered to include a new clause in the second >> sentence of the first paragraph under ?Background?, as follows (new >> language in Bold): >> As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection >> mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and >> costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion >> of the gTLD namespace,*which included certain safeguards to protect >> registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names*: the >> Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse >> (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise >> periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the >> Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs). >> That language was offered by Amr and was deemed non-controversial by >> members of the subgroup. >> The subgroup was unable to reach consensus to include draft Charter >> language proposed by Amr to subsection (a) of the Mission and Scope >> portion of the Charter. That language would have delegated to the WG >> the decision as to whether the two-phased approach should start first >> with review of new gTLD RPMs or of the UDRP. However, there was >> general consensus among subgroup members that, as the rationale for >> such delegation of decision-making was that some public comments had >> taken positions not included within the three staff options contained >> in the Preliminary Issues Report, the WG should, if Council does not >> decide scope and priorities, be free to consider any public comment >> suggestions beyond the staff options ? which would include the >> comments of WIPO and INTA that the UDRP should not undergo any review >> at all. >> It will be up to Amr and other supporters of altering the Charter to >> decide whether they wish to offer such a decisional delegation >> amendment to the draft Charter when we meet in Marrakech. >> Let me know if any of you have questions. >> Safe travel to Marrakech, and best regards, >> Philip >> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* >> *Virtualaw LLC* >> *1155 F Street, NW* >> *Suite 1050* >> *Washington, DC 20004* >> *202-559-8597/Direct* >> *202-559-8750/Fax* >> *202-255-6172/cell*** >> ** >> *Twitter: @VlawDC* >> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/* > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sat Mar 5 01:30:02 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:30:02 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG In-Reply-To: <56D8710E.9090800@kathykleiman.com> References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E1E082987@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> <07A12605-BCBD-4881-BE2C-D1542055E9EF@egyptig.org> <56D8710E.9090800@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <56DA1A7A.9000300@mail.utoronto.ca> Totally agree, great work Amr! Steph On 2016-03-03 12:14, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Amr, I apologize for my belated response to this important email > message. As you know, although this week is supposed to be "quiet" as > people are traveling, the RDS WG moved forward on a draft work plan > that needs significant changes and the response took a lot of time and > effort. > > As I read below, the only thing I can say now is how grateful I am > that you undertook the challenge. Against the odds, you fought hard > for our rights and for the balance this draft charter needs. > > From my perspective, it sounds like you moved some mountains. Revising > and expanding the Mission and Scope is huge! Expanding the purpose of > work of the WG is monumental. Moving our concerns from appendices to > main text changes everything! > > I will read more closely on the plane, but before I departed, I wanted > to share my heartfelt thanks for putting yourself in an > almost-impossible position -- and coming out ahead :-)!!! > > Best, > Kathy > > On 2/29/2016 9:53 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Following up on the topic of the RPMs review again. Fellow >> Councillors will have seen this email from Phil proposing a motion to >> adopt a charter for the PDP WG. >> >> Negotiations on the Council sub-team did not turn out well at all, as >> you will have gathered. As Phil reports, the sub-team did not achieve >> consensus, and the charter remains unchanged in that regard. Let me >> try to convey my perspective of what?s going on. >> >> First, we have to assume that we are the only group within the GNSO >> that is not in a rush to get a new round of new gTLDs going. The >> contracted parties, naturally, have an interest in doing this, and >> the BC and IPC seem to have an interest in applications for new brand >> gTLDs. There is concern among all of them that a review of the UDRP >> has the potential to take years, which would mean if that goes first, >> it will delay the process for a subsequent round of new gTLDs. The >> dependancy of the PDP for the new gTLDs subsequent procedures on this >> one?s review of the RPMs is the major concern. >> >> During the sub-team calls, I?ve had to defend the NCSG?s desire of a >> UDRP review preceding the review of the RPMs for the new gTLD a >> number of times, but have also always tried to keep the discussion on >> the process to review input, rather than the substantive issue. My >> argument was that the NCSG input hadn?t received the due >> consideration by the community, as it was not part of the preliminary >> issues report, which was subject to public comment. We used to have >> reply periods to public comments, but that is not the case any more. >> >> At this point, the NCSG input has been considered by: >> >> 1. Policy staff, in their review of the public comments, and >> preparation of the final issues report. Staff did note that other >> options for methods to tackle this PDP were provided, but recommended >> to proceed with the current two-phased approach. Apart from our >> input, there was input from the WIPO and INTA recommending that no >> review of the UDRP be conducted at all, and that the GNSO should >> limit its review to the new gTLD RPMs. >> >> 2. A sub-team of the GNSO Council limited to councillors from the >> NCSG, IPC and BC. >> >> This is the language I finally proposed as alternative language in >> the charter under ?Mission and Scope?: >> >>> This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all >>> RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One will focus on a review of >>> all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase >>> Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. However, because additional >>> approaches beyond those initially noted in the Preliminary Issue >>> Report had been suggested as part of public comments to that report, >>> the Working Group is requested to perform the following task during >>> the development of its initial Work Plan: consider whether or not >>> reversing Phases One and Two, such that the review of the UDRP takes >>> place during Phase One, is a preferable approach. If there is >>> consensus (as determined by the Working Group chair(s) in >>> consultation with the GNSO Council liaison) to proceed in this >>> manner, the Working Group shall submit a request to amend its >>> Charter to the GNSO Council, who shall consider whether or not to >>> grant the request in light of information it considers relevant, >>> including the progress of the Competition, Consumer Trust and >>> Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team and the GNSO PDP on New gTLD >>> Subsequent Procedures. In the absence of consensus to change the >>> two-phased approach, the Working Group shall proceed with the >>> two-phased approach already in place. >> >> This was basically an attempt of mine to ask for the WG to consider >> the NCSG input, while respecting the input provided by other groups. >> After considerable debate that was going nowhere, I was hoping this >> would make the proposal less unappealing to the BC and IPC. They >> didn?t budge. I suspect that CPH has no interest in budging either. A >> repeated argument by the IPC was that the NCSG input was being >> considered by the GNSO Council, and no further consideration is >> necessary. I don?t agree with this. >> >> What we can do at this point is suggest changes to the charter to the >> GNSO Council in response to Phil?s motion (below). What would happen >> then is that the Council would vote on the two versions of the >> charter (the one we suggest vs. the current draft), with a simple >> majority of each house required to support either one. I don?t >> believe we would win this vote. As I said, unless I?m missing >> something, we have no support within the GNSO on this. >> >> Following this vote, a vote in response to the motion to adopt the >> charter would take place requiring a very low voting threshold to >> pass (1/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of one house). >> >> I am certainly open to suggestion on how to proceed, but now the ball >> is in the full Council?s court. My suggestion is to proceed with >> suggesting the language I had suggested to the sub-team. I don?t >> believe we will manage to get this passed, but it is an option. >> Furthermore, to be honest, if we do somehow pass this on Council, I >> don?t believe the PDP WG will agree to making the charter change that >> we are asking for after it is discussed at that level. I?m offering >> what I believe to be a realistic assessment following about a month >> of debating this issue. >> >> Since this discussion began, we did get two minor wins: >> >> 1. We moved the list of issues to be discussed by the WG (including >> NCSG?s inputs in our comment) from an annex of the issue report to >> the charter itself. This was certainly a good thing, although >> possibly not crucial. The NCSG input was captured accurately in the >> staff report, and would have been in scope of the PDP under the first >> scenario, although it may have taken a little bit of a debate to have >> it considered. >> >> 2. This language was added to the background of the PDP in the >> charter to stress that the purpose of the PDP is not limited to the >> protection of trademarks: >> >> As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection >> mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and >> costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion >> of the gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect >> registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names. >> >> Again?, this is a good thing, but given how the STI group?s final >> recommendations are phrased, we would have (possibly after another >> debate on the WG) this part pertaining to protection of legitimate >> registrations also be given its due respect. >> >> The one change that was truly significant (reversal of the two >> phases) is the one we didn?t get. >> >> I apologize for the length of this email, but thought to try to keep >> you all as informed as possible on what?s going on. >> >> Would very much welcome the thoughts of others. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From: *Phil Corwin >>> *Subject: **[council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG* >>> *Date: *February 29, 2016 at 2:32:50 AM GMT+2 >>> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" >> > >>> *Cc: *"Mary Wong (mary.wong at icann.org)" >> > >>> >>> Councilors: >>> On behalf of the subgroup which met twice this past week to discuss >>> the best way to conduct a PDP on the review of all RPMs in all >>> gTLDs, I am pleased to forward for your consideration updated >>> versions of the Motion and draft Charter for same._I am hereby >>> proposing them in order to meet the deadline for items to be >>> considered by the Council in Marrakech._ >>> The Motion has been altered since the version that we adopted at the >>> last Council meeting to include a reference to our subgroup. >>> The Charter has been altered to include a new clause in the second >>> sentence of the first paragraph under ?Background?, as follows (new >>> language in Bold): >>> As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection >>> mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and >>> costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion >>> of the gTLD namespace,*which included certain safeguards to protect >>> registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names*: the >>> Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse >>> (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise >>> periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the >>> Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs). >>> That language was offered by Amr and was deemed non-controversial by >>> members of the subgroup. >>> The subgroup was unable to reach consensus to include draft Charter >>> language proposed by Amr to subsection (a) of the Mission and Scope >>> portion of the Charter. That language would have delegated to the WG >>> the decision as to whether the two-phased approach should start >>> first with review of new gTLD RPMs or of the UDRP. However, there >>> was general consensus among subgroup members that, as the rationale >>> for such delegation of decision-making was that some public comments >>> had taken positions not included within the three staff options >>> contained in the Preliminary Issues Report, the WG should, if >>> Council does not decide scope and priorities, be free to consider >>> any public comment suggestions beyond the staff options ? which >>> would include the comments of WIPO and INTA that the UDRP should not >>> undergo any review at all. >>> It will be up to Amr and other supporters of altering the Charter to >>> decide whether they wish to offer such a decisional delegation >>> amendment to the draft Charter when we meet in Marrakech. >>> Let me know if any of you have questions. >>> Safe travel to Marrakech, and best regards, >>> Philip >>> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* >>> *Virtualaw LLC* >>> *1155 F Street, NW* >>> *Suite 1050* >>> *Washington, DC 20004* >>> *202-559-8597/Direct* >>> *202-559-8750/Fax* >>> *202-255-6172/cell*** >>> ** >>> *Twitter: @VlawDC* >>> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/* >> >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan Sat Mar 5 01:36:24 2016 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 23:36:24 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG In-Reply-To: <56DA1A7A.9000300@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E1E082987@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> <07A12605-BCBD-4881-BE2C-D1542055E9EF@egyptig.org> <56D8710E.9090800@kathykleiman.com> <56DA1A7A.9000300@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <756537DC-1835-4511-894A-A79C9059ADE3@EUI.eu> not just great work, but great summary, super helpful for those who are struggling to understand all the dependencies. thanks much!! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 4, 2016, at 23:30, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: Totally agree, great work Amr! Steph On 2016-03-03 12:14, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi Amr, I apologize for my belated response to this important email message. As you know, although this week is supposed to be "quiet" as people are traveling, the RDS WG moved forward on a draft work plan that needs significant changes and the response took a lot of time and effort. As I read below, the only thing I can say now is how grateful I am that you undertook the challenge. Against the odds, you fought hard for our rights and for the balance this draft charter needs. >From my perspective, it sounds like you moved some mountains. Revising and expanding the Mission and Scope is huge! Expanding the purpose of work of the WG is monumental. Moving our concerns from appendices to main text changes everything! I will read more closely on the plane, but before I departed, I wanted to share my heartfelt thanks for putting yourself in an almost-impossible position -- and coming out ahead :-)!!! Best, Kathy On 2/29/2016 9:53 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, Following up on the topic of the RPMs review again. Fellow Councillors will have seen this email from Phil proposing a motion to adopt a charter for the PDP WG. Negotiations on the Council sub-team did not turn out well at all, as you will have gathered. As Phil reports, the sub-team did not achieve consensus, and the charter remains unchanged in that regard. Let me try to convey my perspective of what?s going on. First, we have to assume that we are the only group within the GNSO that is not in a rush to get a new round of new gTLDs going. The contracted parties, naturally, have an interest in doing this, and the BC and IPC seem to have an interest in applications for new brand gTLDs. There is concern among all of them that a review of the UDRP has the potential to take years, which would mean if that goes first, it will delay the process for a subsequent round of new gTLDs. The dependancy of the PDP for the new gTLDs subsequent procedures on this one?s review of the RPMs is the major concern. During the sub-team calls, I?ve had to defend the NCSG?s desire of a UDRP review preceding the review of the RPMs for the new gTLD a number of times, but have also always tried to keep the discussion on the process to review input, rather than the substantive issue. My argument was that the NCSG input hadn?t received the due consideration by the community, as it was not part of the preliminary issues report, which was subject to public comment. We used to have reply periods to public comments, but that is not the case any more. At this point, the NCSG input has been considered by: 1. Policy staff, in their review of the public comments, and preparation of the final issues report. Staff did note that other options for methods to tackle this PDP were provided, but recommended to proceed with the current two-phased approach. Apart from our input, there was input from the WIPO and INTA recommending that no review of the UDRP be conducted at all, and that the GNSO should limit its review to the new gTLD RPMs. 2. A sub-team of the GNSO Council limited to councillors from the NCSG, IPC and BC. This is the language I finally proposed as alternative language in the charter under ?Mission and Scope?: This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases: Phase One will focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, and Phase Two will focus on a review of the UDRP. However, because additional approaches beyond those initially noted in the Preliminary Issue Report had been suggested as part of public comments to that report, the Working Group is requested to perform the following task during the development of its initial Work Plan: consider whether or not reversing Phases One and Two, such that the review of the UDRP takes place during Phase One, is a preferable approach. If there is consensus (as determined by the Working Group chair(s) in consultation with the GNSO Council liaison) to proceed in this manner, the Working Group shall submit a request to amend its Charter to the GNSO Council, who shall consider whether or not to grant the request in light of information it considers relevant, including the progress of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team and the GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. In the absence of consensus to change the two-phased approach, the Working Group shall proceed with the two-phased approach already in place. This was basically an attempt of mine to ask for the WG to consider the NCSG input, while respecting the input provided by other groups. After considerable debate that was going nowhere, I was hoping this would make the proposal less unappealing to the BC and IPC. They didn?t budge. I suspect that CPH has no interest in budging either. A repeated argument by the IPC was that the NCSG input was being considered by the GNSO Council, and no further consideration is necessary. I don?t agree with this. What we can do at this point is suggest changes to the charter to the GNSO Council in response to Phil?s motion (below). What would happen then is that the Council would vote on the two versions of the charter (the one we suggest vs. the current draft), with a simple majority of each house required to support either one. I don?t believe we would win this vote. As I said, unless I?m missing something, we have no support within the GNSO on this. Following this vote, a vote in response to the motion to adopt the charter would take place requiring a very low voting threshold to pass (1/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of one house). I am certainly open to suggestion on how to proceed, but now the ball is in the full Council?s court. My suggestion is to proceed with suggesting the language I had suggested to the sub-team. I don?t believe we will manage to get this passed, but it is an option. Furthermore, to be honest, if we do somehow pass this on Council, I don?t believe the PDP WG will agree to making the charter change that we are asking for after it is discussed at that level. I?m offering what I believe to be a realistic assessment following about a month of debating this issue. Since this discussion began, we did get two minor wins: 1. We moved the list of issues to be discussed by the WG (including NCSG?s inputs in our comment) from an annex of the issue report to the charter itself. This was certainly a good thing, although possibly not crucial. The NCSG input was captured accurately in the staff report, and would have been in scope of the PDP under the first scenario, although it may have taken a little bit of a debate to have it considered. 2. This language was added to the background of the PDP in the charter to stress that the purpose of the PDP is not limited to the protection of trademarks: As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names. Again?, this is a good thing, but given how the STI group?s final recommendations are phrased, we would have (possibly after another debate on the WG) this part pertaining to protection of legitimate registrations also be given its due respect. The one change that was truly significant (reversal of the two phases) is the one we didn?t get. I apologize for the length of this email, but thought to try to keep you all as informed as possible on what?s going on. Would very much welcome the thoughts of others. Thanks. Amr Begin forwarded message: From: Phil Corwin > Subject: [council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG Date: February 29, 2016 at 2:32:50 AM GMT+2 To: "council at gnso.icann.org" > Cc: "Mary Wong (mary.wong at icann.org)" > Councilors: On behalf of the subgroup which met twice this past week to discuss the best way to conduct a PDP on the review of all RPMs in all gTLDs, I am pleased to forward for your consideration updated versions of the Motion and draft Charter for same. I am hereby proposing them in order to meet the deadline for items to be considered by the Council in Marrakech. The Motion has been altered since the version that we adopted at the last Council meeting to include a reference to our subgroup. The Charter has been altered to include a new clause in the second sentence of the first paragraph under ?Background?, as follows (new language in Bold): As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs). That language was offered by Amr and was deemed non-controversial by members of the subgroup. The subgroup was unable to reach consensus to include draft Charter language proposed by Amr to subsection (a) of the Mission and Scope portion of the Charter. That language would have delegated to the WG the decision as to whether the two-phased approach should start first with review of new gTLD RPMs or of the UDRP. However, there was general consensus among subgroup members that, as the rationale for such delegation of decision-making was that some public comments had taken positions not included within the three staff options contained in the Preliminary Issues Report, the WG should, if Council does not decide scope and priorities, be free to consider any public comment suggestions beyond the staff options ? which would include the comments of WIPO and INTA that the UDRP should not undergo any review at all. It will be up to Amr and other supporters of altering the Charter to decide whether they wish to offer such a decisional delegation amendment to the draft Charter when we meet in Marrakech. Let me know if any of you have questions. Safe travel to Marrakech, and best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Sat Mar 5 06:27:20 2016 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 17:27:20 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <56D818ED.4030608@acm.org> References: <2BAC72E9-0CBA-4EA7-BA52-BB34CA6FD730@egyptig.org> <20160224064247.GB12414@tarvainen.info> <56CEA98A.2070507@acm.org> <56CF265D.90107@mail.utoronto.ca> <20160226104354.GC12772@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <946B469A-0832-41B3-8935-ED0DB34D143D@egyptig.org> <817A88AB-7DE9-4326-BA01-53A92607FF6E@davecake.net> <56D5DA25.2@cdt.org> <128F9E94-C6FE-451A-BCA1-ED413ED7736A@egyptig.org> <56D818ED.4030608@acm.org> Message-ID: <016e01d17697$4f5fc230$ee1f4690$@liddicoatlaw.co.nz> Thanks to all the candidates for putting themselves forward Joy -----Original Message----- From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2016 11:59 p.m. To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT!! NCSG Policy Committee Chair Elections Hi, Congratulations on having candidates this time around. I guess you did not like my ideas of picking a name out of a hat or rotation. ( : I do think this is better. avri On 02-Mar-16 14:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks to all the candidates for accepting their nominations, and thank you Marilia for the kind words. > > There are still a few hours left until the closing of the nomination period should anyone else care to step forward. As of now, the ballot should include Marilia Maciel as a candidate for the NCSG PC Chair, and Matt Shears and David Cake as candidates for the position(s) of NCSG PC Vice Chair. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > >> On Mar 2, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> Dear Ed, thank you very much for the nomination and for all your kind words. >> >> Dear colleagues, I accept Ed's nomination to serve as PC chair. Special thanks to Matt and to David, who I deeply admire personally and professionally, who have accepted to be nominated as co-chairs. Their acceptance provides me the reassurance that, together, we will be able to keep the PC running smoothly and effectively if these nominations are confirmed. >> >> There will be opportunities to thank Amr later in Marrakech, but I would like to thank you in advance Amr, for accepting to serve as PC chair in a time of intense change for you, and for all the hard work and achievements we had this past working year. Thanks so much for your leadership. >> >> All the best wishes! >> Mar?lia >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: >> As do I. >> >> >> On 3/1/2016 6:00 PM, David Cake wrote: >> I accept the nomination >> >> >> David >> >> On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:47 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for those nominations Ed. >> >> Marilia, Matt and David?, please indicate your acceptance (or lack thereof) before the nomination deadline (Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59). >> >> The nomination period is still open, and more nominations/self-nominations are welcome. And again?, if there are any questions or concerns with the election timetable, please raise them. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> It's time to reboot our policy committee and fortunately we have great people who can do it! >> >> >> I am very proud to nominate Marillia Maciel as Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee. I'm so excited by this nomination. The PC is something we've had trouble with over the years and Marilia has the perfect skill set to make it both operational and effective. She knows the wide range of issues involved, she knows the personalities and she knows how to manage people and priorities. I hope she will accept this nomination. >> >> She'll need help from all of us though. I hereby pledge to up my production of public comments and to mentor new members who want to help do the same. I hope other PC members, from both the NPOC and the NCUC, will pitch in and help us up our production of public comments in the coming year. >> >> In a more formal vein, though, I've noticed on list two PC members who are willing to help in a formal way. Let's give Marilia all the help she can undoubtedly use. >> >> I wish to nominate both Matthew Shears and David Cake for the position of Vice Chairs of the Policy Committee. David brings the experience that comes with being both the former VC of the GNSO Council and Chair of the NCUC. Matt brings a comparatively fresher perspective to the role but his intelligence, diplomacy and hard work have made him a key member of our PC and community in recent times. >> >> Marilia, Matt and David - a team that can make our policy committee an effective and key part of the NCSG's advocacy for noncommercial users at ICANN. Let's hope they accept these nominations and we can come to Marrakech and hit the ground running! >> >> Best, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> On 29 Feb 2016, at 07:31, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> OK?, so Tapani and I have been discussing this, and here is the new election timetable bearing in mind that PC members will be travelling this week: >> >> Nomination period is open again effective immediately until Wednesday, March 2nd at UTC 23:59. Nominations may be made for both the position of the PC Chair as well as Vice Chair(s). >> >> You will receive ballots to vote via email on Thursday, March 3rd, and voting will remain open until the NCSG PC meeting on Sunday, March 6th. The PC Chair (and Vice Chair) elections will be the first item on the meeting agenda. We expect all NCSG PC members to be physically present in Marrakech and the PC meeting, so those who have not voted using the ballots sent via email will have the opportunity to do so during the meeting using an online electronic voting system. The voting period will close at the end of the agenda item for discussing it. If you are not planning on attending the PC meeting in person on Sunday, please let us know. >> >> We will hopefully have the results of the elections within minutes after the end of the voting, so the new PC leadership (team) should be announced and assume his/her/its role at that point. I will work on a draft agenda for the meeting, and will be available to assist in chairing that discussion if the new Chair wishes. I will, of course, also be available to the new leadership to assist with the transition. >> >> If anyone has any questions or concerns about this timetable, please speak up. I know this is a very busy time for all of us. A lot of moving parts in ICANN world right now, and everyone will be travelling over the next few days, but I am still hoping we can pull this election off. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >> On Feb 25 14:03, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote: >> >> Tapani, if we go for the co-chair option can it be any other PC member? >> Yes. From NCSG charter: >> >> "2.5.3. NCSG?PC Leadership >> >> * A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the >> NCSG?PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG?PC membership on a yearly basis. >> - The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role. >> >> * One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG?PC on a yearly basis." >> >> While nothing more is said of Vice-Chairs, general principles imply >> that Vice-Chair should have same eligibility requirements as Chair. >> >> However, if I interpret the Charter correctly, observers are not >> considered members and thus not eligible. (There is some room for >> argument that observers would be members but not "full members", but >> I'd rather avoid relying on such ambiguities.) >> >> On the other hand it's clear that we could have several Vice Chairs, >> if such a solution would help. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights >> Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org >> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 >> >> CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> -- >> Mar?lia Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg --- 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 avri Sat Mar 5 10:58:23 2016 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 08:58:23 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) In-Reply-To: <1B7CED1B-DC9E-4E58-B3F7-1C653F248176@toast.net> References: <46aea3bbcac14a1b93e2b6aa48ee7b0c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <1B7CED1B-DC9E-4E58-B3F7-1C653F248176@toast.net> Message-ID: <56DA9FAF.1020402@acm.org> On 03-Mar-16 15:50, Edward Morris wrote: > Were the transition not to take place for whatever reason, > Congressional opposition for example, would the Board still consider > proceeding with the accountability mechanism reforms (IRP, > reconsideration, transparency) independently of any transition? More > than a few people were asking that question. Since one of the requirements of the transition is that the changes already be under way, for example the bylaws changes be made, I do not it being unwound, even if congress somehow stops the transition - which I do not see as likely - NTIA and the administration can stop this, but this is an executive action as I understand things. WS2 might end up difficult, depends on who is on the board. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From stephanie.perrin Sat Mar 5 11:59:48 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 04:59:48 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: TMCH Discussion with Noncommercial Stakeholders Group In-Reply-To: <56D5F174.3090902@kathykleiman.com> References: <56D5F174.3090902@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <56DAAE14.90304@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks Kathy, will try to be there but good thing you are on top of this!! Stephanie On 2016-03-01 14:45, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > ICANN put out a call for comments for their contractor from the > Analysis Group which is looking at GAC requests to unilaterally change > the Trademark Clearinghouse. I think someone needs to tell them why > the proposals are not very fair or balanced. The session is on > Wednesday from 2:15-3:15pm. If you could like to attend, please let me > know. > > Robin, Wendy and I will be there -- all members of the STI which > drafted the rules for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Happy to have new > folks too! > > Best regards, > Kathy > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From aelsadr Sun Mar 6 02:48:33 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 00:48:33 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Meeting at ICANN 55 Agenda - March 6th 2016 Message-ID: Hi, Apologies about the late delivery of this agenda, but here it goes: 1. NCSG Policy Committee leadership elections. The voting will take place during the meeting as the first agenda item, so please try to be at the meeting on time. There are three candidates on the ballot who are nominated as a bloc. This means that members of the PC will have the option to vote for all three of them or NOTA. The three candidates are: Marilia Maciel (Candidate for PC Chair) Matthew Shears (Candidate for PC Co-Vice-Chair) David Cake (Candidate for PC Co-Vice-Chair) If the new leadership team is willing, I plan on asking them to take over chairing tomorrow?s Policy Committee meeting following the announcement of the results of the election. 2. Discussion on the motions scheduled to be voted on at the GNSO Council public meeting at ICANN 55 on March 9th, 2016: a) Motion on CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations. b) Motion to Approve the Charter for the Working Group to conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). c) Motion to adopt the GNSO Review Working Party?s feasibility and prioritization analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations. Details on the motions are posted on the GNSO Council wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016 3. Discussion of topics to be discussed during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board on March 8th, 2016. A number of potential topics to bring up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board have been suggested on NCSG-DISCUSS. Maryam has collated these into a document that is attached to this email. In addition to these suggestion, Ed has also suggested an interesting potential question to the Board here on the PC list that we should also consider: > Were the transition not to take place for whatever reason, Congressional opposition for example, would the Board still consider proceeding with the accountability mechanism reforms (IRP, reconsideration, transparency) independently of any transition? More than a few people were asking that question. The flight from Washington was not particularly full of optimists in this regard. Marilia had also suggested that we hold a discussion with the Board regarding the implementation of the recommendations coming out of the GNSO Review. This could probably be covered along with the motion to to adopt the GNSO Review WP?s analysis of Westlake?s final report and recommendations. A copy of the WP?s review of the Westlake recommendations is attached to this email. 4. AOB If there are any agenda items that have been suggested and missing in this email, please let the PC know. If there are new agenda items that PC members would like to suggest, we can discuss them (if time allows) under AOB. Thanks. Amr -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Question to the Board.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 121256 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Rec Feasibility Prioritization (FINAL).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 45579 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From maryam.bakoshi Sun Mar 6 10:52:47 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 08:52:47 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER: ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting | Sunday 06 March 2016 | 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) Message-ID: Dear All, Please find below participation details for ICANN 55: NCSG Policy Committee Meeting on Sunday 06 March 2016 at 17:00 UTC (17:00 WET) Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/zuu4e8d Time in some other locations: Sydney: Monday, 7 March 2016, 04:00 Tokyo: Monday, 7 March 2016, 02:00 Beijing: Monday, 7 March 2016, 01:00 Moscow: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 20:00 New Delhi: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 22:30 Paris: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 18:00 Buenos Aires: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 14:00 New York: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 12:00 Los Angeles: Sunday, 6 March 2016, 09:00 Agenda: 1. NCSG Policy Committee leadership elections. The voting will take place during the meeting as the first agenda item, so please try to be at the meeting on time. There are three candidates on the ballot who are nominated as a bloc. This means that members of the PC will have the option to vote for all three of them or NOTA. The three candidates are: Marilia Maciel (Candidate for PC Chair) Matthew Shears (Candidate for PC Co-Vice-Chair) David Cake (Candidate for PC Co-Vice-Chair) If the new leadership team is willing, I plan on asking them to take over chairing tomorrow?s Policy Committee meeting following the announcement of the results of the election. 2. Discussion on the motions scheduled to be voted on at the GNSO Council public meeting at ICANN 55 on March 9th, 2016: a) Motion on CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations. b) Motion to Approve the Charter for the Working Group to conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). c) Motion to adopt the GNSO Review Working Party?s feasibility and prioritization analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations. Details on the motions are posted on the GNSO Council wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016 3. Discussion of topics to be discussed during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board on March 8th, 2016. A number of potential topics to bring up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board have been suggested on NCSG-DISCUSS. Maryam has collated these into a document that is attached to this email. In addition to these suggestion, Ed has also suggested an interesting potential question to the Board here on the PC list that we should also consider: Were the transition not to take place for whatever reason, Congressional opposition for example, would the Board still consider proceeding with the accountability mechanism reforms (IRP, reconsideration, transparency) independently of any transition? More than a few people were asking that question. The flight from Washington was not particularly full of optimists in this regard. Marilia had also suggested that we hold a discussion with the Board regarding the implementation of the recommendations coming out of the GNSO Review. This could probably be covered along with the motion to to adopt the GNSO Review WP?s analysis of Westlake?s final report and recommendations. A copy of the WP?s review of the Westlake recommendations is attached to this email. 4. AOB If there are any agenda items that have been suggested and missing in this email, please let the PC know. If there are new agenda items that PC members would like to suggest, we can discuss them (if time allows) under AOB. Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: NCSG PC For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Mobile: +44 7737 698036 Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 9585 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Mon Mar 7 11:29:06 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 04:29:06 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] For your review - proposed approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56DD49E2.9030408@mail.utoronto.ca> Further to our discussions last night... stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] For your review - proposed approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:04:07 +0000 From: Marika Konings To: council at gnso.icann.org Dear All, Following our conversations today, please find attached on behalf of James the proposed approach for dealing with the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal. Please take note of the deadline for comments, questions and clarifications on this proposed approach which is Monday 18.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed Approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal - updated 6 March 2016.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 21213 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr Mon Mar 7 11:54:31 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:54:31 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] For your review - proposed approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal In-Reply-To: <56DD49E2.9030408@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <56DD49E2.9030408@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks for forwarding this Stephanie. I?m experiencing some problems with my hosting provider, and am not receiving emails from the council list. Trying to resolve this. Thanks again. Amr > On Mar 7, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > > Further to our discussions last night... > stephanie > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [council] For your review - proposed approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:04:07 +0000 > From: Marika Konings > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > Dear All, > > Following our conversations today, please find attached on behalf of James the proposed approach for dealing with the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal. Please take note of the deadline for comments, questions and clarifications on this proposed approach which is Monday 18.00 UTC. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Mon Mar 7 12:28:16 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 05:28:16 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] For your review - proposed approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <56DD49E2.9030408@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <56DD57C0.5060101@mail.utoronto.ca> Yes you may not be the only one Amr, I did not get this until 9:26 but it seems Marika sent it last night....deadline 18:00 UTC today for comments... cheers sp On 2016-03-07 4:54, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks for forwarding this Stephanie. I?m experiencing some problems with my hosting provider, and am not receiving emails from the council list. Trying to resolve this. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > >> On Mar 7, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> >> Further to our discussions last night... >> stephanie >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [council] For your review - proposed approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal >> Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:04:07 +0000 >> From: Marika Konings >> To: council at gnso.icann.org >> >> Dear All, >> >> Following our conversations today, please find attached on behalf of James the proposed approach for dealing with the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal. Please take note of the deadline for comments, questions and clarifications on this proposed approach which is Monday 18.00 UTC. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From egmorris1 Wed Mar 9 02:38:16 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 00:38:16 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC Response to CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, Please see the GAC response to the CCWG Work Stream 1 Final Report, following in this transmission. Kind Regards, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Le?n Felipe S?nchez Amb?a > Date: 9 March 2016 at 00:20:03 WET > To: CCWG ACCT > Cc: Accountability Staff > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC Response to CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal > Dear all, > > It is with great pleasure that I am forwarding this GAC letter received minutes ago. > > > Best regards, > > > Le?n > >> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: >> >> De: Tom Dale >> Asunto: GAC Response to CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal >> Fecha: 9 de marzo de 2016, 12:17:19 a.m. GMT >> Para: Mathieu Weill , Thomas Rickert , Le?n Felipe S?nchez Amb?a , Thomas Rickert >> Cc: "gac-leadership at icann.org" >> >> Dear Co-Chairs >> >> Attached please find a letter from the Chair of the GAC, Thomas Schneider, concerning the GAC?s response to the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal. >> >> Regards >> >> >> Tom Dale >> ACIG GAC Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAC Response CCWG 8 March 2016.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 288158 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi Thu Mar 10 09:21:41 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:21:41 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ROOM CHANGE: ICANN 55: NCSG Executive Committee Meeting with the Board | 10 March 2016 | 0730 - 0900 WET | EMERAUDE Message-ID: Dear All, Please find below participation details for ICANN 55: NCSG Executive Committee Meeting with the Board on Thursday 10 March 2016 at 07:30 UTC (07:30 WET) Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ Time Zones: Marrakech: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 07:30 Sydney: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 18:30 Tokyo: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 16:30 Beijing: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 15:30 Moscow: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 10:30 New Delhi: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 13:00 Paris: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 08:30 London: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 07:30 Buenos Aires: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 04:30 New York: Thursday, 10 March 2016, 02:30 Los Angeles: Wednesday, 9 March 2016, 23:30 Time in some other locations: http://tinyurl.com/zolw44e Agenda: TBC Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: NCSG BOARD For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Mobile: +44 7737 698036 Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 6644 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maryam.bakoshi Thu Mar 10 09:26:39 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:26:39 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ROOM CHANGE TO EMERAUDE! Message-ID: Dear All, Please noe that the meeting at 07:30 today, with Board members, has been changed to Emerald, which is at the Golf Hotel. Our deepest apologies for any inconvenience caused. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Mobile: +44 7737 698036 Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy Wed Mar 16 13:16:16 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 07:16:16 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> Message-ID: <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, This Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse raised my concerns. I was wondering if anyone knew about? Do you think we need to review and respond? Best, Kathy -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:38:40 -0400 From: ICANN News Alert Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org To: kathy at kathykleiman.com ICANN News Alert ICANN News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-03-15-en ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment 15 March 2016 ICANN today announced the publication of a draft report on New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse. The draft report is available for public comment through 21 April 2016. *Read the New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse draft report [PDF, 1.17 MB].* The report, which was written by ICANN staff, explores methods for measuring the effectiveness of safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] against Domain Name System (DNS) abuse that were implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. It defines the activities that constitute DNS abuse and assesses indicators of the rate of abuse in new gTLDs and the DNS as a whole. The report also explores user feedback with these safeguards and presents additional proposals for researching how these safeguards might be affecting abuse rates. ICANN is now seeking input from stakeholders regarding the report and measurement of DNS abuse in new gTLDs. Following the public comment period, the report will be updated to incorporate the feedback received. *Comment on the report .* The New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse report supports one of several activities intended to help a community-based team of volunteers determine how well the New gTLD Program is impacting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT) in the DNS. New gTLD Program Reviews ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and cover a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice, security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with commissioning third-party analyses, ICANN is capturing stakeholder experiences regarding the effects of the New gTLD Program. 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 ./ This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! Manage Your Subscription -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed Mar 16 13:32:59 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:32:59 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> Hi, I saw this too. I didn?t know anything about it until I read the announcement, but James Bladel did bring up a similar issue (to my surprise) during the GNSO Council Wrap Up session on Thursday. There was apparently a proposal from the GAC and ALAC to set up a CCWG to discuss safeguards for ?sensitive strings?. I haven?t read the report yet, but I don?t believe that policies should be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, so don?t think the idea of a CCWG is a good one. I?m not sure what the purpose of this report is, but we need to keep an eye on what direction this is headed to. Thanks. Amr > On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Hi All, > This Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse raised my concerns. I was wondering if anyone knew about? Do you think we need to review and respond? > > Best, > Kathy > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:38:40 -0400 > From: ICANN News Alert > Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org > To: kathy at kathykleiman.com > > > > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-03-15-en > > Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment > 15 March 2016 > ICANN today announced the publication of a draft report on New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse. The draft report is available for public comment through 21 April 2016. > > Read the New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse draft report [PDF, 1.17 MB]. > > The report, which was written by ICANN staff, explores methods for measuring the effectiveness of safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] against Domain Name System (DNS) abuse that were implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. It defines the activities that constitute DNS abuse and assesses indicators of the rate of abuse in new gTLDs and the DNS as a whole. The report also explores user feedback with these safeguards and presents additional proposals for researching how these safeguards might be affecting abuse rates. > > ICANN is now seeking input from stakeholders regarding the report and measurement of DNS abuse in new gTLDs. Following the public comment period, the report will be updated to incorporate the feedback received. > > Comment on the report. > > The New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse report supports one of several activities intended to help a community-based team of volunteers determine how well the New gTLD Program is impacting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT) in the DNS. > > New gTLD Program Reviews > > ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and cover a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice, security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with commissioning third-party analyses, ICANN is capturing stakeholder experiences regarding the effects of the New gTLD Program. > > 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. > > > > This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: > ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From mariliamaciel Wed Mar 16 21:23:15 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:23:15 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi Kathy, thank you for raising this topic. Amr, I completely share your views on that. In my understanding, the reviews should offer information and data for the policy development process. They should serve the PDP and not be a way to bypass it. We should include this point in our contribution to the public comment period. Who would be interested to be part of a team to work on NCSG's contribution to this public comment? Best! Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I saw this too. I didn?t know anything about it until I read the > announcement, but James Bladel did bring up a similar issue (to my > surprise) during the GNSO Council Wrap Up session on Thursday. There was > apparently a proposal from the GAC and ALAC to set up a CCWG to discuss > safeguards for ?sensitive strings?. > > I haven?t read the report yet, but I don?t believe that policies should be > developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, so don?t > think the idea of a CCWG is a good one. I?m not sure what the purpose of > this report is, but we need to keep an eye on what direction this is headed > to. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > This Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse > raised my concerns. I was wondering if anyone knew about? Do you think we > need to review and respond? > > > > Best, > > Kathy > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program > Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment > > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:38:40 -0400 > > From: ICANN News Alert > > Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org > > To: kathy at kathykleiman.com > > > > > > > > News Alert > > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-03-15-en > > > > Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse > Available for Public Comment > > 15 March 2016 > > ICANN today announced the publication of a draft report on New gTLD > Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse. The draft report is available for > public comment through 21 April 2016. > > > > Read the New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse draft report > [PDF, 1.17 MB]. > > > > The report, which was written by ICANN staff, explores methods for > measuring the effectiveness of safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] against Domain Name > System (DNS) abuse that were implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. > It defines the activities that constitute DNS abuse and assesses indicators > of the rate of abuse in new gTLDs and the DNS as a whole. The report also > explores user feedback with these safeguards and presents additional > proposals for researching how these safeguards might be affecting abuse > rates. > > > > ICANN is now seeking input from stakeholders regarding the report and > measurement of DNS abuse in new gTLDs. Following the public comment period, > the report will be updated to incorporate the feedback received. > > > > Comment on the report. > > > > The New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse report supports one of > several activities intended to help a community-based team of volunteers > determine how well the New gTLD Program is impacting competition, consumer > trust and consumer choice (CCT) in the DNS. > > > > New gTLD Program Reviews > > > > ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains > to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred > in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and cover > a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice, > security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with > commissioning third-party analyses, ICANN is capturing stakeholder > experiences regarding the effects of the New gTLD Program. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: > > ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 > Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > Email Marketing by > > > > Manage Your Subscription > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Wed Mar 16 22:19:49 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:19:49 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 Message-ID: Hello everyone, The deadline to present inputs to the public comment period on the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars is *closing 18/03*. To our NCSG members and particularly to those of us following privacy discussions more closely, is there any comment that we would like to present? Thanks 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 DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan Wed Mar 16 22:21:09 2016 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:21:09 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org>, Message-ID: <7092E1B9-7ED7-40E3-B304-F111853CE593@EUI.eu> Thanks Kathy for bringing this to our attention. I 100% share Amr's views and would be happy to contribute to a public comment. What is the timeline? Sent from my iPhone On Mar 16, 2016, at 16:24, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Hi Kathy, thank you for raising this topic. Amr, I completely share your views on that. In my understanding, the reviews should offer information and data for the policy development process. They should serve the PDP and not be a way to bypass it. We should include this point in our contribution to the public comment period. Who would be interested to be part of a team to work on NCSG's contribution to this public comment? Best! Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Amr Elsadr > wrote: Hi, I saw this too. I didn?t know anything about it until I read the announcement, but James Bladel did bring up a similar issue (to my surprise) during the GNSO Council Wrap Up session on Thursday. There was apparently a proposal from the GAC and ALAC to set up a CCWG to discuss safeguards for ?sensitive strings?. I haven?t read the report yet, but I don?t believe that policies should be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, so don?t think the idea of a CCWG is a good one. I?m not sure what the purpose of this report is, but we need to keep an eye on what direction this is headed to. Thanks. Amr > On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > Hi All, > This Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse raised my concerns. I was wondering if anyone knew about? Do you think we need to review and respond? > > Best, > Kathy > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:38:40 -0400 > From: ICANN News Alert > > Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org > To: kathy at kathykleiman.com > > > > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-03-15-en > > Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment > 15 March 2016 > ICANN today announced the publication of a draft report on New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse. The draft report is available for public comment through 21 April 2016. > > Read the New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse draft report [PDF, 1.17 MB]. > > The report, which was written by ICANN staff, explores methods for measuring the effectiveness of safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] against Domain Name System (DNS) abuse that were implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. It defines the activities that constitute DNS abuse and assesses indicators of the rate of abuse in new gTLDs and the DNS as a whole. The report also explores user feedback with these safeguards and presents additional proposals for researching how these safeguards might be affecting abuse rates. > > ICANN is now seeking input from stakeholders regarding the report and measurement of DNS abuse in new gTLDs. Following the public comment period, the report will be updated to incorporate the feedback received. > > Comment on the report. > > The New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse report supports one of several activities intended to help a community-based team of volunteers determine how well the New gTLD Program is impacting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT) in the DNS. > > New gTLD Program Reviews > > ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and cover a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice, security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with commissioning third-party analyses, ICANN is capturing stakeholder experiences regarding the effects of the New gTLD Program. > > 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. > > > > This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: > ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Mar?lia Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Wed Mar 16 22:23:46 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:23:46 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: More information on this issue can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en Best Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The deadline to present inputs to the public comment period on the Registration > Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and > Registrars is *closing 18/03*. > > To our NCSG members and particularly to those of us following privacy > discussions more closely, is there any comment that we would like to > present? > > Thanks > 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 > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Wed Mar 16 22:26:19 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:26:19 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <7092E1B9-7ED7-40E3-B304-F111853CE593@EUI.eu> References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> <7092E1B9-7ED7-40E3-B304-F111853CE593@EUI.eu> Message-ID: Hi Stefania, Great! The deadline of the public comment is 25 April. Best Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote: > Thanks Kathy for bringing this to our attention. I 100% share Amr's views > and would be happy to contribute to a public comment. What is the timeline? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 16, 2016, at 16:24, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hi Kathy, thank you for raising this topic. Amr, I completely share your > views on that. In my understanding, the reviews should offer information > and data for the policy development process. They should serve the PDP and > not be a way to bypass it. We should include this point in our contribution > to the public comment period. > > Who would be interested to be part of a team to work on NCSG's > contribution to this public comment? > > Best! > Mar?lia > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I saw this too. I didn?t know anything about it until I read the >> announcement, but James Bladel did bring up a similar issue (to my >> surprise) during the GNSO Council Wrap Up session on Thursday. There was >> apparently a proposal from the GAC and ALAC to set up a CCWG to discuss >> safeguards for ?sensitive strings?. >> >> I haven?t read the report yet, but I don?t believe that policies should >> be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, so >> don?t think the idea of a CCWG is a good one. I?m not sure what the purpose >> of this report is, but we need to keep an eye on what direction this is >> headed to. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> > On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi All, >> > This Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse >> raised my concerns. I was wondering if anyone knew about? Do you think we >> need to review and respond? >> > >> > Best, >> > Kathy >> > >> > >> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program >> Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment >> > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:38:40 -0400 >> > From: ICANN News Alert >> > Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org >> > To: kathy at kathykleiman.com >> > >> > >> > >> > News Alert >> > >> > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-03-15-en >> > >> > Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse >> Available for Public Comment >> > 15 March 2016 >> > ICANN today announced the publication of a draft report on New gTLD >> Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse. The draft report is available for >> public comment through 21 April 2016. >> > >> > Read the New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse draft report >> [PDF, 1.17 MB]. >> > >> > The report, which was written by ICANN staff, explores methods for >> measuring the effectiveness of safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] against Domain Name >> System (DNS) abuse that were implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. >> It defines the activities that constitute DNS abuse and assesses indicators >> of the rate of abuse in new gTLDs and the DNS as a whole. The report also >> explores user feedback with these safeguards and presents additional >> proposals for researching how these safeguards might be affecting abuse >> rates. >> > >> > ICANN is now seeking input from stakeholders regarding the report and >> measurement of DNS abuse in new gTLDs. Following the public comment period, >> the report will be updated to incorporate the feedback received. >> > >> > Comment on the report. >> > >> > The New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse report supports one >> of several activities intended to help a community-based team of volunteers >> determine how well the New gTLD Program is impacting competition, consumer >> trust and consumer choice (CCT) in the DNS. >> > >> > New gTLD Program Reviews >> > >> > ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains >> to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred >> in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and cover >> a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice, >> security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with >> commissioning third-party analyses, ICANN is capturing stakeholder >> experiences regarding the effects of the New gTLD Program. >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: >> > ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 >> Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >> > Email Marketing by >> > >> > Manage Your Subscription >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan Wed Mar 16 22:28:59 2016 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:28:59 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> <7092E1B9-7ED7-40E3-B304-F111853CE593@EUI.eu>, Message-ID: <18A7B805-401B-45D0-A73F-CF9AA25D4BA7@EUI.eu> Oh good, plenty of time. I just got to Brazil without a laptop so I am happy the timeline allows for my return to the office! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 16, 2016, at 17:26, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Hi Stefania, Great! The deadline of the public comment is 25 April. Best Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Milan, Stefania > wrote: Thanks Kathy for bringing this to our attention. I 100% share Amr's views and would be happy to contribute to a public comment. What is the timeline? Sent from my iPhone On Mar 16, 2016, at 16:24, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Hi Kathy, thank you for raising this topic. Amr, I completely share your views on that. In my understanding, the reviews should offer information and data for the policy development process. They should serve the PDP and not be a way to bypass it. We should include this point in our contribution to the public comment period. Who would be interested to be part of a team to work on NCSG's contribution to this public comment? Best! Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Amr Elsadr > wrote: Hi, I saw this too. I didn?t know anything about it until I read the announcement, but James Bladel did bring up a similar issue (to my surprise) during the GNSO Council Wrap Up session on Thursday. There was apparently a proposal from the GAC and ALAC to set up a CCWG to discuss safeguards for ?sensitive strings?. I haven?t read the report yet, but I don?t believe that policies should be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, so don?t think the idea of a CCWG is a good one. I?m not sure what the purpose of this report is, but we need to keep an eye on what direction this is headed to. Thanks. Amr > On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > Hi All, > This Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse raised my concerns. I was wondering if anyone knew about? Do you think we need to review and respond? > > Best, > Kathy > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:38:40 -0400 > From: ICANN News Alert > > Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org > To: kathy at kathykleiman.com > > > > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-03-15-en > > Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment > 15 March 2016 > ICANN today announced the publication of a draft report on New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse. The draft report is available for public comment through 21 April 2016. > > Read the New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse draft report [PDF, 1.17 MB]. > > The report, which was written by ICANN staff, explores methods for measuring the effectiveness of safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] against Domain Name System (DNS) abuse that were implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. It defines the activities that constitute DNS abuse and assesses indicators of the rate of abuse in new gTLDs and the DNS as a whole. The report also explores user feedback with these safeguards and presents additional proposals for researching how these safeguards might be affecting abuse rates. > > ICANN is now seeking input from stakeholders regarding the report and measurement of DNS abuse in new gTLDs. Following the public comment period, the report will be updated to incorporate the feedback received. > > Comment on the report. > > The New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse report supports one of several activities intended to help a community-based team of volunteers determine how well the New gTLD Program is impacting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT) in the DNS. > > New gTLD Program Reviews > > ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and cover a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice, security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with commissioning third-party analyses, ICANN is capturing stakeholder experiences regarding the effects of the New gTLD Program. > > 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. > > > > This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: > ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Mar?lia Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en _______________________________________________ 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. -- Mar?lia Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears Wed Mar 16 22:30:53 2016 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:30:53 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <56E9C27D.2040100@cdt.org> OK - a naive question(s). Isn't there a process for agreeing that there should be a CCWG in the first? And what if other SOs and ACs disagree with the substance of the WG and its formation? And who tasks ICANN to undertake the report and makes that decision? On 3/16/2016 11:32 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I saw this too. I didn?t know anything about it until I read the announcement, but James Bladel did bring up a similar issue (to my surprise) during the GNSO Council Wrap Up session on Thursday. There was apparently a proposal from the GAC and ALAC to set up a CCWG to discuss safeguards for ?sensitive strings?. > > I haven?t read the report yet, but I don?t believe that policies should be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, so don?t think the idea of a CCWG is a good one. I?m not sure what the purpose of this report is, but we need to keep an eye on what direction this is headed to. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> This Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse raised my concerns. I was wondering if anyone knew about? Do you think we need to review and respond? >> >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment >> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:38:40 -0400 >> From: ICANN News Alert >> Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org >> To: kathy at kathykleiman.com >> >> >> >> News Alert >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-03-15-en >> >> Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment >> 15 March 2016 >> ICANN today announced the publication of a draft report on New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse. The draft report is available for public comment through 21 April 2016. >> >> Read the New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse draft report [PDF, 1.17 MB]. >> >> The report, which was written by ICANN staff, explores methods for measuring the effectiveness of safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] against Domain Name System (DNS) abuse that were implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. It defines the activities that constitute DNS abuse and assesses indicators of the rate of abuse in new gTLDs and the DNS as a whole. The report also explores user feedback with these safeguards and presents additional proposals for researching how these safeguards might be affecting abuse rates. >> >> ICANN is now seeking input from stakeholders regarding the report and measurement of DNS abuse in new gTLDs. Following the public comment period, the report will be updated to incorporate the feedback received. >> >> Comment on the report. >> >> The New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse report supports one of several activities intended to help a community-based team of volunteers determine how well the New gTLD Program is impacting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT) in the DNS. >> >> New gTLD Program Reviews >> >> ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and cover a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice, security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with commissioning third-party analyses, ICANN is capturing stakeholder experiences regarding the effects of the New gTLD Program. >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: >> ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >> Email Marketing by >> >> Manage Your Subscription >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From mariliamaciel Wed Mar 16 22:36:07 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:36:07 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on Implementation of Thick Whois rec#1 closing 18/03 Message-ID: Hello everyone, The deadline to present inputs to the public comment period on the Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs is *closing 18/03* . This Public Comment Period focuses on the proposed implementation of Recommendation #1 of Thick Whois, concerning the consistent labeling and display of Whois output for all gTLDs. Recommendation #1 of the Thick Whois states: "The provision of thick Whois services, with a consistent labeling and display as per the model outlined in specification 3 of the 2013 RAA, should become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." More information can be found in: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en To our NCSG members and particularly to those of us following privacy discussions more closely, is there any comment that we would like to present? Is anyone writing an individual comment and would like to share with the group? Maybe this comment could be written in conjunction with the one on RDAP. Thanks 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 DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Wed Mar 16 22:45:07 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:45:07 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <56E9C27D.2040100@cdt.org> References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> <56E9C27D.2040100@cdt.org> Message-ID: Excellent questions actually :) On your first question: there is a cross-community working group that is now working to develop uniform principles to guide the initiation and operations of future cross community working groups. The draft output from this CCWG is currently under public comment comment until 02/04. As far as I understand, we do not have a clear framework in place yet. However, I believe that we should take a look and find in this draft report if creating a CCWG to discuss new gTLD and DNS abuse would somehow conflict with the principles: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en Maybe others can clarify how many SO/ACs are currently necessary to create a CCWG and if an SO/AC could block it. Thanks Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > OK - a naive question(s). Isn't there a process for agreeing that there > should be a CCWG in the first? And what if other SOs and ACs disagree with > the substance of the WG and its formation? And who tasks ICANN to > undertake the report and makes that decision? > > > On 3/16/2016 11:32 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I saw this too. I didn?t know anything about it until I read the >> announcement, but James Bladel did bring up a similar issue (to my >> surprise) during the GNSO Council Wrap Up session on Thursday. There was >> apparently a proposal from the GAC and ALAC to set up a CCWG to discuss >> safeguards for ?sensitive strings?. >> >> I haven?t read the report yet, but I don?t believe that policies should >> be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, so >> don?t think the idea of a CCWG is a good one. I?m not sure what the purpose >> of this report is, but we need to keep an eye on what direction this is >> headed to. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> This Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse >>> raised my concerns. I was wondering if anyone knew about? Do you think we >>> need to review and respond? >>> >>> Best, >>> Kathy >>> >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program >>> Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment >>> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:38:40 -0400 >>> From: ICANN News Alert >>> Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org >>> To: kathy at kathykleiman.com >>> >>> >>> >>> News Alert >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-03-15-en >>> >>> Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse >>> Available for Public Comment >>> 15 March 2016 >>> ICANN today announced the publication of a draft report on New gTLD >>> Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse. The draft report is available for >>> public comment through 21 April 2016. >>> >>> Read the New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse draft report >>> [PDF, 1.17 MB]. >>> >>> The report, which was written by ICANN staff, explores methods for >>> measuring the effectiveness of safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] against Domain Name >>> System (DNS) abuse that were implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. >>> It defines the activities that constitute DNS abuse and assesses indicators >>> of the rate of abuse in new gTLDs and the DNS as a whole. The report also >>> explores user feedback with these safeguards and presents additional >>> proposals for researching how these safeguards might be affecting abuse >>> rates. >>> >>> ICANN is now seeking input from stakeholders regarding the report and >>> measurement of DNS abuse in new gTLDs. Following the public comment period, >>> the report will be updated to incorporate the feedback received. >>> >>> Comment on the report. >>> >>> The New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse report supports one of >>> several activities intended to help a community-based team of volunteers >>> determine how well the New gTLD Program is impacting competition, consumer >>> trust and consumer choice (CCT) in the DNS. >>> >>> New gTLD Program Reviews >>> >>> ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains >>> to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred >>> in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and cover >>> a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice, >>> security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with >>> commissioning third-party analyses, ICANN is capturing stakeholder >>> experiences regarding the effects of the New gTLD Program. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: >>> ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 >>> Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >>> Email Marketing by >>> >>> Manage Your Subscription >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > -- > > Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project > Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org > E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 > > CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - > register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan Wed Mar 16 23:50:07 2016 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:50:07 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> <56E9C27D.2040100@cdt.org> Message-ID: <63AE26F4-F1CF-43C9-B9B7-C95F98F2E8C2@EUI.eu> I attended the "CCWG on CCWG" meeting in Marrakesh, which was rather interesting!, but don't have my notes on me. I suggest asking Avri, who is an active member of the above, and surely knows Sent from my iPhone On Mar 16, 2016, at 17:45, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Excellent questions actually :) On your first question: there is a cross-community working group that is now working to develop uniform principles to guide the initiation and operations of future cross community working groups. The draft output from this CCWG is currently under public comment comment until 02/04. As far as I understand, we do not have a clear framework in place yet. However, I believe that we should take a look and find in this draft report if creating a CCWG to discuss new gTLD and DNS abuse would somehow conflict with the principles: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en Maybe others can clarify how many SO/ACs are currently necessary to create a CCWG and if an SO/AC could block it. Thanks Mar?lia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Shears > wrote: OK - a naive question(s). Isn't there a process for agreeing that there should be a CCWG in the first? And what if other SOs and ACs disagree with the substance of the WG and its formation? And who tasks ICANN to undertake the report and makes that decision? On 3/16/2016 11:32 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, I saw this too. I didn?t know anything about it until I read the announcement, but James Bladel did bring up a similar issue (to my surprise) during the GNSO Council Wrap Up session on Thursday. There was apparently a proposal from the GAC and ALAC to set up a CCWG to discuss safeguards for ?sensitive strings?. I haven?t read the report yet, but I don?t believe that policies should be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, so don?t think the idea of a CCWG is a good one. I?m not sure what the purpose of this report is, but we need to keep an eye on what direction this is headed to. Thanks. Amr On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: Hi All, This Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse raised my concerns. I was wondering if anyone knew about? Do you think we need to review and respond? Best, Kathy -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:38:40 -0400 From: ICANN News Alert > Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org To: kathy at kathykleiman.com News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-03-15-en Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment 15 March 2016 ICANN today announced the publication of a draft report on New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse. The draft report is available for public comment through 21 April 2016. Read the New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse draft report [PDF, 1.17 MB]. The report, which was written by ICANN staff, explores methods for measuring the effectiveness of safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] against Domain Name System (DNS) abuse that were implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. It defines the activities that constitute DNS abuse and assesses indicators of the rate of abuse in new gTLDs and the DNS as a whole. The report also explores user feedback with these safeguards and presents additional proposals for researching how these safeguards might be affecting abuse rates. ICANN is now seeking input from stakeholders regarding the report and measurement of DNS abuse in new gTLDs. Following the public comment period, the report will be updated to incorporate the feedback received. Comment on the report. The New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse report supports one of several activities intended to help a community-based team of volunteers determine how well the New gTLD Program is impacting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT) in the DNS. New gTLD Program Reviews ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and cover a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice, security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with commissioning third-party analyses, ICANN is capturing stakeholder experiences regarding the effects of the New gTLD Program. 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. This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by Manage Your Subscription _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Mar?lia Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Mar 17 00:13:31 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:13:31 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <56E9DA8B.70105@apc.org> On 16-Mar-16 07:32, Amr Elsadr wrote: > but I don?t believe that policies should be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, They would be developing advice, not policy recommendations. And in the case they did develop anything, I would expect the Board to refer it to the GNSO, perhaps as part of a Board issues report request - as that would be the proper process, especially under the new accountability changes to Articles and Bylaws which be in effect before they have any output. I do not see any way in which it would become policy without a GNSO PDP. I am not believe that there is any reason, precedent or existing practice for one SOAC to prevent a CCWG among other SOAC. I advise against trying to stop some other groups' CCWG. I do advise participating. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri Thu Mar 17 00:15:13 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:15:13 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> <56E9C27D.2040100@cdt.org> Message-ID: <56E9DAF1.8060401@apc.org> On 16-Mar-16 16:45, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Maybe others can clarify how many SO/ACs are currently necessary > to create a CCWG and if an SO/AC could block it. I believe it is 2 SOAC or more to start and there has not been any discussion that I recall, on a right to block a CCWG. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From stephanie.perrin Thu Mar 17 05:50:05 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:50:05 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on Implementation of Thick Whois rec#1 closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56EA296D.5040307@mail.utoronto.ca> Short answer, yes. Amr, help! you were on thick WHOIS? Stephanie On 2016-03-16 16:36, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The deadline to present inputs to the public comment period on > the Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy > Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for > All gTLDs is *_closing 18/03_*. > > This Public Comment Period focuses on the proposed implementation of > Recommendation #1 of Thick Whois, concerning the consistent labeling > and display of Whois output for all gTLDs. Recommendation #1 of the > Thick Whois states: "The provision of thick Whois services, with a > consistent labeling and display as per the model outlined in > specification 3 of the 2013 RAA, should become a requirement for all > gTLD registries, both existing and future." > > More information can be found in: > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en > > To our NCSG members and particularly to those of us following privacy > discussions more closely, is there any comment that we would like to > present? Is anyone writing an individual comment and would like to > share with the group? > > Maybe this comment could be written in conjunction with the one on RDAP. > > Thanks > 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 > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu Mar 17 06:32:07 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:32:07 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <56E9DA8B.70105@apc.org> References: <0.0.12.930.1D17F537527DF60.0@drone113.ral.icpbounce.com> <56E94080.5020801@kathykleiman.com> <68D09F2F-F07D-4BF8-9A05-F87FD696A324@egyptig.org> <56E9DA8B.70105@apc.org> Message-ID: <56EA3347.3070805@apc.org> Some more info - went to the draft. BTW: I have been sparsely involved of late. not as active as perhaps I should have been lately. while i was on council i was council liaison to the group. was never replaced. in fact at this point the membership is rather stale. Some of the specifics BTW: the draft is on review until 2 April https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en on formation from 1.0 ? Two or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees adopt a single Charter, and are hence known as Chartering Organizations. from 2.0 1 . Initiation of CCWG ? Two or more Supporting Organization(s) and/or Advisory Committee(s) make a determination that a CCWG is the proper vehicle to resolve the issue that has been identified. Some of the questions that are relevant to make such a determination are: is the issue within the scope of policy development for a specific SO or within the specific remit of an SO/AC; does the issue cut across different SO/ACs; is there broad community interest to engage on this topic; are there sufficient community and staff resources available to form and support a CCWG; are the deliverables intended to be submitted to the ICANN Board for action/consideration. 3.1 Initiation of Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) 1. Deciding whether or not a CCWG is the proper mechanism to address the issue at hand is the first and most important decision to make in the CCWG life cycle. The formation and running of a CCWG requires substantial community as well as staff resources, so due consideration needs to be given to whether such a mechanism is the most effective and efficient means to achieve the desired outcome. Questions to consider include: o Is the issue within the scope of policy development for a specific SO or specific remit of an SO/AC? If so, it is likely unsuitable for a CCWG unless the CCWG is intended to provided input to the applicable SO/AC process to address the issue. o Does the issue cut across different SO/ACs? o Is there broad community interest across SO/ACs to engage on this topic? o Are there sufficient community and staff resources available to form and support a CCWG? o What is the expected outcome? Is the effort expected to produce recommendations that are intended to be submitted to the ICANN Board for action/consideration? Are the recommendations intended to be applied to SO/AC related activities? o What other alternatives are available to address the issue? from 3.2 4. Once the drafting of the Charter is completed (see section 3.2 above) it is submitted to all relevant ICANN SO/ACs for their consideration. Should there be any concerns regarding the Charter or proposed changes to the draft Charter, these should be communicated to the initiating entity (DT or SO or AC) as soon as possible so that any potential changes can be made and communicated to all SO/ACs expeditiously, to avoid the need to consider the draft Charter several times (note: ideally any issues / concerns would have been addressed by the DT as a result of regular communication between the representatives on the DT and their respective organizations). In order for the CCWG to be formed, the same identical Charter must be adopted by at least two SO/ACs who will become the CCWG Chartering Organizations, each using the normal adoption process for that organization. If, as part of the adoption process, a SO or AC does not intend to become a CCWG Chartering Organization it is strongly advised that the organization expressly indicates this intention to the other SO/ACs, so as to ensure that all relevant SO/ACs are noted as having considered participation in the CCWG. Note contrary to what I say below, it speaks all the way through of recommendations, but I think that is something that should be mentioned and changed. In fact this conversation has brought up all sorts of questions that should perhaps be considered. if anyone writes a review that is. avri On 16-Mar-16 18:13, avri doria wrote: > > On 16-Mar-16 07:32, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> but I don?t believe that policies should be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO, > They would be developing advice, not policy recommendations. > > And in the case they did develop anything, I would expect the Board to > refer it to the GNSO, perhaps as part of a Board issues report request - > as that would be the proper process, especially under the new > accountability changes to Articles and Bylaws which be in effect before > they have any output. I do not see any way in which it would become > policy without a GNSO PDP. > > I am not believe that there is any reason, precedent or existing > practice for one SOAC to prevent a CCWG among other SOAC. > > I advise against trying to stop some other groups' CCWG. I do advise > participating. > > 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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From lanfran Thu Mar 17 19:21:51 2016 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:21:51 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on Implementation of Thick Whois rec#1 closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: <56EA296D.5040307@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <56EA296D.5040307@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <56EAE7AF.60903@yorku.ca> I am at a big conference in Havana and am of no use here for the moment. By the way, Vint showed up yesterday and gave a little talk with our session, and a big talk today. Sam On 2016-03-16 10:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Short answer, yes. > Amr, help! you were on thick WHOIS? > Stephanie > > On 2016-03-16 16:36, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> The deadline to present inputs to the public comment period on >> the Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy >> Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for >> All gTLDs is *_closing 18/03_*. >> >> This Public Comment Period focuses on the proposed implementation of >> Recommendation #1 of Thick Whois, concerning the consistent labeling >> and display of Whois output for all gTLDs. Recommendation #1 of the >> Thick Whois states: "The provision of thick Whois services, with a >> consistent labeling and display as per the model outlined in >> specification 3 of the 2013 RAA, should become a requirement for all >> gTLD registries, both existing and future." >> >> More information can be found in: >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en >> >> To our NCSG members and particularly to those of us following privacy >> discussions more closely, is there any comment that we would like to >> present? Is anyone writing an individual comment and would like to >> share with the group? >> >> Maybe this comment could be written in conjunction with the one on RDAP. >> >> Thanks >> 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 >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- *--------------------------------------------* "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ---------------------------------------------- Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Thu Mar 17 19:53:43 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:53:43 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> References: <8E411A67-052C-483D-A484-B62FC5BEA04D@cyberinvasion.net> <56E9C79D.90903@cdt.org> <20160317092234.3c7d6fbb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> Message-ID: Hi James, thanks for the clarifications you provided. Based on this information and considering the little time we have, the question seems to be: should NCSG endorse IAB's comment on RDAP? It would be great if our members, specially those in our policy committee, could share their views on the next hours. Thanks! Mar?lia On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Shane Kerr wrote: > All, > > At 2016-03-17 09:22:34 +0100 > Shane Kerr wrote: > > > I'm not sure the NCUC necessarily needs to have an opinion about the > > technology itself, and can happily wait and weigh in on the parts that > > matter to us. > > Of course I meant NCSG. I blame decaffeinated coffee. > > Cheers, > > -- > Shane > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Thu Mar 17 20:39:15 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:39:15 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on Implementation of Thick Whois rec#1 closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: <56EA296D.5040307@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <56EA296D.5040307@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, I haven?t been paying nearly as much attention to the ?thick? whois IRT as I should have. But my understanding is that right now, they are seeking community input on the implementation of consistent labelling and display across all gTLDs, not the privacy and data protection legal review bit. So I?m not sure whether or not we want to send a comment in. I hope I?m not wrong. One thing I did notice in the implementation framework they are suggesting is that they plan on using RDAP in this part of the ?thin? to ?thick? transition. They also say that it is necessary to do so, and that using RDAP was one of the consensus policy outputs of ?thick? whois. Honestly, I don?t remember that being the case at all, but I was less focused on this charter question, and more focused on others. I would welcome thoughts on this, although time is a bit tight if we want to draft and endorse some kind of statement. Thanks. Amr > On Mar 17, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Short answer, yes. > Amr, help! you were on thick WHOIS? > Stephanie > > On 2016-03-16 16:36, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> The deadline to present inputs to the public comment period on the Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs is closing 18/03. >> >> This Public Comment Period focuses on the proposed implementation of Recommendation #1 of Thick Whois, concerning the consistent labeling and display of Whois output for all gTLDs. Recommendation #1 of the Thick Whois states: "The provision of thick Whois services, with a consistent labeling and display as per the model outlined in specification 3 of the 2013 RAA, should become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." >> >> More information can be found in: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en >> >> To our NCSG members and particularly to those of us following privacy discussions more closely, is there any comment that we would like to present? Is anyone writing an individual comment and would like to share with the group? >> >> Maybe this comment could be written in conjunction with the one on RDAP. >> >> Thanks >> 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 >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wendy Fri Mar 18 11:05:32 2016 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 05:05:32 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: References: <8E411A67-052C-483D-A484-B62FC5BEA04D@cyberinvasion.net> <56E9C79D.90903@cdt.org> <20160317092234.3c7d6fbb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> Message-ID: <56EBC4DC.3080201@seltzer.com> I support endorsing the IAB comment. --Wendy On 03/17/2016 01:53 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi James, thanks for the clarifications you provided. > > Based on this information and considering the little time we have, the > question seems to be: should NCSG endorse IAB's comment on RDAP? It would > be great if our members, specially those in our policy committee, could > share their views on the next hours. > > Thanks! > Mar?lia > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Shane Kerr > wrote: > >> All, >> >> At 2016-03-17 09:22:34 +0100 >> Shane Kerr wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure the NCUC necessarily needs to have an opinion about the >>> technology itself, and can happily wait and weigh in on the parts that >>> matter to us. >> >> Of course I meant NCSG. I blame decaffeinated coffee. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Shane >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org From mariliamaciel Fri Mar 18 11:12:28 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:12:28 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: <56EBC4DC.3080201@seltzer.com> References: <8E411A67-052C-483D-A484-B62FC5BEA04D@cyberinvasion.net> <56E9C79D.90903@cdt.org> <20160317092234.3c7d6fbb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <56EBC4DC.3080201@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Wendy. Others? Just reminding everyone that the deadline is today, 23:59 UTC. Best wishes M On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > I support endorsing the IAB comment. > > --Wendy > > On 03/17/2016 01:53 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hi James, thanks for the clarifications you provided. > > > > Based on this information and considering the little time we have, the > > question seems to be: should NCSG endorse IAB's comment on RDAP? It would > > be great if our members, specially those in our policy committee, could > > share their views on the next hours. > > > > Thanks! > > Mar?lia > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Shane Kerr > > wrote: > > > >> All, > >> > >> At 2016-03-17 09:22:34 +0100 > >> Shane Kerr wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not sure the NCUC necessarily needs to have an opinion about the > >>> technology itself, and can happily wait and weigh in on the parts that > >>> matter to us. > >> > >> Of course I meant NCSG. I blame decaffeinated coffee. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> -- > >> Shane > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Mar 18 15:32:53 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:32:53 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: <56EBDA53.4050105@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <8E411A67-052C-483D-A484-B62FC5BEA04D@cyberinvasion.net> <56E9C79D.90903@cdt.org> <20160317092234.3c7d6fbb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <56EBC4DC.3080201@seltzer.com> <56EBDA53.4050105@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <56EC0385.9000304@apc.org> Hi, I also agree with the IAB position, and would be happy to see NCSG endorse that position. One consideration, though, is how it will affect your alliance with the RrSG. Is this a capital expense they want there to be a commitment to. Would they agree? While this is not a consideration for me, I do advise thinking that through. Does not change my position, but those of you fighting in the trenches on the WG might want to think about that. Also, is this in scope for either the WG or even the GNSO? And how would anyone force the Registrars to do it? avri On 18-Mar-16 06:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > +1 > Stephanie P > > On 2016-03-18 6:19, Desiree wrote: >> +1 >> >> Desiree >> -- >> On 18 Mar 2016, at 09:05, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >> >>> I support endorsing the IAB comment. >>> >>> --Wendy >>> >>> On 03/17/2016 01:53 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> Hi James, thanks for the clarifications you provided. >>>> >>>> Based on this information and considering the little time we have, the >>>> question seems to be: should NCSG endorse IAB's comment on RDAP? It >>>> would >>>> be great if our members, specially those in our policy committee, >>>> could >>>> share their views on the next hours. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Mar?lia >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Shane Kerr >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> At 2016-03-17 09:22:34 +0100 >>>>> Shane Kerr wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure the NCUC necessarily needs to have an opinion about the >>>>>> technology itself, and can happily wait and weigh in on the parts >>>>>> that >>>>>> matter to us. >>>>> Of course I meant NCSG. I blame decaffeinated coffee. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Shane >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From mariliamaciel Fri Mar 18 16:45:07 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:45:07 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: <697C4329-1BE9-4CCC-8F02-99C780B417C6@afilias.info> References: <8E411A67-052C-483D-A484-B62FC5BEA04D@cyberinvasion.net> <56E9C79D.90903@cdt.org> <20160317092234.3c7d6fbb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <56EBC4DC.3080201@seltzer.com> <2BCEBF5F-CDE8-48AF-B660-733FA342CBD1@egyptig.org> <697C4329-1BE9-4CCC-8F02-99C780B417C6@afilias.info> Message-ID: Hi all, following the support on the NCSG list to endorsing the proposal from IAB on RDAP, I would like to start a call for consensus on the PC list. Please, let me know in the next 6 hours if you have objections to endorsing IAB's proposal and if you have suggestions to the text below: Comments from the Non-commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) on the public comment period related to the "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars" Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars. The NCSG would like to give support to the points that have been raised by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) in their contribution to this consultation, which can be found at: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/msg00001.html Particularly, the NCSG would like to stress the importance of specifying the RDAP Profile in a way that leaves the broadest range of options to the PDP on next-generation gTLD registration directory services from a policy perspective. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Best wishes, Mar?lia On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Desiree Miloshevic < dmiloshevic at afilias.info> wrote: > I endorsed IAB statement since we may all end up there in the end. > While the IAB suggests differentiated access regarding data exposure, I do > find that > google's comment too is worth supporting, e.g. not to offer public access > to the data. > > >>> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/pdfXEuYViKmu4.pdf > > The overarching principle is minimisation, and to set aside the RDAP and > let registries/registrars > deploy them on experimental basis and let the Next Gen PDP WG develop the > rest. > > So perhaps a little bit more nuances before just endorsing > (differentiated) access to the data immediately? > Others may have spent more time on this issue and may know better... > > Desiree > -- > > On 18 Mar 2016, at 11:48, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think it?s a great comment, and support the NCSG endorsing it. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks, Wendy. Others? Just reminding everyone that the deadline is > today, 23:59 UTC. > >> Best wishes > >> M > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Wendy Seltzer > wrote: > >> I support endorsing the IAB comment. > >> > >> --Wendy > >> > >> On 03/17/2016 01:53 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >>> Hi James, thanks for the clarifications you provided. > >>> > >>> Based on this information and considering the little time we have, the > >>> question seems to be: should NCSG endorse IAB's comment on RDAP? It > would > >>> be great if our members, specially those in our policy committee, could > >>> share their views on the next hours. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> Mar?lia > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Shane Kerr > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> At 2016-03-17 09:22:34 +0100 > >>>> Shane Kerr wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I'm not sure the NCUC necessarily needs to have an opinion about the > >>>>> technology itself, and can happily wait and weigh in on the parts > that > >>>>> matter to us. > >>>> > >>>> Of course I meant NCSG. I blame decaffeinated coffee. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Shane > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mar?lia Maciel > >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito > Rio > >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > >> > >> > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Fri Mar 18 17:18:33 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:18:33 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: <56EC0385.9000304@apc.org> References: <8E411A67-052C-483D-A484-B62FC5BEA04D@cyberinvasion.net> <56E9C79D.90903@cdt.org> <20160317092234.3c7d6fbb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <56EBC4DC.3080201@seltzer.com> <56EBDA53.4050105@mail.utoronto.ca> <56EC0385.9000304@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, > On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:32 PM, avri doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I also agree with the IAB position, and would be happy to see NCSG > endorse that position. > > One consideration, though, is how it will affect your alliance with the > RrSG. Is this a capital expense they want there to be a commitment to. > Would they agree? While this is not a consideration for me, I do advise > thinking that through. Does not change my position, but those of you > fighting in the trenches on the WG might want to think about that. That?s a very fair point. We are effectively endorsing the implementation of a system before a PDP that is just beginning is supposed to make a determination on whether or not it is necessary to use it at all. I expect that use of RDAP will be found to be necessary, but see how we are jumping the gun endorsing its use, even in the absence of any features that require other policy considerations. > Also, is this in scope for either the WG or even the GNSO? And how > would anyone force the Registrars to do it? I believe so. Why wouldn?t it be within the scope of the WG and GNSO? Am I missing something? And registrars can be forced to do it via changes in the RAA, right? I?m certain they will be all over any work that may lead to changes in their contractual obligations, so will hopefully be part of the discussion and final decision. I don?t imagine they are ever happy about spending money to implement ICANN policies, but suspect they?ve seen this coming for a while now. I may, of course, be delusional. :) Thanks. Amr From kathy Fri Mar 18 20:19:21 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:19:21 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period RDAP Message-ID: <15ecca8e9a847ac39f8a4d256531170825093207@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com> Hi All, I don't have time to incorporate, but agree with the trend of NCSG comments to support the Registrars (and Registries) in the concerns they are voicing about the RDAP implementation process now in play Too many processes going on all at once... normally our argument! I share Google's comment (attached) and Volker's comment (below). Michele has also submitted comments. ------------ To Whom it may concern, Key-Systems GmbH appreciates the opportunity provided by ICANN to comment on the RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars. Key-Systems GmbH supports the alternative framework proposed by Google Inc. in its comments on Thick Whois/RDAP Implementation [1]. We further support the comments of the RySG [2] as well as the forthcoming comments of the Registrar Stakeholder Group. Key-Systems GmbH firmly opposes any implementation without significant benefit, i.e. implementation of new protocols that will not be a significant improvement over currently existing systems, in this case port 43 whois unless the policy work on how to implement the additional features with regard to authenticated access and differential output is complete. Key-Systems GmbH also fimly opposes any implementation that will be rendered obsolete within the forseeable future. As GNSO policy recommendations to replace thin whois with thick whois in all gTLDs have been accepted by the ICANN Board and are currently in the implementation path, any implementation of a replacement protocol such as RDAP on the side of the registrars would provide zero benefit to internet users but result in significant implementation and opportunity costs on the side of registrars. This implementation may further be rendered obsolete by the ongoing policy work on the Replacement Data Protocol based on the work of the EWG on gTLD Directory Services. Section 3 of the Operational Profile describes implementation requirements for registrars. The requirements for registrar implementation should be consistent with the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement. This implementation requirement will require registrars to commit significant resources to develop, deploy, and operate a software service that will ultimately end up being discarded very shortly afterward once all gTLD registries provide thick services themselves. This is not a commercially reasonable requirement. -- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - ------------------- Best, Kathy On 3/18/2016 11:18 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:32 PM, avri doria [3] wrote: Hi, I also agree with the IAB position, and would be happy to see NCSG endorse that position. One consideration, though, is how it will affect your alliance with the RrSG.? Is this a capital expense they want there to be a commitment to. Would they agree?? While this is not a consideration for me, I do advise thinking that through.? Does not change my position, but those of you fighting in the trenches on the WG might want to think about that. That?s a very fair point. We are effectively endorsing the implementation of a system before a PDP that is just beginning is supposed to make a determination on whether or not it is necessary to use it at all. I expect that use of RDAP will be found to be necessary, but see how we are jumping the gun endorsing its use, even in the absence of any features that require other policy considerations. Also, is this in scope for either the WG or even the GNSO?? And how would anyone force the Registrars to do it? I believe so. Why wouldn?t it be within the scope of the WG and GNSO? Am I missing something? And registrars can be forced to do it via changes in the RAA, right? I?m certain they will be all over any work that may lead to changes in their contractual obligations, so will hopefully be part of the discussion and final decision. I don?t imagine they are ever happy about spending money to implement ICANN policies, but suspect they?ve seen this coming for a while now. I may, of course, be delusional. Thanks. Amr _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org [4] http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg [5] Links: ------ [1] http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/pdfXEuYViKmu4.pdf [2] https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/pdfssl7te1KLl.pdf [3] mailto:avri at apc.org [4] mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org [5] http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 00903689.PDF Type: application/force-download Size: 155682 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Mar 18 20:25:21 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:25:21 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period RDAP In-Reply-To: <15ecca8e9a847ac39f8a4d256531170825093207@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com> References: <15ecca8e9a847ac39f8a4d256531170825093207@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com> Message-ID: <56EC4811.1090407@mail.utoronto.ca> Also a very sensible comment. So we tell them to delay implementation until after WHO2? cheers Stephanie On 2016-03-18 14:19, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > I don't have time to incorporate, but agree with the trend of NCSG > comments to support the Registrars (and Registries) in the concerns > they are voicing about the RDAP implementation process now in play. > Too many processes going on all at once... normally our argument! > > I share Google's comment (attached) and Volker's comment (below). > Michele has also submitted comments. > ------------ > > To Whom it may concern, > > Key-Systems GmbH appreciates the opportunity provided by ICANN to > comment on the RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and > Registrars. Key-Systems GmbH supports the alternative framework > proposed by Google Inc. in its comments on Thick Whois/RDAP > Implementation > . > We further support the comments of the RySG > > as well as the forthcoming comments of the Registrar Stakeholder > Group. Key-Systems GmbH firmly opposes any implementation without > significant benefit, i.e. implementation of new protocols that will > not be a significant improvement over currently existing systems, in > this case port 43 whois unless the policy work on how to implement the > additional features with regard to authenticated access and > differential output is complete. Key-Systems GmbH also fimly opposes > any implementation that will be rendered obsolete within the > forseeable future. As GNSO policy recommendations to replace thin > whois with thick whois in all gTLDs have been accepted by the ICANN > Board and are currently in the implementation path, any implementation > of a replacement protocol such as RDAP on the side of the registrars > would provide zero benefit to internet users but result in significant > implementation and opportunity costs on the side of registrars. This > implementation may further be rendered obsolete by the ongoing policy > work on the Replacement Data Protocol based on the work of the EWG on > gTLD Directory Services. Section 3 of the Operational Profile > describes implementation requirements for registrars. The requirements > for registrar implementation should be consistent with the 2013 > Registrar Accreditation Agreement. This implementation requirement > will require registrars to commit significant resources to develop, > deploy, and operate a software service that will ultimately end up > being discarded very shortly afterward once all gTLD registries > provide thick services themselves. This is not a commercially > reasonable requirement. > > -- > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to > contact us. > > Best regards, > > Volker A. Greimann > - legal department - > > ------------------- > Best, > Kathy > > > On 3/18/2016 11:18 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:32 PM, avri doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I also agree with the IAB position, and would be happy to see > NCSG > endorse that position. > > One consideration, though, is how it will affect your alliance > with the > RrSG. Is this a capital expense they want there to be a > commitment to. > Would they agree? While this is not a consideration for me, I > do advise > thinking that through. Does not change my position, but those > of you > fighting in the trenches on the WG might want to think about > that. > > That?s a very fair point. We are effectively endorsing the > implementation of a system before a PDP that is just beginning is > supposed to make a determination on whether or not it is necessary > to use it at all. > > I expect that use of RDAP will be found to be necessary, but see > how we are jumping the gun endorsing its use, even in the absence > of any features that require other policy considerations > > Also, is this in scope for either the WG or even the GNSO? > And how > would anyone force the Registrars to do it? > > I believe so. Why wouldn?t it be within the scope of the WG and > GNSO? Am I missing something? > > And registrars can be forced to do it via changes in the RAA, > right? I?m certain they will be all over any work that may lead to > changes in their contractual obligations, so will hopefully be > part of the discussion and final decision. I don?t imagine they > are ever happy about spending money to implement ICANN policies, > but suspect they?ve seen this coming for a while now. I may, of > course, be delusional. > > Thanks. > > Amr > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Fri Mar 18 21:13:30 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:13:30 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period RDAP In-Reply-To: <56EC4811.1090407@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <15ecca8e9a847ac39f8a4d256531170825093207@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com> <56EC4811.1090407@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <18807513-146A-4F38-8786-5D1C19FD346F@egyptig.org> Hi, In case anyone is confused right now, we are talking about two open public comment that are associated with each other. Folks seem to be addressing them interchangeably, but that is understandable because they have some common elements. Anyway?, these are the two topics under discussion: 1. Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLDRegistries and Registrars: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en 2. Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en I agree that the objections raised by the registries and registrars are all quite reasonable. It looks like staff are indeed making some policy decisions, or at a minimum are misinterpreting existing policy and designing an implementation framework based on those mistakes. Several comments indicate agreement that staff is going beyond the scope of the ?thick? whois consensus policy. I fully agree with that. There are some whois fields that are not mandatory in the 2013 RAA, that are for some reason mandatory now in this implementation framework. Those include registrar abuse contact info, a field for reseller info and the registrar expiration date. The ?thick? whois PDP never made any recommendations to make those changes to the RAA. Also?, ?thick? whois never recommended replacing the current whois with RDAP. That would have been way beyond the scope of that PDP, and so also should be beyond the scope of the policy?s implementation framework. In the staff draft paper they say that this is a consensus policy coming out of ?thick? whois: > The implementation of an RDAP service in accordance with the "RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars" is required for all gTLD registries in order to achieve consistent labeling and display in the replacement for (port-43) WHOIS I?m not sure where they got this from, but it wasn?t an output of the ?thick? whois PDP. I feel comfortable with reversing my original position, and recommending that we not endorse the IAB comment. If anything, I believe we should be endorsing the Google comment indicated by Kathy, and found here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/msg00011.html Thanks. Amr > On Mar 18, 2016, at 8:25 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Also a very sensible comment. So we tell them to delay implementation until after WHO2? > cheers Stephanie > > On 2016-03-18 14:19, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> Hi All, >> I don't have time to incorporate, but agree with the trend of NCSG comments to support the Registrars (and Registries) in the concerns they are voicing about the RDAP implementation process now in play. Too many processes going on all at once... normally our argument! >> >> I share Google's comment (attached) and Volker's comment (below). Michele has also submitted comments. >> ------------ >> >> To Whom it may concern, >> >> Key-Systems GmbH appreciates the opportunity provided by ICANN to comment on the RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars. Key-Systems GmbH supports the alternative framework proposed by Google Inc. in its comments on Thick Whois/RDAP Implementation . We further support the comments of the RySG as well as the forthcoming comments of the Registrar Stakeholder Group. Key-Systems GmbH firmly opposes any implementation without significant benefit, i.e. implementation of new protocols that will not be a significant improvement over currently existing systems, in this case port 43 whois unless the policy work on how to implement the additional features with regard to authenticated access and differential output is complete. Key-Systems GmbH also fimly opposes any implementation that will be rendered obsolete within the forseeable future. As GNSO policy recommendations to replace thin whois with thick whois in all gTLDs have been accepted by the ICANN Board and are currently in the implementation path, any implementation of a replacement protocol such as RDAP on the side of the registrars would provide zero benefit to internet users but result in significant implementation and opportunity costs on the side of registrars. This implementation may further be rendered obsolete by the ongoing policy work on the Replacement Data Protocol based on the work of the EWG on gTLD Directory Services. Section 3 of the Operational Profile describes implementation requirements for registrars. The requirements for registrar implementation should be consistent with the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement. This implementation requirement will require registrars to commit significant resources to develop, deploy, and operate a software service that will ultimately end up being discarded very shortly afterward once all gTLD registries provide thick services themselves. This is not a commercially reasonable requirement. >> >> -- >> >> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Volker A. Greimann >> - legal department - >> >> ------------------- >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> >> On 3/18/2016 11:18 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:32 PM, avri doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I also agree with the IAB position, and would be happy to see NCSG >> endorse that position. >> >> One consideration, though, is how it will affect your alliance with the >> RrSG. Is this a capital expense they want there to be a commitment to. >> Would they agree? While this is not a consideration for me, I do advise >> thinking that through. Does not change my position, but those of you >> fighting in the trenches on the WG might want to think about that. >> That?s a very fair point. We are effectively endorsing the implementation of a system before a PDP that is just beginning is supposed to make a determination on whether or not it is necessary to use it at all. >> >> I expect that use of RDAP will be found to be necessary, but see how we are jumping the gun endorsing its use, even in the absence of any features that require other policy considerations >> >> Also, is this in scope for either the WG or even the GNSO? And how >> would anyone force the Registrars to do it? >> I believe so. Why wouldn?t it be within the scope of the WG and GNSO? Am I missing something? >> >> And registrars can be forced to do it via changes in the RAA, right? I?m certain they will be all over any work that may lead to changes in their contractual obligations, so will hopefully be part of the discussion and final decision. I don?t imagine they are ever happy about spending money to implement ICANN policies, but suspect they?ve seen this coming for a while now. I may, of course, be delusional. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Sat Mar 19 14:10:11 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:10:11 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: References: <8E411A67-052C-483D-A484-B62FC5BEA04D@cyberinvasion.net> <56E9C79D.90903@cdt.org> <20160317092234.3c7d6fbb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <56EBC4DC.3080201@seltzer.com> <56EBDA53.4050105@mail.utoronto.ca> <56EC0385.9000304@apc.org> Message-ID: <56ED41A3.2070306@apc.org> On 18-Mar-16 11:18, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> > Also, is this in scope for either the WG or even the GNSO? And how >> > would anyone force the Registrars to do it? > I believe so. Why wouldn?t it be within the scope of the WG and GNSO? Am I missing something? > > And registrars can be forced to do it via changes in the RAA, right? I?m certain they will be all over any work that may lead to changes in their contractual obligations, so will hopefully be part of the discussion and final decision. I don?t imagine they are ever happy about spending money to implement ICANN policies, but suspect they?ve seen this coming for a while now. I may, of course, be delusional. :) while Policy that may seem to be best satisfied by RDAP is within the GNSO scope, is the protocol they use to do it within that scope? I do not have a position on that, it is still a question for me. On thr RrSG postion, i get the idea that they want to push it off as long as possible. Many see no reason to implement something now for policy that may or may not be made. Capital investment delayed is better than capital investment now. Are reason other than policy in scope for the GNSO. They might be in scope for a SSAC recommendation is they can be pinned on stability or security. I remind you, I support the IAB position and recommend endorsing it. I just do not know whether it is in GNSO scope to decide anything about it. avri avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri Sat Mar 19 14:12:11 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:12:11 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period RDAP In-Reply-To: <15ecca8e9a847ac39f8a4d256531170825093207@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com> References: <15ecca8e9a847ac39f8a4d256531170825093207@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com> Message-ID: <56ED421B.3070207@apc.org> On 18-Mar-16 14:19, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > This implementation requirement will require registrars to commit > significant resources to develop, deploy, and operate a software > service that will ultimately end up being discarded very shortly > afterward once all gTLD registries provide thick services themselves. > This is not a commercially reasonable requirement. a very good point. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From stephanie.perrin Sat Mar 19 14:58:02 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:58:02 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: <56ECA576.3090105@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <8E411A67-052C-483D-A484-B62FC5BEA04D@cyberinvasion.net> <56E9C79D.90903@cdt.org> <20160317092234.3c7d6fbb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <56EBC4DC.3080201@seltzer.com> <2BCEBF5F-CDE8-48AF-B660-733FA342CBD1@egyptig.org> <697C4329-1BE9-4CCC-8F02-99C780B417C6@afilias.info> <55A13FE3-664F-4FAA-AE13-DBDBC8EFDB45@gmail.com> <1458343859411-0e772e50-d725616b-93e03f03@mixmax.com> <56ECA576.3090105@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <56ED4CDA.90104@mail.utoronto.ca> Apologies for calling these processes PDPs, it no doubt added to the confusion....Amr has brilliantly explained what they actually were. The bottom line is that we must question them when we get to that stage in the WHO2 discussions. Stephanie On 2016-03-18 21:03, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Be of good cheer Ayden, I find your questions to be perfectly relevant > and sane. It is extremely frustrating to have these two separate PDPs > lumbering forward as we start work on WHO2. And for the > Registrars/Registries, who are being expected to build things by one > PDP that are planned for obsolescence in the other PDP...well we can > see why they were a bit grumpy in the open session in Marrakech. It > is hard to keep up with this stuff. > I think we are ok not commenting. We don't have the bandwidth to > scurry around making the same points that have already been > effectively made, however nice it might be to support our colleagues. > The Charter of the WHO2 gives us plenty of leeway to change the policy > despite what happened in these two PDPs, in my view, although we will > not be able to roll back Thick WHOIS. > Stephanie Perrin > PS I think there is a valid distinction between RDS (registration data > services) and RDDS (registration data *directory* services) but I am > not sure that the two terms are used with that distinction in mind in > most cases. As for the Yes Minister skit....too bad you missed the > WHOIS conflicts with law working group. It was classic....worth > listening to the recordings of our calls.... > > On 2016-03-18 19:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> Hello, all- >> >> Thank you to all who have commented in this thread. I have been >> trying to get up to speed on this topic today and have found your >> comments to be an extremely useful primer ? and a special thank you >> to Amr for clarifying that we actually have two different topics out >> for public comment (though the distinction between the two still >> isn't entirely clear to me, nor is the distinction between the >> acronyms 'RDDS' and 'RDS' which seem to be used in similar contexts >> by different stakeholders). >> >> From what I have heard about the history of WHOIS/RDS/RDDS systems, >> the community has invested significant resources over the past two >> decades only to achieve minimal change. We now have >> the Next-Generation Registration Directory Service PDP working group >> where we have the capacity to make real, meaningful recommendations. >> Why, then, would we respond to either of these consultations which >> could prejudice the working group's capacity to comprehensively >> reform how and when domain name registration data is collected and >> shared? (I feel like this question has been asked by someone else but >> I cannot remember who ? apologies for the lack of attribution.) >> >> If we were to comment ? and I know that Mar?lia has said we are not >> in a position to do so today because we do not quite have consensus, >> and I would like to echo that stance because I don't think we should >> be responding out of principle to either of these consultations ? I'd >> like to add on to what Sana said by suggesting that we lay out our >> stance on minimisation in two respects: firstly, on data, and >> secondly, on the use of community resources ;-) . >> >> To the former this has been hammered home by quite a few respondents, >> and I particularly liked how Antoin Verschuren (a registrar) in his >> submission implied if the registrar registration expiration date was >> to be stored in the open registration directory service, what could >> be next - the registrant's credit card expiry date? There has to be a >> limit somewhere and a move to make data in the registrar-registrant >> contract, public, is not the path I would want us to be going down. >> The less data collected the better, in my view. >> >> To the second point on community resources, if we have two topics so >> similar out for public comment (and from reading the submitted >> comments, it seems quite a few respondents are treating them as one >> and the same), perhaps they could have been amalgamated in the first >> place? And why are we even discussing these issues when we have over >> 100 community members actively participating in the Next-Generation >> RDS PDP working group? I hope we are not living a skit from Yes >> Minister >> >> where a WG has been formed merely to go through the 'charade of >> discussions'? >> >> I hope I am not contributing to any confusion here with my comments. >> I just wanted to put it on the record within our mailing list at >> least that I don't think we need to be responding to either of these >> consultations given the activities being explored by the >> Next-Generation RDS PDP working group. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Sana Ali wrote: >> >> Count my endorsement in for this. Perhaps we can include what our >> general stance is (minimization)? >> Thanks, Marilia. >> >> Sana >> >> >> >>> On Mar 18, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Marilia Maciel >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, following the support on the list, I have put together >>> the following short and sweet text and have called for consensus >>> on it. Any suggestions? >>> >>> Comments from the Non-commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) on the >>> public comment period related to the ?Registration Data Access >>> Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and >>> Registrars? >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the >>> Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for >>> gTLD Registries and Registrars. >>> >>> >>> NCSG would like to give support to the points that have been >>> raised by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) in their >>> contribution to this consultation, which can be found at: >>> https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/msg00001.html >>> >>> >>> Particularly, the NCSG would like to stress the importance of >>> specifying the RDAP Profile in a way that leavesthe broadest >>> range of options to the PDP on next-generation gTLD registration >>> directory services from a policy perspective. >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Mar?lia >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Matthew Shears >>> wrote: >>> >>> Good thought Desiree. Others? >>> >>> >>> On Friday, 18 March 2016, Desiree Miloshevic >>> wrote: >>> >>> I endorsed IAB statement since we may all end up there >>> in the end. >>> While the IAB suggests differentiated access regarding >>> data exposure, I do find that >>> google's comment too is worth supporting, e.g. not to >>> offer public access to the data. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdap-profile-03dec15/pdfXEuYViKmu4.pdf >>> >>> The overarching principle is minimisation, and to set >>> aside the RDAP and let registries/registrars >>> deploy them on experimental basis and let the Next Gen >>> PDP WG develop the rest. >>> >>> So perhaps a little bit more nuances before just >>> endorsing (differentiated) access to the data immediately? >>> Others may have spent more time on this issue and may >>> know better... >>> >>> Desiree >>> -- >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2016, at 11:48, Amr Elsadr >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > I think it?s a great comment, and support the NCSG >>> endorsing it. >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > Amr >>> > >>> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Marilia Maciel >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, Wendy. Others? Just reminding everyone that >>> the deadline is today, 23:59 UTC. >>> >> Best wishes >>> >> M >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Wendy Seltzer >>> wrote: >>> >> I support endorsing the IAB comment. >>> >> >>> >> --Wendy >>> >> >>> >> On 03/17/2016 01:53 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>> Hi James, thanks for the clarifications you provided. >>> >>> >>> >>> Based on this information and considering the little >>> time we have, the >>> >>> question seems to be: should NCSG endorse IAB's >>> comment on RDAP? It would >>> >>> be great if our members, specially those in our >>> policy committee, could >>> >>> share their views on the next hours. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Mar?lia >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Shane Kerr >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> All, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> At 2016-03-17 09:22:34 +0100 >>> >>>> Shane Kerr wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> I'm not sure the NCUC necessarily needs to have an >>> opinion about the >>> >>>>> technology itself, and can happily wait and weigh >>> in on the parts that >>> >>>>> matter to us. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Of course I meant NCSG. I blame decaffeinated coffee. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Cheers, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Shane >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Mar?lia Maciel >>> >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e >>> Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & >>> Society - FGV Law School >>> >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>> >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - >>> http://www.politics.org.br/ >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV >>> Direito Rio >>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society >>> - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> Statement of Interest >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Sat Mar 19 17:25:22 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:25:22 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03 In-Reply-To: <56ED41A3.2070306@apc.org> References: <8E411A67-052C-483D-A484-B62FC5BEA04D@cyberinvasion.net> <56E9C79D.90903@cdt.org> <20160317092234.3c7d6fbb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20160317092401.0d21ebae@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <56EBC4DC.3080201@seltzer.com> <56EBDA53.4050105@mail.utoronto.ca> <56EC0385.9000304@apc.org> <56ED41A3.2070306@apc.org> Message-ID: <67E1E708-6292-4671-A72A-1C80C4093236@egyptig.org> Hi, OK. I get your point, which makes sense. I don?t have an answer to whether it is within the scope of the GNSO to recommend that a certain protocol be used by contracted parties. Like you said, the policy requirements/recommendations are what the GNSO provides the ICANN board. At the risk of being wrong, I will assume that this will eventually become a discussion topic on the next gen. RDS PDP. Thanks. Amr > On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:10 PM, avri doria wrote: > > > > On 18-Mar-16 11:18, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> Also, is this in scope for either the WG or even the GNSO? And how >>>> would anyone force the Registrars to do it? >> I believe so. Why wouldn?t it be within the scope of the WG and GNSO? Am I missing something? >> >> And registrars can be forced to do it via changes in the RAA, right? I?m certain they will be all over any work that may lead to changes in their contractual obligations, so will hopefully be part of the discussion and final decision. I don?t imagine they are ever happy about spending money to implement ICANN policies, but suspect they?ve seen this coming for a while now. I may, of course, be delusional. :) > > while Policy that may seem to be best satisfied by RDAP is within the > GNSO scope, is the protocol they use to do it within that scope? > > I do not have a position on that, it is still a question for me. > > On thr RrSG postion, i get the idea that they want to push it off as > long as possible. Many see no reason to implement something now for > policy that may or may not be made. Capital investment delayed is > better than capital investment now. Are reason other than policy in > scope for the GNSO. They might be in scope for a SSAC recommendation is > they can be pinned on stability or security. > > I remind you, I support the IAB position and recommend endorsing it. I > just do not know whether it is in GNSO scope to decide anything about it. > > avri > > 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 From kathy Tue Mar 22 14:02:14 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:02:14 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] statements Message-ID: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> _private__ __not for redistribution__ _ Hi All, Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. _private__ __not for redistribution__ _ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Tue Mar 22 14:29:45 2016 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:29:45 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> Hi Kathy I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. Bill > > On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > private > not for redistribution > > Hi All, > Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. > > Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. > > When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. > > That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. > > private > not for redistribution > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Mar 22 14:39:31 2016 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:39:31 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, just for clarification, the lists are public and archived, the links are displayed in NCSG wiki space (no need to login anywhere) and anybody can access to them. the fact that google cannot crawl the whole content is something else and has nothing to do being public or not. but definitely this thread is public and accessible . Best, Rafik 2016-03-22 21:29 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > Hi Kathy > > I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for > redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I > remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find > NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to > log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we > might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC > accountability/transparency. Just a thought. > > On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views > about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I > don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and > the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a > policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots > of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, > are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the > org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as > the facts right. > > Bill > > > On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > *private* > *not for redistribution* > > Hi All, > Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the > statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from > speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the > case. > > Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon > without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- > two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public > Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time > and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition > issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps > continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already > established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered > appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment > in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not > reduce it. That was the advice. > > When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I > quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for > the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to > raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people > from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two > people from the group above independently notified the Board of the > sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the > issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded > appropriately. > > That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and > place. > > *private* > *not for redistribution* > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Tue Mar 22 14:46:18 2016 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:46:18 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: You?re right, one need not log in, I just happened to. But it?s still not all that easy to find your way to unless you?re dedicated. BD > On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi Bill, > > just for clarification, the lists are public and archived, the links are displayed in NCSG wiki space (no need to login anywhere) and anybody can access to them. the fact that google cannot crawl the whole content is something else and has nothing to do being public or not. > but definitely this thread is public and accessible . > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2016-03-22 21:29 GMT+09:00 William Drake >: > Hi Kathy > > I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. > > On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. > > Bill > >> >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: >> >> private >> not for redistribution >> >> Hi All, >> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. >> >> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. >> >> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >> >> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. >> >> private >> not for redistribution >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue Mar 22 15:03:07 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:03:07 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9F31216F-A214-473F-A886-79B42C79340D@egyptig.org> Hi, I agree with Bill. Not sure it is wise for the NCSG (or even the NCUC, but that is not for this committee to weigh in on) to take a strong position on the incident itself without the full facts. My understanding is that these are difficult to get a hold of, since we?ve only heard from one of the parties involved. I certainly sympathise with Padmini, as I would with anyone in her position, but I?m not sure what constructive purpose is served by the emails sent to multiple lists on Friday. I am also not quite sure that all the points raised and suggestions made on NCSG-DISCUSS yesterday by the Centre for Internet and Society are ones that I can agree with. I?m all for some sort of policy to handle incidents of sexual harassment at ICANN meetings. I?m surprised that this hasn?t been something that was addressed in the past, but I?ve only become aware of this being a problem since the Dublin meeting. Apparently many have been aware of this being an issue for years now. This needs to stop, and if anything, I?m grateful to Padmini for finally shining a light on the problem. Not only has she brought the community?s attention to the problem, but because of her actions in Marrakech, it is clear that there is no policy or process that is equipped to deal with harassment at ICANN. In the absence of such a process, I?m not sure it is a good idea to ask or demand ICANN do something about this incident. There does seem (to me at least) to be a community-wide sense of agreement that something needs to be done. If we are to get involved, I suggest we work with the ICANN board, staff and the rest of the community on ways to handle this in the future, and not ?bash? the org for being unprepared now. That would IMHO be a waste of time, and will achieve little to nothing good. Instead, we should be working to create deterrents to this sort of incident taking place in the future, as well as a process to address similar ones if/when they do occur. Once we actually figure out the specifics of what we would like to see come out of this, I suspect that we will not face too much disagreement from ICANN and others. Just my thoughts on this. Thanks. Amr > On Mar 22, 2016, at 2:29 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Kathy > > I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. > > On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. > > Bill > >> >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >> private >> not for redistribution >> >> Hi All, >> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. >> >> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. >> >> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >> >> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. >> >> private >> not for redistribution >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 mshears Tue Mar 22 15:00:28 2016 From: mshears (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:00:28 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <9F31216F-A214-473F-A886-79B42C79340D@egyptig.org> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <9F31216F-A214-473F-A886-79B42C79340D@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <56F141EC.3040506@cdt.org> Agree with this very reasonable approach: /There does seem (to me at least) to be a community-wide sense of agreement that something needs to be done. If we are to get involved, I suggest we work with the ICANN board, staff and the rest of the community on ways to handle this in the future, and not ?bash? the org for being unprepared now. That would IMHO be a waste of time, and will achieve little to nothing good. Instead, we should be working to create deterrents to this sort of incident taking place in the future, as well as a process to address similar ones if/when they do occur. Once we actually figure out the specifics of what we would like to see come out of this, I suspect that we will not face too much disagreement from ICANN and others. Just my thoughts on this. Thanks. Amr / >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 2:29 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Kathy >> >> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. >> >> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. >> >> Bill >> >>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> >>> private >>> not for redistribution >>> >>> Hi All, >>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. >>> >>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. >>> >>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >>> >>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. >>> >>> private >>> not for redistribution >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Tue Mar 22 15:19:04 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:19:04 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160322131904.GG5120@tarvainen.info> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 09:39:31PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > Hi Bill, > > just for clarification, the lists are public and archived, the links are > displayed in NCSG wiki space (no need to login anywhere) and anybody can > access to them. the fact that google cannot crawl the whole content is > something else and has nothing to do being public or not. Just an observation, it's not that Google cannot crawl it but mailman.ipjustice.org explicitly forbids search engines, cf. http://mailman.ipjustice.org/robots.txt > but definitely this thread is public and accessible . That is true, but as Bill observed, it's not as easy to find as it could be. -- Tapani Tarvainen From lanfran Tue Mar 22 15:58:50 2016 From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:58:50 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on ICANN and Harassment Policy (Sexual and otherwise) In-Reply-To: <20160322131904.GG5120@tarvainen.info> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <20160322131904.GG5120@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <56F14F9A.9060802@yorku.ca> I would like to add a short comment on this issue from within the context of someone who was stalked. In 2012-13 I was stalked for six months by a mature student in one of my classes, and I learned a lot about both policy and process. The problem was identified within the first month and it took six months to terminate the activity, hence the importance of process. The details are not important, but here are the lessons learned, by me, as the target of the persistent harassment. The lessons learned are about the importance of having processes in place to deal with both the target (victim) and the perpetrator. Policies alone are not enough. They tend to be a flag waved from on high when a problem goes public. Perpetrators are frequently more than just overly aggressive, they can be obsessed to the point of persistence and extreme self denial. Harassment is not like shoplifting or theft where the perpetrator is at best only weakly in denial, and the victim is a shopkeeper facing financial loses. From the very start (or incident) there have to be appropriate steps. For sexual harassment that has to include designated skilled and gender appropriate contact points for both the victim and for dealing with the perpetrator. With policies and processes in place those initial contact points can frequently be appropriately trained and designated regular staff. In cases where there is need for either legal involvement or post traumatic treatment that expertise should probably reside outside the organization. In my case my university has good anti-harassment policies but found itself at first at a bit of a loss on how to deal with a female student stalking a male faculty. It usually faces the reverse in gender roles. Within my department we had to innovate until the university could get a handle on the case. Lastly, to drive the lessons learned home, in my case the student was prohibited from having direct contact with me and had to deal indirectly, as a student, through our undergraduate student adviser, a colleague who was a woman. The student's response was to threaten to take me before the governmental human rights commission for denying her the right to freedom of speech. Policy is not enough, have the process road map in place. Needless to add that even though I was male, and fortunately lived 250km from campus, there were moments of hell and terror during those six months. Sam L. NPOC From t.tropina Tue Mar 22 16:01:23 2016 From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:01:23 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <56F141EC.3040506@cdt.org> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <9F31216F-A214-473F-A886-79B42C79340D@egyptig.org> <56F141EC.3040506@cdt.org> Message-ID: <56F15033.7050609@mpicc.de> Dear all, first of all, I want to thank Kathy for her email. I think it is very important to know that some of the facts might have been misrepresented. This is why, while I certainly agree with constructive approach of getting engaged with the board and community to make sure that there are procedures in place to address any harassment incidents in the future, I would like to point out that one of the crucial things is not only to prevent and consider procedurally the cases of harassment of any kind, but to limit the potential for misuse and abuse of the policy, when community comes up with it. Unfortunately, as a lawyer, I can assure you that harassment policy can get abused when it has ambiguous standards that are open for wide interpretation. Thus, the standards of behaviour shall be clear and understandable, and so shall be the frameworks for handling complaints. Best regards Tanya On 22/03/16 14:00, Matthew Shears wrote: > Agree with this very reasonable approach: > > > /There does seem (to me at least) to be a community-wide sense of > agreement that something needs to be done. If we are to get involved, > I suggest we work with the ICANN board, staff and the rest of the > community on ways to handle this in the future, and not ?bash? the org > for being unprepared now. That would IMHO be a waste of time, and will > achieve little to nothing good. Instead, we should be working to > create deterrents to this sort of incident taking place in the future, > as well as a process to address similar ones if/when they do occur. > Once we actually figure out the specifics of what we would like to see > come out of this, I suspect that we will not face too much > disagreement from ICANN and others. Just my thoughts on this. Thanks. > Amr / >>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 2:29 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> Hi Kathy >>> >>> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. >>> >>> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>> >>>> private >>>> not for redistribution >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. >>>> >>>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. >>>> >>>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >>>> >>>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. >>>> >>>> private >>>> not for redistribution >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > -- > > Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project > Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org > E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 > > CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. > > This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. > www.avast.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Mar 22 16:32:37 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:32:37 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop. I think we should distance ourselves from that bashing. I do not approve of breaking the rules of the process, notably the duty of confidentiality, for the purpose of making a splash in the public forum. These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. Sure we need a policy. We also need a privacy policy (which would have been abbrogated in this instance). My 2 cents. Cheers SP On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake wrote: > Hi Kathy > > I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for > redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I > remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find > NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique > is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we > might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC > accountability/transparency. Just a thought. > > On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and > views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say > something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into > commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said > about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned > elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with > delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better > than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org > and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as > the facts right. > > Bill > _ > _ >> >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman > > wrote: >> >> _private__ >> __not for redistribution__ >> _ >> Hi All, >> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about >> the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged >> from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was >> not the case. >> >> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday >> afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent >> ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. >> That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the >> meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on >> issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN >> Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of >> "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in >> ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). >> Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and >> without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce >> it. That was the advice. >> >> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next >> day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a >> good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the >> audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the >> presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on >> the presentation. At least two people from the group above >> independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be >> raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board >> in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >> >> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and >> place. >> >> _private__ >> __not for redistribution__ >> _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Tue Mar 22 18:19:52 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:19:52 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> I should note that the issue was raised at the public GNSO Council meeting and a group of 5 Councillors, including 4 from the NCSG, were charged with writing a letter to ICANN corporate requesting enactment of a conference sexual harassment policy, amongst other action items. I, along with several others, have spoken with ICANN Legal concerning the wider situation and can happily report that once a request is made by the community ICANN legal is happy to help with the drafting and enactment of such a policy. Concerning Kathy's post, I can confirm the accuracy of all of it. I would suggest that whilst being supportive of our member our NCSG institutional response needs to focus on ensuring that the complaintant receives fair consideration of any complaint she may wish to bring, without any judgement as to the substance of said complaint, while focusing substantively on correcting any deficiency in handling such situations currently found in ICANN policy. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:33, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop. I think we should distance ourselves from that bashing. I do not approve of breaking the rules of the process, notably the duty of confidentiality, for the purpose of making a splash in the public forum. > These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. Sure we need a policy. We also need a privacy policy (which would have been abbrogated in this instance). > My 2 cents. > Cheers SP > >> On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Kathy >> >> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. >> >> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. >> >> Bill >> >>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> >>> private >>> not for redistribution >>> >>> Hi All, >>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. >>> >>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. >>> >>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >>> >>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. >>> >>> private >>> not for redistribution >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Tue Mar 22 18:39:11 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:39:11 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> Message-ID: I agree with Ed. Sounds like a good approach to me. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > I should note that the issue was raised at the public GNSO Council meeting > and a group of 5 Councillors, including 4 from the NCSG, were charged with > writing a letter to ICANN corporate requesting enactment of a conference > sexual harassment policy, amongst other action items. > I, along with several others, have spoken with ICANN Legal concerning the > wider situation and can happily report that once a request is made by the > community ICANN legal is happy to help with the drafting and enactment of > such a policy. > > Concerning Kathy's post, I can confirm the accuracy of all of it. > > I would suggest that whilst being supportive of our member our NCSG > institutional response needs to focus on ensuring that the complaintant > receives fair consideration of any complaint she may wish to bring, without > any judgement as to the substance of said complaint, while focusing > substantively on correcting any deficiency in handling such situations > currently found in ICANN policy. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:33, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop. I think we should > distance ourselves from that bashing. I do not approve of breaking the > rules of the process, notably the duty of confidentiality, for the purpose > of making a splash in the public forum. > These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. Sure we > need a policy. We also need a privacy policy (which would have been > abbrogated in this instance). > My 2 cents. > Cheers SP > > On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Kathy > > I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for > redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I > remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find > NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to > log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we > might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC > accountability/transparency. Just a thought. > > On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views > about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I > don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and > the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a > policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots > of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, > are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the > org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as > the facts right. > > Bill > > > On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman < > Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote: > > *private* > *not for redistribution* > > Hi All, > Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the > statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from > speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the > case. > > Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon > without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- > two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public > Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time > and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition > issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps > continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already > established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered > appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment > in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not > reduce it. That was the advice. > > When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I > quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for > the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to > raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people > from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two > people from the group above independently notified the Board of the > sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the > issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded > appropriately. > > That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and > place. > > *private* > *not for redistribution* > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Mar 22 19:16:12 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:16:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> Message-ID: <56F17DDC.6050005@mail.utoronto.ca> Fine. However, I do think that we should also be in favour of due process. The alleged perpetrator has had his rights abrogated. The existing process, however flawed, has been abrogated. I don't think we should ignore that. There are ways of pointing that out without criticising/failing to support our member. I did not volunteer to draft that letter, I am not the lawyer here, but I would ask that this point somehow find its way into the letter. I am very uncomfortable with the way this whole thing has escalated, and I don't think it reflects well on our commitment to human rights, due process and basic fairness. Stephanie P On 2016-03-22 12:39, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I agree with Ed. Sounds like a good approach to me. > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Morris > wrote: > > I should note that the issue was raised at the public GNSO Council > meeting and a group of 5 Councillors, including 4 from the NCSG, > were charged with writing a letter to ICANN corporate requesting > enactment of a conference sexual harassment policy, amongst other > action items. > I, along with several others, have spoken with ICANN Legal > concerning the wider situation and can happily report that once a > request is made by the community ICANN legal is happy to help with > the drafting and enactment of such a policy. > > Concerning Kathy's post, I can confirm the accuracy of all of it. > > I would suggest that whilst being supportive of our member our > NCSG institutional response needs to focus on ensuring that the > complaintant receives fair consideration of any complaint she may > wish to bring, without any judgement as to the substance of said > complaint, while focusing substantively on correcting any > deficiency in handling such situations currently found in ICANN > policy. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:33, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > >> I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop. I think we >> should distance ourselves from that bashing. I do not approve of >> breaking the rules of the process, notably the duty of >> confidentiality, for the purpose of making a splash in the public >> forum. >> These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. >> Sure we need a policy. We also need a privacy policy (which >> would have been abbrogated in this instance). >> My 2 cents. >> Cheers SP >> >> On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Kathy >>> >>> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not >>> for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but >>> then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google >>> didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems >>> the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate >>> through NCSG menus to >>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we >>> might want to consider this at some point in the context of >>> SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. >>> >>> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues >>> and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say >>> something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into >>> commenting on the incident and the things she and others have >>> said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I >>> mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots >>> of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such >>> as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit >>> unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as >>> this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. >>> >>> Bill >>> _ >>> _ >>>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> _private__ >>>> __not for redistribution__ >>>> _ >>>> Hi All, >>>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern >>>> about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was >>>> discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my >>>> understanding is that was not the case. >>>> >>>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday >>>> afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four >>>> independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived >>>> at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on >>>> the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and >>>> place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and >>>> transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught >>>> offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate >>>> responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN >>>> were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). >>>> Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and >>>> without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not >>>> reduce it. That was the advice. >>>> >>>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the >>>> next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that >>>> there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise >>>> coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I >>>> offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from >>>> the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least >>>> two people from the group above independently notified the >>>> Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a >>>> good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public >>>> place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >>>> >>>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate >>>> time and place. >>>> >>>> _private__ >>>> __not for redistribution__ >>>> _ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue Mar 22 19:37:12 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:37:12 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <56F17DDC.6050005@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> <56F17DDC.6050005@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> Hi, I agree with Stephanie on this, but have a question. Have we actually already decided that we are sending a letter? Who are we sending it to? Thanks. Amr > On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Fine. However, I do think that we should also be in favour of due process. The alleged perpetrator has had his rights abrogated. The existing process, however flawed, has been abrogated. I don't think we should ignore that. There are ways of pointing that out without criticising/failing to support our member. I did not volunteer to draft that letter, I am not the lawyer here, but I would ask that this point somehow find its way into the letter. I am very uncomfortable with the way this whole thing has escalated, and I don't think it reflects well on our commitment to human rights, due process and basic fairness. > Stephanie P > > On 2016-03-22 12:39, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> I agree with Ed. Sounds like a good approach to me. >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> I should note that the issue was raised at the public GNSO Council meeting and a group of 5 Councillors, including 4 from the NCSG, were charged with writing a letter to ICANN corporate requesting enactment of a conference sexual harassment policy, amongst other action items. >> I, along with several others, have spoken with ICANN Legal concerning the wider situation and can happily report that once a request is made by the community ICANN legal is happy to help with the drafting and enactment of such a policy. >> >> Concerning Kathy's post, I can confirm the accuracy of all of it. >> >> I would suggest that whilst being supportive of our member our NCSG institutional response needs to focus on ensuring that the complaintant receives fair consideration of any complaint she may wish to bring, without any judgement as to the substance of said complaint, while focusing substantively on correcting any deficiency in handling such situations currently found in ICANN policy. >> >> Ed >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:33, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop. I think we should distance ourselves from that bashing. I do not approve of breaking the rules of the process, notably the duty of confidentiality, for the purpose of making a splash in the public forum. >>> These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. Sure we need a policy. We also need a privacy policy (which would have been abbrogated in this instance). >>> My 2 cents. >>> Cheers SP >>> >>> On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi Kathy >>>> >>>> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. >>>> >>>> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> private >>>>> not for redistribution >>>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. >>>>> >>>>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. >>>>> >>>>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >>>>> >>>>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. >>>>> >>>>> private >>>>> not for redistribution >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mar?lia Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From mariliamaciel Tue Mar 22 19:38:30 2016 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:38:30 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> <56F17DDC.6050005@mail.utoronto.ca> <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Hi Amr, GNSO councillors supported drafting a letter about the need for a policy to be put in place. We mentioned that commenting on good practices of policies in the private sector could be useful. Of course, I think the GNSO will make a final decision about sending it after seeing the letter. I may be wrong, but I think the letter would be sent to the board. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Stephanie on this, but have a question. Have we actually > already decided that we are sending a letter? Who are we sending it to? > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > > > Fine. However, I do think that we should also be in favour of due > process. The alleged perpetrator has had his rights abrogated. The > existing process, however flawed, has been abrogated. I don't think we > should ignore that. There are ways of pointing that out without > criticising/failing to support our member. I did not volunteer to draft > that letter, I am not the lawyer here, but I would ask that this point > somehow find its way into the letter. I am very uncomfortable with the way > this whole thing has escalated, and I don't think it reflects well on our > commitment to human rights, due process and basic fairness. > > Stephanie P > > > > On 2016-03-22 12:39, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> I agree with Ed. Sounds like a good approach to me. > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Morris > wrote: > >> I should note that the issue was raised at the public GNSO Council > meeting and a group of 5 Councillors, including 4 from the NCSG, were > charged with writing a letter to ICANN corporate requesting enactment of a > conference sexual harassment policy, amongst other action items. > >> I, along with several others, have spoken with ICANN Legal concerning > the wider situation and can happily report that once a request is made by > the community ICANN legal is happy to help with the drafting and enactment > of such a policy. > >> > >> Concerning Kathy's post, I can confirm the accuracy of all of it. > >> > >> I would suggest that whilst being supportive of our member our NCSG > institutional response needs to focus on ensuring that the complaintant > receives fair consideration of any complaint she may wish to bring, without > any judgement as to the substance of said complaint, while > focusing substantively on correcting any deficiency in handling such > situations currently found in ICANN policy. > >> > >> Ed > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:33, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> > >>> I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop. I think we > should distance ourselves from that bashing. I do not approve of breaking > the rules of the process, notably the duty of confidentiality, for the > purpose of making a splash in the public forum. > >>> These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. Sure > we need a policy. We also need a privacy policy (which would have been > abbrogated in this instance). > >>> My 2 cents. > >>> Cheers SP > >>> > >>> On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake wrote: > >>>> Hi Kathy > >>>> > >>>> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for > redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I > remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find > NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to > log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we > might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC > accountability/transparency. Just a thought. > >>>> > >>>> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and > views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say > something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting > on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. > Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear > other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed > business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me > a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this > evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> private > >>>>> not for redistribution > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi All, > >>>>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about > the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from > speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the > case. > >>>>> > >>>>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday > afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN > leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this > first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the > right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and > transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and > perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was > already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered > appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment > in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not > reduce it. That was the advice. > >>>>> > >>>>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next > day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good > moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience > she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. > Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At > least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of > the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of > the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they > responded appropriately. > >>>>> > >>>>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and > place. > >>>>> > >>>>> private > >>>>> not for redistribution > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mar?lia Maciel > >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito > Rio > >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Tue Mar 22 19:42:55 2016 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:42:55 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> <56F17DDC.6050005@mail.utoronto.ca> <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <4BAE031D-C77E-4C74-A36E-7BC7325996BC@gmail.com> I too agree with Stephanie, Tatiana, Jeanette and others who have elsewhere raised concerns that appear to be outsides the bounds of acceptable large-n discourse. Bill Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Mar 2016, at 18:37, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Stephanie on this, but have a question. Have we actually already decided that we are sending a letter? Who are we sending it to? > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Fine. However, I do think that we should also be in favour of due process. The alleged perpetrator has had his rights abrogated. The existing process, however flawed, has been abrogated. I don't think we should ignore that. There are ways of pointing that out without criticising/failing to support our member. I did not volunteer to draft that letter, I am not the lawyer here, but I would ask that this point somehow find its way into the letter. I am very uncomfortable with the way this whole thing has escalated, and I don't think it reflects well on our commitment to human rights, due process and basic fairness. >> Stephanie P >> >>> On 2016-03-22 12:39, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> I agree with Ed. Sounds like a good approach to me. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >>> I should note that the issue was raised at the public GNSO Council meeting and a group of 5 Councillors, including 4 from the NCSG, were charged with writing a letter to ICANN corporate requesting enactment of a conference sexual harassment policy, amongst other action items. >>> I, along with several others, have spoken with ICANN Legal concerning the wider situation and can happily report that once a request is made by the community ICANN legal is happy to help with the drafting and enactment of such a policy. >>> >>> Concerning Kathy's post, I can confirm the accuracy of all of it. >>> >>> I would suggest that whilst being supportive of our member our NCSG institutional response needs to focus on ensuring that the complaintant receives fair consideration of any complaint she may wish to bring, without any judgement as to the substance of said complaint, while focusing substantively on correcting any deficiency in handling such situations currently found in ICANN policy. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:33, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>> I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop. I think we should distance ourselves from that bashing. I do not approve of breaking the rules of the process, notably the duty of confidentiality, for the purpose of making a splash in the public forum. >>>> These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. Sure we need a policy. We also need a privacy policy (which would have been abbrogated in this instance). >>>> My 2 cents. >>>> Cheers SP >>>> >>>>> On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake wrote: >>>>> Hi Kathy >>>>> >>>>> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. >>>>> >>>>> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> private >>>>>> not for redistribution >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. >>>>>> >>>>>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. >>>>>> >>>>>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >>>>>> >>>>>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. >>>>>> >>>>>> private >>>>>> not for redistribution >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mar?lia Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From egmorris1 Tue Mar 22 19:44:03 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:44:03 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> <56F17DDC.6050005@mail.utoronto.ca> <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> Message-ID: James indicated Council could send a letter to ICANN on the more general matter of the lack of a conference sexual harassment policy. Jennifer Standiford, Marilia, David, Stefania and myself volunteered to draft it. Jennifer agreed to reach out to counsel from her firm to try to get us a draft policy to look at. I'm still on the road but expect to be returning home in the next few days and will follow up with everyone, if no progress has been made before then. It would be good to get the letter done by April 4th, in time for Councillors to consider before the April 14th Council meeting. I am unsure as to the specific individual James would like to send the letter to. I have spoken to the head of ICANN legal and he is quite receptive to the idea of drafting a conference sexual harassment policy on the basis of a community request. I am also in contact with Padmini and am keeping her fully abreast of any and all activity in this area. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Mar 2016, at 10:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Stephanie on this, but have a question. Have we actually already decided that we are sending a letter? Who are we sending it to? > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Fine. However, I do think that we should also be in favour of due process. The alleged perpetrator has had his rights abrogated. The existing process, however flawed, has been abrogated. I don't think we should ignore that. There are ways of pointing that out without criticising/failing to support our member. I did not volunteer to draft that letter, I am not the lawyer here, but I would ask that this point somehow find its way into the letter. I am very uncomfortable with the way this whole thing has escalated, and I don't think it reflects well on our commitment to human rights, due process and basic fairness. >> Stephanie P >> >>> On 2016-03-22 12:39, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> I agree with Ed. Sounds like a good approach to me. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >>> I should note that the issue was raised at the public GNSO Council meeting and a group of 5 Councillors, including 4 from the NCSG, were charged with writing a letter to ICANN corporate requesting enactment of a conference sexual harassment policy, amongst other action items. >>> I, along with several others, have spoken with ICANN Legal concerning the wider situation and can happily report that once a request is made by the community ICANN legal is happy to help with the drafting and enactment of such a policy. >>> >>> Concerning Kathy's post, I can confirm the accuracy of all of it. >>> >>> I would suggest that whilst being supportive of our member our NCSG institutional response needs to focus on ensuring that the complaintant receives fair consideration of any complaint she may wish to bring, without any judgement as to the substance of said complaint, while focusing substantively on correcting any deficiency in handling such situations currently found in ICANN policy. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:33, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>> I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop. I think we should distance ourselves from that bashing. I do not approve of breaking the rules of the process, notably the duty of confidentiality, for the purpose of making a splash in the public forum. >>>> These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. Sure we need a policy. We also need a privacy policy (which would have been abbrogated in this instance). >>>> My 2 cents. >>>> Cheers SP >>>> >>>>> On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake wrote: >>>>> Hi Kathy >>>>> >>>>> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. >>>>> >>>>> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> private >>>>>> not for redistribution >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. >>>>>> >>>>>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. >>>>>> >>>>>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >>>>>> >>>>>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. >>>>>> >>>>>> private >>>>>> not for redistribution >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mar?lia Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From aelsadr Tue Mar 22 20:07:41 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:07:41 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> <56F17DDC.6050005@mail.utoronto.ca> <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <4EDF858D-3545-40D6-A9FB-FE9C1E8709F0@egyptig.org> Ed, Marilia, Thanks. I got confused for a moment there. It was a combination of Stephanie?s email referencing ?our commitment to human rights, due process and basic fairness? and Ed?s use of ?our NCSG institutional response? that threw me off. I thought we might be discussing an NCSG statement. As far as where I stand on the GNSO Council?s letter is concerned, I?m likely to support a position along the same lines Stephanie has described. Thanks again. Amr > On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:44 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > James indicated Council could send a letter to ICANN on the more general matter of the lack of a conference sexual harassment policy. Jennifer Standiford, Marilia, David, Stefania and myself volunteered to draft it. Jennifer agreed to reach out to counsel from her firm to try to get us a draft policy to look at. > > I'm still on the road but expect to be returning home in the next few days and will follow up with everyone, if no progress has been made before then. It would be good to get the letter done by April 4th, in time for Councillors to consider before the April 14th Council meeting. > > I am unsure as to the specific individual James would like to send the letter to. I have spoken to the head of ICANN legal and he is quite receptive to the idea of drafting a conference sexual harassment policy on the basis of a community request. > > I am also in contact with Padmini and am keeping her fully abreast of any and all activity in this area. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 22 Mar 2016, at 10:33, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I agree with Stephanie on this, but have a question. Have we actually already decided that we are sending a letter? Who are we sending it to? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>> Fine. However, I do think that we should also be in favour of due process. The alleged perpetrator has had his rights abrogated. The existing process, however flawed, has been abrogated. I don't think we should ignore that. There are ways of pointing that out without criticising/failing to support our member. I did not volunteer to draft that letter, I am not the lawyer here, but I would ask that this point somehow find its way into the letter. I am very uncomfortable with the way this whole thing has escalated, and I don't think it reflects well on our commitment to human rights, due process and basic fairness. >>> Stephanie P >>> >>>> On 2016-03-22 12:39, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> I agree with Ed. Sounds like a good approach to me. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >>>> I should note that the issue was raised at the public GNSO Council meeting and a group of 5 Councillors, including 4 from the NCSG, were charged with writing a letter to ICANN corporate requesting enactment of a conference sexual harassment policy, amongst other action items. >>>> I, along with several others, have spoken with ICANN Legal concerning the wider situation and can happily report that once a request is made by the community ICANN legal is happy to help with the drafting and enactment of such a policy. >>>> >>>> Concerning Kathy's post, I can confirm the accuracy of all of it. >>>> >>>> I would suggest that whilst being supportive of our member our NCSG institutional response needs to focus on ensuring that the complaintant receives fair consideration of any complaint she may wish to bring, without any judgement as to the substance of said complaint, while focusing substantively on correcting any deficiency in handling such situations currently found in ICANN policy. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:33, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop. I think we should distance ourselves from that bashing. I do not approve of breaking the rules of the process, notably the duty of confidentiality, for the purpose of making a splash in the public forum. >>>>> These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. Sure we need a policy. We also need a privacy policy (which would have been abbrogated in this instance). >>>>> My 2 cents. >>>>> Cheers SP >>>>> >>>>>> On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake wrote: >>>>>> Hi Kathy >>>>>> >>>>>> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency. Just a thought. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them. I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it. Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff. So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> private >>>>>>> not for redistribution >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place. Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it. That was the advice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> private >>>>>>> not for redistribution >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mar?lia Maciel >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 dave Tue Mar 22 20:03:29 2016 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 02:03:29 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> <56F17DDC.6050005@mail.utoronto.ca> <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <9F66F4AA-ABBA-488D-BC8D-C9B0C16E8478@davecake.net> My feelings - While Padmini is an NCSG member, that does not mean NCSG should be drawn into taking a position on the specific incident - I agree with Ed?s approach that NCSG should support our members right to fair consideration but not take any position on the actual complaint. While I do think some of Padmini?s actions, including making correspondence with the ombudsman that included naming the other party, was certainly not what I would have done, and problematic, but just as I feel we do not feel we need to take a position on the specific complaint, I don?t feel we need to take a position on her actions either. Some of us might personally express concerns, but the NCSG as a group (or any of its sub-groups) does not need to, and should avoid, taking a position on anything specific to the complaint. Padmini personally has my strong support and sympathy, and I don?t think we should be too critical. It is difficult to know how to react to being put in that situation, especially in the absence of solid mechanisms and in a complex environment like ICANN. But I also don?t personally back all points made by CIS, who are an experienced policy group who have had time to consider their statement. I think NCSG should be concerned about the broader issue of an absent or lacking policy, and should take active effort to fix that, and I think we are doing so. I am one of the Councillors who volunteered to help with a policy. I?m not sure what the path forward will end up being, but I know many of us are very willing to help and I think have very sensible nuanced views on how ICANN as an organisation can move to fix this problem Its been great to see. I agree that attacks on the ombudsman are unhelpful. I think issues like this should be somewhat outside his remit, but that doesn?t mean he has done anything wrong, only that the ombudsman has attempted to deal with the issue in the absence of other, more appropriate, mechanisms. Perhaps the ombudsman might be decided to be the appropriate place to deal with the issue, but based on an existing explicit policy rather than treating it as a dispute between individuals. I certainly think that we should be more concerned about the Ombudsmans (and his staff) performance and qualifications (and I have no reason to doubt Chris? qualifications, which seem very solid) rather than his ethnicity or gender. David From aelsadr Tue Mar 22 20:11:27 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:11:27 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency In-Reply-To: References: <56F13446.1010909@kathykleiman.com> <12DA0AB6-77E0-44C1-A829-C36E24CE17EE@gmail.com> <56F15785.7000508@mail.utoronto.ca> <9398A4ED-6987-424E-93BD-1957E4109BC7@toast.net> <56F17DDC.6050005@mail.utoronto.ca> <3C145645-E16F-4B6A-8414-25D7C7276788@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <200FCDD6-4E2B-4FF5-B1BE-398EC3CF0574@egyptig.org> Hi again, > On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:44 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > James indicated Council could send a letter to ICANN on the more general matter of the lack of a conference sexual harassment policy. Jennifer Standiford, Marilia, David, Stefania and myself volunteered to draft it. Jennifer agreed to reach out to counsel from her firm to try to get us a draft policy to look at. Yes. This is precisely my recollection as well. Thanks. > I'm still on the road but expect to be returning home in the next few days and will follow up with everyone, if no progress has been made before then. It would be good to get the letter done by April 4th, in time for Councillors to consider before the April 14th Council meeting. Good idea. > I am unsure as to the specific individual James would like to send the letter to. I have spoken to the head of ICANN legal and he is quite receptive to the idea of drafting a conference sexual harassment policy on the basis of a community request. Thanks again. I?m not entirely sure who the letter could be sent to either, but the Board Governance Committee (BGC) may be an idea. > I am also in contact with Padmini and am keeping her fully abreast of any and all activity in this area. OK. Thanks one last time. ;-) Amr