From mariliamaciel  Wed Nov  2 19:06:07 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:06:07 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
	=?utf-8?b?RndkOiBbY291bmNpbF0gTW90aW9uIOKAkyBXaXRoZHJh?=
	=?utf-8?q?wal_of_the_GNSO_as_a_Chartering_Organization_for_the_Cro?=
	=?utf-8?q?ss_Community_Working_Group_to_discuss_Internet_governanc?=
	=?utf-8?q?e_=28CWG-IG=29_issues_affecting_ICANN?=
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnVdWjAKw-3hLcH5MXopd9JxiVidE-fRywa32Rjo_abNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BC65D28A-8282-4A10-A10A-D26CBD50D8BF@endurance.com>
	<8c3a412e-e350-36cf-809f-05c47b43b905@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThnVdWjAKw-3hLcH5MXopd9JxiVidE-fRywa32Rjo_abNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK10Nk8QyOiMC-_exrPihCs4A5PvBPM6B9o90LFn7DCdZw@mail.gmail.com>

This topic has been included on the agenda of the GNSO calls several times
without a serious exchange between councillors. There was no appetite to
either discuss the topic thoroughly or to say what people would like to see
improved. The reiterated inclusion on the agenda seemed fishy, but the
motion does come as a surprise considering people did not bother to
articulate their concerns. The motion mentions that the CCWG-IG does not
follow the life cycle established by the Principles for Cross Community
Working Groups. However, even if this would be the case, the framework for
CCWGs is new and any previous CCWGs should be given an opportunity to
adapt. I think we should force those that are backing the motion to express
their views clearly and give a time to the CCWG-IG to work on specific
improvements suggested by the GNSO. This is just basic fairness. The motion
should be withdrawn. If it is tabled, my vote would be against the motion.

Thanks
Marilia

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Stephanie,
>
> I think NCSG should oppose the motion and asks for reviewing and amending
> the charter instead.
> I don't recall GNSO withdrawing from any WG before and  in particular with
> this manner.
> While the GNSO council put the CWG-IG in the agenda for several calls
> since Marrakech and get reports, I don't think there was a proper
> discussion on how to move forward or suggesting changes. the CWG principles
> framework  is an opportunity  to amend the charter not to attempt to kill
> the CWG-IG.
> the motion seems unilateral action from contracted party (while  the
> motion looks being drafted by Marika).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2016-10-28 0:31 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca>:
>
>> We will need a common position on this folks.  Preferably soon as we
>> start early, and from my perspective, I am not up to date re our prevailing
>> views on this matter.  Seems risky to me....
>>
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: [council] Motion ? Withdrawal of the GNSO as a Chartering
>> Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet
>> governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
>> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:56:30 -0700
>> From: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
>> <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
>> To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>> Dear Councilors,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached is a motion for the GNSO to withdraw as a Chartering
>> Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet
>> governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN for our November 7 Council
>> meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Darcy
>>
>> __________
>>
>> *Darcy Southwell *| Compliance Officer
>>
>> M: +1 503-453-7305 ? Skype: darcy.enyeart
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161102/8bf62f2c/attachment.html>


From mshears  Wed Nov  2 19:08:23 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 17:08:23 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBbY291bmNpbF0gTW90aW9uIOKAkyBXaXRoZHJh?=
 =?utf-8?q?wal_of_the_GNSO_as_a_Chartering_Organization_for_the_Cross_Comm?=
 =?utf-8?q?unity_Working_Group_to_discuss_Internet_governance_=28CWG-IG=29?=
 =?utf-8?q?_issues_affecting_ICANN?=
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK10Nk8QyOiMC-_exrPihCs4A5PvBPM6B9o90LFn7DCdZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BC65D28A-8282-4A10-A10A-D26CBD50D8BF@endurance.com>
	<8c3a412e-e350-36cf-809f-05c47b43b905@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThnVdWjAKw-3hLcH5MXopd9JxiVidE-fRywa32Rjo_abNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK10Nk8QyOiMC-_exrPihCs4A5PvBPM6B9o90LFn7DCdZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <761c65e1-53a0-d510-a401-cd6e6da40848@cdt.org>

Agreed.


On 02/11/2016 17:06, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> This topic has been included on the agenda of the GNSO calls several 
> times without a serious exchange between councillors. There was no 
> appetite to either discuss the topic thoroughly or to say what people 
> would like to see improved. The reiterated inclusion on the agenda 
> seemed fishy, but the motion does come as a surprise considering 
> people did not bother to articulate their concerns. The motion 
> mentions that the CCWG-IG does not follow the life cycle established 
> by the Principles for Cross Community Working Groups. However, even if 
> this would be the case, the framework for CCWGs is new and any 
> previous CCWGs should be given an opportunity to adapt. I think we 
> should force those that are backing the motion to express their views 
> clearly and give a time to the CCWG-IG to work on specific 
> improvements suggested by the GNSO. This is just basic fairness. The 
> motion should be withdrawn. If it is tabled, my vote would be against 
> the motion.
>
> Thanks
> Marilia
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Stephanie,
>
>     I think NCSG should oppose the motion and asks for reviewing and
>     amending the charter instead.
>     I don't recall GNSO withdrawing from any WG before and  in
>     particular with this manner.
>     While the GNSO council put the CWG-IG in the agenda for several
>     calls since Marrakech and get reports, I don't think there was a
>     proper discussion on how to move forward or suggesting changes.
>     the CWG principles framework  is an opportunity  to amend the
>     charter not to attempt to kill the CWG-IG.
>     the motion seems unilateral action from contracted party (while
>      the motion looks being drafted by Marika).
>
>     Best Regards,
>
>     Rafik
>
>     2016-10-28 0:31 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>
>         We will need a common position on this folks.  Preferably soon
>         as we start early, and from my perspective, I am not up to
>         date re our prevailing views on this matter.  Seems risky to
>         me....
>
>         cheers Stephanie
>
>
>
>         -------- Forwarded Message --------
>         Subject: 	[council] Motion ? Withdrawal of the GNSO as a
>         Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group
>         to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
>         Date: 	Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:56:30 -0700
>         From: 	Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
>         <mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
>         To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>         <council at gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
>         Dear Councilors,
>
>         Attached is a motion for the GNSO to withdraw as a Chartering
>         Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>         Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN for our
>         November 7 Council meeting.
>
>         Best,
>
>         Darcy
>
>         __________
>
>         *Darcy Southwell *| Compliance Officer
>
>         M: +1 503-453-7305 <tel:503-453-7305> ? Skype: darcy.enyeart
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>         <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 <tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> *| *
> *Email*: _MariliaM at diplomacy.edu 
> <mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu>____*|*__*Twitter*: __ at MariliaM_
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161102/033d5155/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Nov  3 01:30:37 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 19:30:37 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Ncph-gnsofutures] ICANN57: GNSO Futures Meeting -
 Agenda/Presentation | Thursday, 3 November, 13:45 - 15:00 | Room: G.03/04
In-Reply-To: <76702054-7887-4EAA-97D4-7666BEE73661@icann.org>
References: <76702054-7887-4EAA-97D4-7666BEE73661@icann.org>
Message-ID: <4999db6d-9e87-8851-47da-d40ed70cc4ce@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am not happy about the timing of this venture and the arrival of the 
report. Late.  Nevertheless we should review.

Stephanie



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[Ncph-gnsofutures] ICANN57: GNSO Futures Meeting - 
Agenda/Presentation | Thursday, 3 November, 13:45 - 15:00 | Room: G.03/04
Date: 	Wed, 2 Nov 2016 21:24:51 +0000
From: 	Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>
To: 	ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org <ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org>



Dear all,

In advance of the GNSO Futures meeting to be held during ICANN57 on 
Thursday afternoon, please see Tony Holmes? note below and related 
attachment.

Kind regards,

Chantelle

Meeting details:

*_GNSO Futures | ICANN57 Schedule Link: http://sched.co/8czi _*

  Room: G.03/04

Time: 13:45 ? 15:00 local time (UTC+5.30)

Adobe Connect:_https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-g3-c/ 
<https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-g3-c/>_

___________________

Dear all,

The attached report has no official status, but will be discussed during 
the GNSO Futures session to be held on Thursday 13.45 to 15.00.

The attached report summarises the status of the discussions presented 
during the last GNSO Futures Conference call with the addition of a 
number of possible options for structural change in Section 7. None of 
those scenarios have been discussed; however, they are put forward as a 
starting point and will form the basis for discussion on agenda items 4 
and 5.

*Draft Agenda ? NCPH GNOS Futures Group session*

Thursday, 3 November 13.45 to 15.00

1. Introductions

2. Adoption of agenda

3. Update on status of discussions

4. Interim Draft report

5.       Key questions:

/-          Is there support to publish a draft report within the NCPH 
for the record?/

/-          If so should that report include the identification of 
future options and a rationale outlining each approach (Sections 7 and 8)?/

/-          The possible expansion of those section to include other 
options?/

/-          Is there a need for this group to continue its activities?/

/-          Next steps and how best to proceed?/

6. Agreement on the way forward

7.       AoB

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161102/79ec5936/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Futures draft.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 30468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161102/79ec5936/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncph-gnsofutures mailing list
Ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-gnsofutures


From dave  Thu Nov  3 05:49:43 2016
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:19:43 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC meeting agenda
Message-ID: <47BA5028-C596-4AF5-9CDF-F8893DF7E90B@davecake.net>

	If there is anything you would like to see on the agenda for the Policy committee meeting, please let me know very soon, I?m going to try to get the agenda ready this morning. 
	
	David




From stephanie.perrin  Thu Nov  3 08:02:24 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 02:02:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <47BA5028-C596-4AF5-9CDF-F8893DF7E90B@davecake.net>
References: <47BA5028-C596-4AF5-9CDF-F8893DF7E90B@davecake.net>
Message-ID: <5738b055-49c6-6968-f6d8-9efd13a6325d@mail.utoronto.ca>

GNSO futures?

steph


On 2016-11-02 23:49, David Cake wrote:
> 	If there is anything you would like to see on the agenda for the Policy committee meeting, please let me know very soon, I?m going to try to get the agenda ready this morning.
> 	
> 	David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161103/9661dae8/attachment.html>


From dave  Thu Nov  3 09:13:30 2016
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:43:30 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft agenda for PC meetings
Message-ID: <D5BDE265-34C0-44BB-94A4-889C6F6866DA@davecake.net>

Let me know any additions or corrections.

---------


NCSG Policy Committee Meeting

 

Agenda

 

1.    Update from WS2 areas

 

2.    Discussion of GNSO Futures working party

 

3.    Council Agenda Items:

 

a.     Adoption of Consensus Recommendations from the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team

 

b.    Withdrawal of GNSO from CCWG-IG

 

c.     Motion to adopt the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement 

 

d.    IGO Proposal and IGO-INGO Curative Rights WG

 

e.     New Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds

 

4.     AOB    

 

 

 

Participation:

All NCSG-Policy committee members should attend

All NCSG Members are welcome to participate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161103/63db3698/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Fri Nov  4 05:46:09 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:16:09 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: GNSO Vice Chair selection
Message-ID: <20161104034608.ume54u6ex3mpazwl@roller.tarvainen.info>

CSG replied to our proposal about VC election, mostly agreeing
otherwise but not on the NCA-as-final-fallback idea.

But they didn't offer any alternative for what should happen
if even 3rd offer from the other SG is rejected.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
-------------- next part --------------
Dear Tapani,

thanks for your reply from 21 October where you've accepted most of the points suggested by our Stakeholder Group. 
We've only little concern with some of the points you added:

to 8. the total number of nominations should be limited to 3 meaning 2 re-nominations at maximum
to 9. and 11. nomination of the NCA as Vice Chair could be one option but shouldn't be a must. This is reflected in the slghtly amended 11.

Our suggested amendment (in red):

<<
1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.

2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other SG after the first term.

3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.

4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be subject to review and approval by the other SG.

5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.

6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and approval by the first SG, probably through a "listening tour" process.

7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the "non-incumbent" SG, both SGs and the NCA allocated to the NCPH have to approve the candidate.

8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate another candidate, up to three two additional times if necessary.

9. If approval is not achieved even after three re-nominations, the NCA would become Vice Chair.

10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.

11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair or the NCA become Vice Chair as per 9 above, the presumptive rotation would continue after her or his term as if it hadn't happened.
>>

We would appreciate acceptance by the NCSG and remain open for further discussion in particular during our bilateral meeting in Hyderabad.


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Tapani Tarvainen 
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 5:31 PM 
To: WUKnoben 
Subject: GNSO Vice Chair selection 

Dear Wolf-Ulrich,

My apologies for taking so long with this. Everybody has been so
busy it's been difficult to get anything done quickly.

I don't have anything on the board member selection process yet,
this is only about Vice Chair selection now.

As I said during the call, our main issues with your proposal were

(1) it left it too easy to break the consensus process - there
should be stronger incentive to seek for consensus before
falling back to "anybody can nominate..."

(2) there was no mention of what would happen to the rotation
in case NCPH gets the Chair or if the NCA is elected as Vice Chair.

Below is an attempt to address these concerns. Steps 1-7 are
unchanged from your text, 8-9 an attempt to address (1) above
and 10-11 (2).

Point 9 is perhaps a bit surprising, but the intent is to
provide incentive to finding consensus by a default outcome
that'd be sufficiently (but not too) undesirable.

Please relay this to CSG ExCom and let me know what you think.

Regards,

Tapani

***

1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.

2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second
one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other
SG after the first term.

3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could
result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need
to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.

4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection
or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a
candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would
presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be
subject to review and approval by the other SG.

5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered
as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.

6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and
approval by the first SG, probably through a "listening tour" process.

7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the
"non-incumbent" SG, both SGs and the NCA allocated to the NCPH have to
approve the candidate.

8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate
another candidate, up to three times if necessary.

9. If approval is not achieved even after three re-nominations,
the NCA would become Vice Chair.

10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG
would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the
Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go
to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.

11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair or the NCA becomes
Vice Chair as per 9 above, the presumptive rotation would continue
after her or his term as if it hadn't happened.


-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161104/ef5b2aec/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Nov  4 05:47:17 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 23:47:17 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: GNSO Vice Chair selection
In-Reply-To: <20161104034608.ume54u6ex3mpazwl@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161104034608.ume54u6ex3mpazwl@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <4a755ded-8600-4285-bf9c-bfa4f241dee6@mail.utoronto.ca>

In my view we need clarity about the options.

Stephanie


On 2016-11-03 23:46, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> CSG replied to our proposal about VC election, mostly agreeing
> otherwise but not on the NCA-as-final-fallback idea.
>
> But they didn't offer any alternative for what should happen
> if even 3rd offer from the other SG is rejected.
>
>
>
> Dear Tapani,
>
> thanks for your reply from 21 October where you've accepted most of the points suggested by our Stakeholder Group.
> We've only little concern with some of the points you added:
>
> to 8. the total number of nominations should be limited to 3 meaning 2 re-nominations at maximum
> to 9. and 11. nomination of the NCA as Vice Chair could be one option but shouldn't be a must. This is reflected in the slghtly amended 11.
>
> Our suggested amendment (in red):
>
> <<
> 1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.
>
> 2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other SG after the first term.
>
> 3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.
>
> 4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be subject to review and approval by the other SG.
>
> 5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.
>
> 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and approval by the first SG, probably through a "listening tour" process.
>
> 7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the "non-incumbent" SG, both SGs and the NCA allocated to the NCPH have to approve the candidate.
>
> 8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate another candidate, up to three two additional times if necessary.
>
> 9. If approval is not achieved even after three re-nominations, the NCA would become Vice Chair.
>
> 10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.
>
> 11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair or the NCA become Vice Chair as per 9 above, the presumptive rotation would continue after her or his term as if it hadn't happened.
> We would appreciate acceptance by the NCSG and remain open for further discussion in particular during our bilateral meeting in Hyderabad.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Tapani Tarvainen
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 5:31 PM
> To: WUKnoben
> Subject: GNSO Vice Chair selection
>
> Dear Wolf-Ulrich,
>
> My apologies for taking so long with this. Everybody has been so
> busy it's been difficult to get anything done quickly.
>
> I don't have anything on the board member selection process yet,
> this is only about Vice Chair selection now.
>
> As I said during the call, our main issues with your proposal were
>
> (1) it left it too easy to break the consensus process - there
> should be stronger incentive to seek for consensus before
> falling back to "anybody can nominate..."
>
> (2) there was no mention of what would happen to the rotation
> in case NCPH gets the Chair or if the NCA is elected as Vice Chair.
>
> Below is an attempt to address these concerns. Steps 1-7 are
> unchanged from your text, 8-9 an attempt to address (1) above
> and 10-11 (2).
>
> Point 9 is perhaps a bit surprising, but the intent is to
> provide incentive to finding consensus by a default outcome
> that'd be sufficiently (but not too) undesirable.
>
> Please relay this to CSG ExCom and let me know what you think.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tapani
>
> ***
>
> 1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.
>
> 2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second
> one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other
> SG after the first term.
>
> 3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could
> result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need
> to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.
>
> 4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection
> or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a
> candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would
> presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be
> subject to review and approval by the other SG.
>
> 5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered
> as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.
>
> 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and
> approval by the first SG, probably through a "listening tour" process.
>
> 7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the
> "non-incumbent" SG, both SGs and the NCA allocated to the NCPH have to
> approve the candidate.
>
> 8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate
> another candidate, up to three times if necessary.
>
> 9. If approval is not achieved even after three re-nominations,
> the NCA would become Vice Chair.
>
> 10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG
> would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the
> Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go
> to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.
>
> 11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair or the NCA becomes
> Vice Chair as per 9 above, the presumptive rotation would continue
> after her or his term as if it hadn't happened.
>
>
>
>
> Dear Tapani,
> thanks for your reply from 21 October where you've accepted most of 
> the points suggested by our Stakeholder Group.
> We've only little concern with some of the points you added:
> to 8. the total number of nominations should be limited to 3 meaning 2 
> re-nominations at maximum
> to 9. and 11. nomination of the NCA as Vice Chair could be one option 
> but shouldn't be a must. This is reflected in the slghtly amended 11.
> Our suggested amendment (in red):
> <<
> 1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.
> 2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second 
> one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other 
> SG after the first term.
> 3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could 
> result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need 
> to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.
> 4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection 
> or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a 
> candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would 
> presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be 
> subject to review and approval by the other SG.
> 5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered 
> as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.
> 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and 
> approval by the first SG, probably through a "listening tour" process.
> 7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the 
> "non-incumbent" SG, both SGs and the NCA allocated to the NCPH have to 
> approve the candidate.
> 8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate 
> another candidate, up to three two additional times if necessary.
> 9. If approval is not achieved even after three re-nominations, the 
> NCA would become Vice Chair.
> 10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG 
> would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the 
> Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go 
> to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.
> 11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chairor the NCA become 
> Vice Chair as per 9 above, the presumptive rotation would continue 
> after her or his term as if it hadn't happened.
> >>
> We would appreciate acceptance by the NCSG and remain open for further 
> discussion in particular during our bilateral meeting in Hyderabad.
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Tapani Tarvainen
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 5:31 PM
> To: WUKnoben
> Subject: GNSO Vice Chair selection
> Dear Wolf-Ulrich,
> My apologies for taking so long with this. Everybody has been so
> busy it's been difficult to get anything done quickly.
> I don't have anything on the board member selection process yet,
> this is only about Vice Chair selection now.
> As I said during the call, our main issues with your proposal were
> (1) it left it too easy to break the consensus process - there
> should be stronger incentive to seek for consensus before
> falling back to "anybody can nominate..."
> (2) there was no mention of what would happen to the rotation
> in case NCPH gets the Chair or if the NCA is elected as Vice Chair.
> Below is an attempt to address these concerns. Steps 1-7 are
> unchanged from your text, 8-9 an attempt to address (1) above
> and 10-11 (2).
> Point 9 is perhaps a bit surprising, but the intent is to
> provide incentive to finding consensus by a default outcome
> that'd be sufficiently (but not too) undesirable.
> Please relay this to CSG ExCom and let me know what you think.
> Regards,
> Tapani
> ***
> 1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.
> 2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second
> one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other
> SG after the first term.
> 3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could
> result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need
> to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.
> 4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection
> or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a
> candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would
> presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be
> subject to review and approval by the other SG.
> 5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered
> as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.
> 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and
> approval by the first SG, probably through a "listening tour" process.
> 7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the
> "non-incumbent" SG, both SGs and the NCA allocated to the NCPH have to
> approve the candidate.
> 8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate
> another candidate, up to three times if necessary.
> 9. If approval is not achieved even after three re-nominations,
> the NCA would become Vice Chair.
> 10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG
> would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the
> Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go
> to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.
> 11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair or the NCA becomes
> Vice Chair as per 9 above, the presumptive rotation would continue
> after her or his term as if it hadn't happened.
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161103/5237d0b7/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Fri Nov  4 06:06:40 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:36:40 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: GNSO Vice Chair selection
In-Reply-To: <4a755ded-8600-4285-bf9c-bfa4f241dee6@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20161104034608.ume54u6ex3mpazwl@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4a755ded-8600-4285-bf9c-bfa4f241dee6@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20161104040639.dtrnpy5pgds5qfa7@roller.tarvainen.info>

On Nov 03 23:47, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> In my view we need clarity about the options.

Yes. We need something in place of point 9 they rejected.

I would want something that involves the NCA, maybe letting the NCA
nominate a few candidates at that point, possibly including
him/herself, and if those are also rejected, then maybe some other
mechanism, and ultimately ending in explicit "we failed and it's
all-out war ever after" (perhaps not phrased quite like that though).

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From stephanie.perrin  Fri Nov  4 06:26:23 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 00:26:23 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: GNSO Vice Chair selection
In-Reply-To: <20161104040639.dtrnpy5pgds5qfa7@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161104034608.ume54u6ex3mpazwl@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<4a755ded-8600-4285-bf9c-bfa4f241dee6@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161104040639.dtrnpy5pgds5qfa7@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <5aa9d83f-1fd8-43e2-fb06-4e7b93c31f33@mail.utoronto.ca>

That may be an excellent summary of the failed GNSO futures meeting 
though TT.....


On 2016-11-04 00:06, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> On Nov 03 23:47, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> In my view we need clarity about the options.
> Yes. We need something in place of point 9 they rejected.
>
> I would want something that involves the NCA, maybe letting the NCA
> nominate a few candidates at that point, possibly including
> him/herself, and if those are also rejected, then maybe some other
> mechanism, and ultimately ending in explicit "we failed and it's
> all-out war ever after" (perhaps not phrased quite like that though).
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161104/d5bfab94/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Sat Nov  5 06:02:15 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 09:32:15 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics
 (Constituency Day)
In-Reply-To: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <20161105040214.dn5ci6xuczscyo6j@roller.tarvainen.info>

Reminder, besides our questions to the board in our meeting
with them tomorrow, they also had questions for us:

> 1. What do we (Board and ICANN organization) have to do to make the
> transition work for you?

> 2. What do we (Board, ICANN organization and community) need to do
> to advance trust and confidence in what we do?

Comments, ideas, volunteers welcome.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From stephanie.perrin  Sat Nov  5 06:07:41 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 00:07:41 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics
 (Constituency Day)
In-Reply-To: <20161105040214.dn5ci6xuczscyo6j@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<20161105040214.dn5ci6xuczscyo6j@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <8d70af24-6751-bd2e-7856-37f3a58a3783@mail.utoronto.ca>

1.  push the GAC to be more transparent.  We want the Carr report 
please.  For the sake of the children....



On 2016-11-05 00:02, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Reminder, besides our questions to the board in our meeting
> with them tomorrow, they also had questions for us:
>
>> 1. What do we (Board and ICANN organization) have to do to make the
>> transition work for you?
>> 2. What do we (Board, ICANN organization and community) need to do
>> to advance trust and confidence in what we do?
> Comments, ideas, volunteers welcome.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161105/009fae7f/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Sat Nov  5 06:54:20 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 10:24:20 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics
	(Constituency Day)
In-Reply-To: <20161105040214.dn5ci6xuczscyo6j@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<20161105040214.dn5ci6xuczscyo6j@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <AD94424F-F892-48EE-9957-08C5E39B772C@toast.net>

Hi Tapani,


Sent from my iPhone

> On 5 Nov 2016, at 09:32, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Reminder, besides our questions to the board in our meeting
> with them tomorrow, they also had questions for us:
> 
>> 1. What do we (Board and ICANN organization) have to do to make the
>> transition work for you?

It would be a very good use of our time with the Board to ask them how they intend to implement the new provision of the ICANN Bylaws where ICANN commits to developing procedures / policies / proposals to enable nonprofits and resource challenged groups and individuals to access the new IRP. 

This appears to be a long forgotten portion of the new Bylaws. The Board members I've spoken to don't know it exists. By formally bringing this up as a SG this would allow us both to raise the issue for discussion but also to follow up and ensure something is done for our Members and ourselves (this is how the NCSG, NPOC and the NCUC would do an IRP as ours would generally not be done through the community) in this regard. The IRP is perhaps the most important part of the accountability reforms and we and our members need to be able to access it.

Ed






> 
>> 2. What do we (Board, ICANN organization and community) need to do
>> to advance trust and confidence in what we do?
> 
> Comments, ideas, volunteers welcome.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Sat Nov  5 14:44:09 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:44:09 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: Links between the GNSO (and its
 support staff) and the "IGO small group" between 2014 and 2016
In-Reply-To: <A416941AD213C9428D623560432AFBB62E10667C@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com>
References: <A416941AD213C9428D623560432AFBB62E10667C@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com>
Message-ID: <95c8dc20-7275-c637-4513-0a66f7bc53e6@mail.utoronto.ca>

Ouch.....getting grumpy....FYI



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] FW: Links between the GNSO (and its support staff) 
and the "IGO small group" between 2014 and 2016
Date: 	Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:51:14 +0000
From: 	Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Hi All

An email from Thomas Schneider below about the IGO issue for information.

Obviously something we will need to discuss. Please note that both the 
Board and the GAC were copied on this email.

Thanks

Donna

*From:* Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch 
[mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch]
*Sent:* Saturday, November 05, 2016 5:22 AM
*To:* jbladel at godaddy.com; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>; 
heather.forrest at utas.edu.au; mason at donuts.co; gac at icann.org
*Cc:* psc at vlaw-dc.com; petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu; 
jrobinson at afilias.info; mary.wong at icann.org; jamie.hedlund at icann.org; 
chris at disspain.uk; icann-board at icann.org
*Subject:* Links between the GNSO (and its support staff) and the "IGO 
small group" between 2014 and 2016

Dear all

As a follow-up of our today?s discussion between the GAC and the GNSO 
about the work of the so called informal ?IGO small group? and the 
assertion of the GNSO council chair and vice chairs that the GNSO had 
had no knowledge about the ?IGO small group? process and work until very 
recently, and as a follow-up to a number of emails I have received on 
this issue since this meeting, I have spent some time to go through my 
email archives from late 2014 to 2016 and ? for the sake of transparency 
and for clarification ? I would like to share with you what I found:

I have found ? fairly regularly distributed over the said period ? an 
estimated number of at least a hundred email exchanges between the 
?small group? of IGO representatives (mainly lead by Jonathan Passaro 
and other colleagues from OECD, the UN and WIPO) and some GAC members 
(in particular Suzanne Radell and myself) and on the one hand and Chris 
Disspain (ICANN Board/NGPC) and a number of ICANN staff people (in 
particular Mary Wong, but also Jamie Hedlund, Olof Nordling and Nigel 
Hickson, and a number of other GNSO support staff) on the other hand. 
Mason Cole as the GNSO-liaison to the GAC was on many emails too and 
Jonathan Robinson as the chair of the GNSO council was on some as well.

As I had not been fully clear at that time myself, I had sent on 23 
April 2015 an email to Mary (and a number other people from ICANN and 
the ?IGO small group?, Chris Disspain and Tom from the ACIG GAC 
secretariat) where I asked for ?clarification about what exactly the 
process (activities, membership, timeline) of this small group is?.

The next day, I received the following answer from Mary: /?//The IGO 
?small group? was formed following discussions with the NGPC at the 
ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2014, to serve as a point of 
contact, representation and input for and from the IGOs with the 
NGPC/Board, GAC *and GNSO*.?/

(Bold marker added by myself - you will find Mary?s complete answer in 
her email below.)

These emails from late 2014 on dealt each with one or both of the 
following issues:


1. requesting respectively providing input from the IGO small group into 
the GNSO Curative Rights PDP working group

(Generally, the input from the IGO small group has been described as 
?very useful? by Mary who had received and forwarded it to the curative 
rights working group. On the side of the IGO small group, there has been 
a growing frustration during 2015, as in their view, their input had not 
been taken into account as they had hoped but they declared that they 
would nevertheless continue to provide input.)

2. informal work on the IGO small group informal proposal for a 
pragmatical solution

The first draft of this informal paper had been produced and shared via 
email by the small group in November 2015 and has then been revised in 
this informal process several times until now. I found mails that show 
that GNSO support (and some other ICANN) staff members had received a 
copy of the draft small group proposal at much earlier stages than just 
now, actually already in 2015 an possibly even in 2014.

In addition to these fairly intense and regular email exchanges, there 
has been a physical meeting during the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting on 22 
June 2015 between the GAC Leadership and the Co-Chairs of the GNSO 
curative rights PDPD working group, GNSO support staff and Mason Cole, 
in order to mutually update each other about the work of the small group 
as well as the PDP WG. In addition to this, on 16 July 2015, some 
representatives of the IGO small group have met with Chris Disspain, 
myself and a number of ICANN staff in Paris at the OECD to continue 
informal work on the draft small group text.

Following this meeting, there have been many exchanges about different 
text proposals until the end of the year 2015 and then this has been 
continued in 2016.

**

*To sum up, the mails I found in my mailbox show the following: *

-The IGO ?small group? was formed following discussions with the NGPC 
after the Los Angeles meeting.

-The ?small group? was _not set up as a bilateral process to allow 
governments and IGOs to take undue influence on the board_, but rather 
to serve as a point of contact, representation and input for and from 
the IGOs with the NGPC/Board, GAC _and GNSO_.

-The support staff for the GNSO IGO PDPs (usually Mary plus occasionally 
some other staff members) was included in more or less all electronic 
communications throughout the whole period and did not only get involved 
recently.

-Mason Cole, the GNSO Liaison to the GAC, had also been receiving a 
portion of these mails and

-Jonathan Robinson (chair of the GNSO council at that time) had been 
copied into some emails from time to time

-there has been one physical meeting and some email updates to the PDP 
WG co-chairs

All this makes it very difficult for me to understand how the GNSO 
council as well as the IGO curative rights PDP co-chairs could have had 
no knowledge about what was going on in the small group over the period 
of 2014-2016.

What I can confirm based on my personal participation in the small 
group, however, is that none of the ICANN staff has had an active role 
in the informal ?discussions/negotiations?, but that they, including 
Mary, acted as supportive facilitators of the process and as bearers of 
messages and information. The informal ?discussions/negotiations? on the 
substance of the proposal had been led by Chris on the one side and by 
the representatives of OECD (Jonathan and Nicola) and WIPO (Brian) on 
the other side.

I would like to further repeat that the GAC and IGO reps participated in 
this informal ?small group? process in good faith, in the assumption 
that all relevant parties would through informal channels be included 
and consulted and in the hope that our work would have a chance to 
become a commonly shared basis for a compromise solution that could be 
accepted by al in the end.

And I would like to conclude by saying that I do sincerely hope that 
this contribution to transparency helps getting rid of some 
misunderstandings and false assertions in this issue and allows us ? the 
Board, the GAC and the GNSO ? to resume where we were thinking we would 
depart in late 2014: on a process to get together in good faith all of 
us trying to contribute together to finding a workable solution 
acceptable to all.

Best regards

Thomas

P.S.

For those who would like to see the mails: whoever was part of the small 
group or recipient of these messages can easily search his mailbox for 
kewords like ?IGO? or names of people that he/she only worked with on 
this issue. (This is how I found these mails.)

For the others: I can also show the whole list of emails to anyone who 
does like to see them.

*Von:*Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org]
*Gesendet:* Freitag, 24. April 2015 23:05
*An:* Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch 
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; Nicola.BONUCCI at oecd.org 
<mailto:Nicola.BONUCCI at oecd.org>
*Cc:* Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org 
<mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>; pozenel at un.org 
<mailto:pozenel at un.org>; nicoara at un.org <mailto:nicoara at un.org>; 
wiener at un.org <mailto:wiener at un.org>; ricardo.GUILHERME at upu.int 
<mailto:ricardo.GUILHERME at upu.int>; brian.beckham at wipo.int 
<mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>; erik.wilbers at wipo.int 
<mailto:erik.wilbers at wipo.int>; streijffertch at who.int 
<mailto:streijffertch at who.int>; sradell at ntia.doc.gov 
<mailto:sradell at ntia.doc.gov>; ceo at auda.org.au <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>; 
Sam.PALTRIDGE at oecd.org <mailto:Sam.PALTRIDGE at oecd.org>; 
Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV at oecd.org 
<mailto:Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV at oecd.org>; Jonathan.PASSARO at oecd.org 
<mailto:Jonathan.PASSARO at oecd.org>; tom at acig.com.au 
<mailto:tom at acig.com.au>; Karine Perset <karine.perset at icann.org 
<mailto:karine.perset at icann.org>>
*Betreff:* Re: Request from IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group to 
the IGO "small group" (coalition)

Dear Thomas and everyone,

Thank you for your reply, which we on the ICANN staff appreciate 
especially as we know how much is on your and the GAC?s plate at the 
moment. I am hopeful that we can make good progress on the ongoing 
discussions regarding IGO protections, and thank you, Suzanne and the 
IGO representatives for your continuing commitment to this dialogue.

The IGO ?small group? was formed following discussions with the NGPC at 
the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2014, to serve as a point of 
contact, representation and input for and from the IGOs with the 
NGPC/Board, GAC and GNSO. I believe that most, if not all, of the IGOs 
that comprise the ?small group? are represented in this email thread.

Beyond being the primary contacts for IGOs in respect of resolving the 
question of IGO protections in the New gTLD Program, both preventative 
and curative, the ?small group? has been very helpful to the GNSO?s 
ongoing PDP Working Group that is exploring the specific, more limited, 
question of whether existing curative dispute resolution processes 
sufficiently address the particular needs and concerns of these 
organizations or if changes are required. As noted in previous emails, 
the Working Group has reached out to the GAC as well as the ?small 
group? to ensure that it understands fully all the relevant public 
policy concerns and has the necessary data and research to enable it to 
reach conclusions that are workable and in line with the governing 
public international law framework.

ICANN staff ? including Jamie Hedlund (cc?d on this email), Karine and 
me, among others ? will be happy to assist in whatever way we can to 
further the dialogue on both the preventative and curative rights 
protection questions. Please do not hesitate to let any of us know how 
we may be helpful, or if you have additional questions, at any time.

With best regards,

Mary

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4892

Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>

*From: *<Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch 
<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>
*Date: *Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 20:52
*To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, 
<Nicola.BONUCCI at oecd.org <mailto:Nicola.BONUCCI at oecd.org>>
*Cc: *<jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>, 
<pozenel at un.org <mailto:pozenel at un.org>>, <nicoara at un.org 
<mailto:nicoara at un.org>>, <wiener at un.org <mailto:wiener at un.org>>, 
<ricardo.GUILHERME at upu.int <mailto:ricardo.GUILHERME at upu.int>>, 
<brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>>, 
<erik.wilbers at wipo.int <mailto:erik.wilbers at wipo.int>>, 
<streijffertch at who.int <mailto:streijffertch at who.int>>, 
<sradell at ntia.doc.gov <mailto:sradell at ntia.doc.gov>>, <ceo at auda.org.au 
<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>, <Sam.PALTRIDGE at oecd.org 
<mailto:Sam.PALTRIDGE at oecd.org>>, <Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV at oecd.org 
<mailto:Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV at oecd.org>>, <Jonathan.PASSARO at oecd.org 
<mailto:Jonathan.PASSARO at oecd.org>>, <tom at acig.com.au 
<mailto:tom at acig.com.au>>, <karine.perset at icann.org 
<mailto:karine.perset at icann.org>>
*Subject: *Re: Request from IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group to 
the IGO "small group" (coalition)

    Dear Mary and all

    Thank you for your message of 15 April and your commitment to move
    these complex issues forward.

    As you make a reference to the IGO ?small group?, where some GAC
    representatives (including myself) are supposed to contribute to
    making things progress, I am trying to seek clarification about what
    exactly the process (activities, membership, timeline) of this small
    group is.

    The GAC (including myself personally) is willing to actively
    contribute to bringing this issue to a close in a way that will be
    satisfactory to all concerned and is ready to participate in and
    contribute to the ?small group? work. As they will help us with
    this, I would like to ask you to also keep Tom Dale from the GAC
    secretariat (ACIG) and Karine Perset from ICANN GAC-support staff in
    the loop of all further communications.

    Thank you and best regards

    Thomas

    Thomas Schneider

    Chair

    ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161105/146d2b9a/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sat Nov  5 14:46:59 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:46:59 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Proposed Scope of RDS Review
In-Reply-To: <A4208FAE-5AE1-4FB3-BEB8-71CF652417F9@godaddy.com>
References: <A4208FAE-5AE1-4FB3-BEB8-71CF652417F9@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <6a0e4636-e65d-cb5f-b010-27432df14b88@mail.utoronto.ca>

I just heard about this now in the WHOIS meeting I skipped out of policy 
meeting for.   Apparently it was the first time Susan Kawaguchi had 
heard about it too, and she immediately asked for documentation....and 
here it is.

Stephanie



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Proposed Scope of RDS Review
Date: 	Sat, 5 Nov 2016 11:26:45 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>



Council Colleagues ?

Attached, please find a proposal for the scope of the upcoming RDS 
(WHOIS2) Review Team.  This was buried in my inbox, so apologies for the 
delay in sending.

We should discuss & submit our feedback to Staff before the doc is 
finalized.

Thanks?

J.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161105/5a3009a1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v4-4-11-16[3].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 93661 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161105/5a3009a1/attachment-0001.pdf>


From egmorris1  Sat Nov  5 17:35:30 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 21:05:30 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Answer to Board question
Message-ID: <BAD07283-CA10-4F9B-918D-8400726E8BF5@toast.net>

Per the PC meeting today, I would propose asking something akin to:

Section 4.3y of the new ICANN Bylaws reads as follows (the bylaws provision will be on the screen):

(y) ICANN shall seek to establish means by which community, non-profit Claimants and other Claimants that would otherwise be excluded from utilizing the IRP process may meaningfully participate in and have access to the IRP process. 



Has the Board considered how to implement this provision? If not, how would the Board suggest we proceed so that this important part of the accountability reforms becomes reality. Some ideas the NCSG had had are: 1) arranging pro bono representation for covered parties and  2) contracting with third parties to promote and educate potential  Claimants as to their possible use of the IRP. As the provision is oriented to members and potential members of our Stakeholder Group how can we best assist the Board and staff in its implementation?

Suggestions certainly welcome. I think it's important we make progress on this and the meeting with the Board gives us a great opportunity to do so.

Best,

Ed Morris



Sent from my iPhone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161105/30ee25ad/attachment.html>


From mshears  Sun Nov  6 04:55:41 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 02:55:41 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Answer to Board question
In-Reply-To: <BAD07283-CA10-4F9B-918D-8400726E8BF5@toast.net>
References: <BAD07283-CA10-4F9B-918D-8400726E8BF5@toast.net>
Message-ID: <1396652f-fbbb-8406-3f66-0b7ee9066551@cdt.org>

Ed - I like this but wonder if point 2) while important is necessary?  
As this covers "covered parties" won't there be a sufficiency of 
awareness.  1 ask is always better than 2.


On 05/11/2016 15:35, Edward Morris wrote:
> Per the PC meeting today, I would propose asking something akin to:
>
> Section 4.3y of the new ICANN Bylaws reads as follows (the bylaws 
> provision will be on the screen):
>
> (y) ICANN shall seek to establish means by which community, non-profit 
> Claimants and other Claimants that would otherwise be excluded from 
> utilizing the IRP process may meaningfully participate in and have 
> access to the IRP process.
>
>
> Has the Board considered how to implement this provision? If not, how 
> would the Board suggest we proceed so that this important part of the 
> accountability reforms becomes reality. Some ideas the NCSG had had 
> are: 1) arranging pro bono representation for covered parties and  2) 
> contracting with third parties to promote and educate potential 
>  Claimants as to their possible use of the IRP. As the provision is 
> oriented to members and potential members of our Stakeholder Group how 
> can we best assist the Board and staff in its implementation?
>
> Suggestions certainly welcome. I think it's important we make progress 
> on this and the meeting with the Board gives us a great opportunity to 
> do so.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161106/0f82bdcc/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Sun Nov  6 10:45:22 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:15:22 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
Message-ID: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>

FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)

To recap, the choices were like this:

"
12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,

[there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]

[the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
between SGs from meeting to meeting]
"

Opinions?

Tapani


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

Dear Tapani

First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion. 


The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its preferred
approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.


Could you please let us know your decision.


Regards

Tony

----- End forwarded message -----



From mshears  Sun Nov  6 10:49:36 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:49:36 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>

so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would 
rather have pressure of no NCPH VC


On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
>
> To recap, the choices were like this:
>
> "
> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
>
> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
>
> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> "
>
> Opinions?
>
> Tapani
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
>
> Dear Tapani
>
> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
>
>
> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its preferred
> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
>
>
> Could you please let us know your decision.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Tony
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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


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




From Stefania.Milan  Sun Nov  6 10:50:10 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:50:10 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5219761ECC5A0F43A878C07F7A40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Also in light of this morning's meeting of the house (which I attended remotely) and in particular Heather's remark on the organization tasks of vice-chairs, i would go for option b (the second you list)
________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Inviato: domenica 6 novembre 2016 09.45.22
A: NCSG PC
Oggetto: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections

FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)

To recap, the choices were like this:

"
12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,

[there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]

[the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
between SGs from meeting to meeting]
"

Opinions?

Tapani


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

Dear Tapani

First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.


The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its preferred
approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.


Could you please let us know your decision.


Regards

Tony

----- End forwarded message -----

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

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



From avri  Sun Nov  6 11:00:48 2016
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:30:48 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>

Hi,

If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no v-chair in
after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2 you
can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs, which
means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their advantage.

I recommend option 1.

avri



On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would
> rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
>
>
> On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
>> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
>>
>> To recap, the choices were like this:
>>
>> "
>> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
>>
>> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
>>
>> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
>> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
>> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
>> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
>> "
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
>>
>> Dear Tapani
>>
>> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
>> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
>> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
>>
>>
>> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
>> preferred
>> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
>>
>>
>> Could you please let us know your decision.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Stefania.Milan  Sun Nov  6 11:04:03 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:04:03 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>,
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5210077E1A3581C1EB805AAF7A40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I trust Avri's expertise here so happy to change my mind (!), but what impact would this have on the actual management of the Council work e.g. in relation to meetings?


________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di avri doria <avri at apc.org>
Inviato: domenica 6 novembre 2016 10.00.48
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections

Hi,

If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no v-chair in
after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2 you
can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs, which
means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their advantage.

I recommend option 1.

avri



On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would
> rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
>
>
> On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
>> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
>>
>> To recap, the choices were like this:
>>
>> "
>> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
>>
>> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
>>
>> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
>> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
>> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
>> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
>> "
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
>>
>> Dear Tapani
>>
>> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
>> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
>> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
>>
>>
>> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
>> preferred
>> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
>>
>>
>> Could you please let us know your decision.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

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



From stephanie.perrin  Sun Nov  6 11:05:48 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 04:05:48 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5210077E1A3581C1EB805AAF7A40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
	<DB3PR05MB5210077E1A3581C1EB805AAF7A40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5a2a5a3c-b77a-bfda-3d55-7c4c4a8b63a2@mail.utoronto.ca>

It would build pressure to come up with an alternative.



On 2016-11-06 04:04, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> I trust Avri's expertise here so happy to change my mind (!), but what impact would this have on the actual management of the Council work e.g. in relation to meetings?
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di avri doria <avri at apc.org>
> Inviato: domenica 6 novembre 2016 10.00.48
> A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
>
> Hi,
>
> If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no v-chair in
> after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2 you
> can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs, which
> means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their advantage.
>
> I recommend option 1.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
>> so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would
>> rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
>>
>>
>> On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
>>> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
>>>
>>> To recap, the choices were like this:
>>>
>>> "
>>> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
>>>
>>> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
>>>
>>> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
>>> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
>>> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
>>> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
>>> "
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
>>>
>>> Dear Tapani
>>>
>>> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
>>> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
>>> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
>>> preferred
>>> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you please let us know your decision.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161106/080cc82b/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Sun Nov  6 11:16:40 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:46:40 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20161106091640.dxtsimpqozvdl6cc@roller.tarvainen.info>

Hi Avri,

Your point is good, but the situation would be reverse in the
next round - in the long term it'd balance out.

And I really don't think CSG would reject our candidate simply
because it'd give them "half VC" ever after.

Tapani


On Nov 06 14:30, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no v-chair in
> after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2 you
> can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs, which
> means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their advantage.
> 
> I recommend option 1.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> > so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would
> > rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
> >
> >
> > On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> >> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> >>
> >> To recap, the choices were like this:
> >>
> >> "
> >> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> >>
> >> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> >>
> >> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> >> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> >> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> >> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> >> "
> >>
> >> Opinions?
> >>
> >> Tapani
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
> >> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> >>
> >> Dear Tapani
> >>
> >> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> >> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> >> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> >>
> >>
> >> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
> >> preferred
> >> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
> >>
> >>
> >> Could you please let us know your decision.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >> ----- End forwarded message -----



From wjdrake  Sun Nov  6 11:08:18 2016
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 10:08:18 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
Message-ID: <608ED4B5-EC58-4556-8B3F-90D2B0234C20@gmail.com>

FWIW I?d do 1 and make the problem publicly plain. The level of shenanigans over something admin is just ridiculous, so put it out in the open, might have positive externalities somewhere else.

Bill

> On Nov 6, 2016, at 10:00, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no v-chair in
> after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2 you
> can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs, which
> means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their advantage.
> 
> I recommend option 1.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
>> so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would
>> rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
>> 
>> 
>> On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
>>> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
>>> 
>>> To recap, the choices were like this:
>>> 
>>> "
>>> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
>>> 
>>> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
>>> 
>>> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
>>> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
>>> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
>>> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
>>> "
>>> 
>>> Opinions?
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
>>> 
>>> Dear Tapani
>>> 
>>> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
>>> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
>>> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
>>> preferred
>>> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Could you please let us know your decision.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Tony
>>> 
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161106/28073a19/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Nov  6 14:07:43 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 07:07:43 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Fwd: Appointment of ALAC Liaison to the
	GNSO
In-Reply-To: <55B4419F-BB10-4BAF-B964-7275B748C72F@godaddy.com>
References: <55B4419F-BB10-4BAF-B964-7275B748C72F@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <96b685b2-917d-da35-bbae-74f5f307264a@mail.utoronto.ca>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Fwd: Appointment of ALAC Liaison to the GNSO
Date: 	Sun, 6 Nov 2016 12:01:25 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
CC: 	Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>



Councilors, FYI. And welcome, Cheryl!

Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.


Begin forwarded message:

> *From:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
> *Date:* November 6, 2016 at 16:22:03 GMT+5:30
>
> *Subject:* *Appointment of ALAC Liaison to the GNSO*
>
> Dear James,
>
> Please accept this as the formal notice that the ALAC has appointed 
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr as it Liaison to the GNSO for the year starting at 
> the end of the ICANN57 Meeting in Hyderabad.
>
> Regards, Alan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161106/37a624a4/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Mon Nov  7 03:42:20 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 07:12:20 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <2D6AEBB6-3ABA-46D5-B8C3-D0D25BD063D8@toast.net>

I look at point 12 less than as a pressure point than as a sorry desperate move to ensure Council
functions during the period of dispute. It isn't fair to the Chair or presumably the other Vice Chair to  not have some help in preparing for the next meeting, which in most cases will be by teleconference. 

I do understand and respect Avri's view and that in fact might be the way to go. I'd suggest basing the decision on what the purpose of point 12 is: is it to ensure the Council functions during time of a protracted dispute or is it to apply pressure to the process? If the former option 1 would be the best choice, if the later option 2.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Nov 2016, at 14:15, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> 
> To recap, the choices were like this:
> 
> "
> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> 
> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> 
> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> "
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Tapani
> 
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> 
> Dear Tapani
> 
> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion. 
> 
> 
> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its preferred
> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
> 
> 
> Could you please let us know your decision.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Tony
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From ncsg  Mon Nov  7 04:12:05 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 07:42:05 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161106091640.dxtsimpqozvdl6cc@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
	<20161106091640.dxtsimpqozvdl6cc@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20161107021204.kr6oepr6s2biamxn@roller.tarvainen.info>

One additional point here I forgot to mention: in option 2
there's the NCA clause, so if CSG tries to play dirty we
could invoke that and have the NCA as VC until they give up.

Of course some future NCA might be disastrous but still
I don't see option 2 being any better for CSG than for us.

Tapani

On Nov 06 14:46, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> Your point is good, but the situation would be reverse in the
> next round - in the long term it'd balance out.
> 
> And I really don't think CSG would reject our candidate simply
> because it'd give them "half VC" ever after.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> 
> On Nov 06 14:30, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no v-chair in
> > after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2 you
> > can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs, which
> > means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their advantage.
> > 
> > I recommend option 1.
> > 
> > avri
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> > > so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would
> > > rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
> > >
> > >
> > > On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > >> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> > >> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> > >>
> > >> To recap, the choices were like this:
> > >>
> > >> "
> > >> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> > >>
> > >> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> > >>
> > >> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> > >> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> > >> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > >> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > >> "
> > >>
> > >> Opinions?
> > >>
> > >> Tapani
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
> > >> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> > >>
> > >> Dear Tapani
> > >>
> > >> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> > >> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> > >> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
> > >> preferred
> > >> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Could you please let us know your decision.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >>
> > >> Tony
> > >>
> > >> ----- End forwarded message -----



From ncsg  Mon Nov  7 04:23:49 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 07:53:49 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <2D6AEBB6-3ABA-46D5-B8C3-D0D25BD063D8@toast.net>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<2D6AEBB6-3ABA-46D5-B8C3-D0D25BD063D8@toast.net>
Message-ID: <20161107022348.f23kdnb352nb2y67@roller.tarvainen.info>

Hi Ed,

I like the way you put it, but to clarify which choice is which
(I should have labeled them better):

Option 1 (no VC) was intended to be pressure-only choice and
option 2 (keep alternating or resort to NCA) would be the
keep-council-functional-while-we-fight -choice.

Is that what you meant?

Tapani

On Nov 07 07:12, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:

> I look at point 12 less than as a pressure point than as a sorry desperate move to ensure Council
> functions during the period of dispute. It isn't fair to the Chair or presumably the other Vice Chair to  not have some help in preparing for the next meeting, which in most cases will be by teleconference. 
> 
> I do understand and respect Avri's view and that in fact might be the way to go. I'd suggest basing the decision on what the purpose of point 12 is: is it to ensure the Council functions during time of a protracted dispute or is it to apply pressure to the process? If the former option 1 would be the best choice, if the later option 2.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On 6 Nov 2016, at 14:15, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > 
> > FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> > want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> > 
> > To recap, the choices were like this:
> > 
> > "
> > 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> > 
> > [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> > 
> > [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> > the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> > should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > "
> > 
> > Opinions?
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> > 
> > Dear Tapani
> > 
> > First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> > meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> > remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion. 
> > 
> > 
> > The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its preferred
> > approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
> > 
> > 
> > Could you please let us know your decision.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Tony
> > 
> > ----- End forwarded message -----



From egmorris1  Mon Nov  7 04:41:58 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 08:11:58 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161107022348.f23kdnb352nb2y67@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<2D6AEBB6-3ABA-46D5-B8C3-D0D25BD063D8@toast.net>
	<20161107022348.f23kdnb352nb2y67@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CA33CE5C-798B-4CBC-9A36-9D77ACA44BAA@toast.net>

Yes

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Nov 2016, at 07:54, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> I like the way you put it, but to clarify which choice is which
> (I should have labeled them better):
> 
> Option 1 (no VC) was intended to be pressure-only choice and
> option 2 (keep alternating or resort to NCA) would be the
> keep-council-functional-while-we-fight -choice.
> 
> Is that what you meant?
> 
> Tapani
> 
>> On Nov 07 07:12, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>> 
>> I look at point 12 less than as a pressure point than as a sorry desperate move to ensure Council
>> functions during the period of dispute. It isn't fair to the Chair or presumably the other Vice Chair to  not have some help in preparing for the next meeting, which in most cases will be by teleconference. 
>> 
>> I do understand and respect Avri's view and that in fact might be the way to go. I'd suggest basing the decision on what the purpose of point 12 is: is it to ensure the Council functions during time of a protracted dispute or is it to apply pressure to the process? If the former option 1 would be the best choice, if the later option 2.
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 6 Nov 2016, at 14:15, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>> 
>>> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
>>> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
>>> 
>>> To recap, the choices were like this:
>>> 
>>> "
>>> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
>>> 
>>> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
>>> 
>>> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
>>> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
>>> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
>>> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
>>> "
>>> 
>>> Opinions?
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
>>> 
>>> Dear Tapani
>>> 
>>> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
>>> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
>>> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its preferred
>>> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Could you please let us know your decision.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Tony
>>> 
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Mon Nov  7 06:24:39 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 23:24:39 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161107021204.kr6oepr6s2biamxn@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
	<20161106091640.dxtsimpqozvdl6cc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107021204.kr6oepr6s2biamxn@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <ee42ebff-14bc-b182-8a78-642a0da545ae@mail.utoronto.ca>

I believe it will politicize the NCAs even more than they already are. 
Yes it is unfortunate that selecting option 1 puts pressure on the chair 
and the other vice chair....but it does not trouble me that they will be 
putting pressure on our house to get its act together.

SP


On 2016-11-06 21:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> One additional point here I forgot to mention: in option 2
> there's the NCA clause, so if CSG tries to play dirty we
> could invoke that and have the NCA as VC until they give up.
>
> Of course some future NCA might be disastrous but still
> I don't see option 2 being any better for CSG than for us.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Nov 06 14:46, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> Your point is good, but the situation would be reverse in the
>> next round - in the long term it'd balance out.
>>
>> And I really don't think CSG would reject our candidate simply
>> because it'd give them "half VC" ever after.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>>
>> On Nov 06 14:30, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no v-chair in
>>> after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2 you
>>> can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs, which
>>> means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their advantage.
>>>
>>> I recommend option 1.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
>>>> so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would
>>>> rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
>>>>> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> To recap, the choices were like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
>>>>>
>>>>> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
>>>>>
>>>>> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
>>>>> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
>>>>> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
>>>>> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
>>>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Tapani
>>>>>
>>>>> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
>>>>> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
>>>>> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
>>>>> preferred
>>>>> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please let us know your decision.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161106/190ab6fd/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Mon Nov  7 06:33:06 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:03:06 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <ee42ebff-14bc-b182-8a78-642a0da545ae@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
	<20161106091640.dxtsimpqozvdl6cc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107021204.kr6oepr6s2biamxn@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<ee42ebff-14bc-b182-8a78-642a0da545ae@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20161107043305.f43e34cy7mhmqywo@roller.tarvainen.info>

Dear PC members,

Please express your preferences quickly. We really need
to decide this fast.

In the end I don't think this matters all that much, either
option will work as an incentive to resolve the issue,
which is the main point.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

On Nov 06 23:24, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> I believe it will politicize the NCAs even more than they already are. Yes
> it is unfortunate that selecting option 1 puts pressure on the chair and the
> other vice chair....but it does not trouble me that they will be putting
> pressure on our house to get its act together.
> 
> SP
> 
> 
> On 2016-11-06 21:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > One additional point here I forgot to mention: in option 2
> > there's the NCA clause, so if CSG tries to play dirty we
> > could invoke that and have the NCA as VC until they give up.
> > 
> > Of course some future NCA might be disastrous but still
> > I don't see option 2 being any better for CSG than for us.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Nov 06 14:46, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Avri,
> > > 
> > > Your point is good, but the situation would be reverse in the
> > > next round - in the long term it'd balance out.
> > > 
> > > And I really don't think CSG would reject our candidate simply
> > > because it'd give them "half VC" ever after.
> > > 
> > > Tapani
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Nov 06 14:30, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no v-chair in
> > > > after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2 you
> > > > can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs, which
> > > > means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their advantage.
> > > > 
> > > > I recommend option 1.
> > > > 
> > > > avri
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> > > > > so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would
> > > > > rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > > > FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> > > > > > want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To recap, the choices were like this:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> > > > > > the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> > > > > > should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > > > > > between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Opinions?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Tapani
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
> > > > > > <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Dear Tapani
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> > > > > > meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> > > > > > remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
> > > > > > preferred
> > > > > > approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Could you please let us know your decision.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ----- End forwarded message -----



From mariliamaciel  Mon Nov  7 12:34:20 2016
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:34:20 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161107043305.f43e34cy7mhmqywo@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
	<20161106091640.dxtsimpqozvdl6cc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107021204.kr6oepr6s2biamxn@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<ee42ebff-14bc-b182-8a78-642a0da545ae@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161107043305.f43e34cy7mhmqywo@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2m_5fyA+O-X2QaEF80VDiUOL=CZBrn02UcxsPRJgghCA@mail.gmail.com>

Option 1 would be my preference. Thanks

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> wrote:

> Dear PC members,
>
> Please express your preferences quickly. We really need
> to decide this fast.
>
> In the end I don't think this matters all that much, either
> option will work as an incentive to resolve the issue,
> which is the main point.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> On Nov 06 23:24, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
> wrote:
>
> > I believe it will politicize the NCAs even more than they already are.
> Yes
> > it is unfortunate that selecting option 1 puts pressure on the chair and
> the
> > other vice chair....but it does not trouble me that they will be putting
> > pressure on our house to get its act together.
> >
> > SP
> >
> >
> > On 2016-11-06 21:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > One additional point here I forgot to mention: in option 2
> > > there's the NCA clause, so if CSG tries to play dirty we
> > > could invoke that and have the NCA as VC until they give up.
> > >
> > > Of course some future NCA might be disastrous but still
> > > I don't see option 2 being any better for CSG than for us.
> > >
> > > Tapani
> > >
> > > On Nov 06 14:46, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Avri,
> > > >
> > > > Your point is good, but the situation would be reverse in the
> > > > next round - in the long term it'd balance out.
> > > >
> > > > And I really don't think CSG would reject our candidate simply
> > > > because it'd give them "half VC" ever after.
> > > >
> > > > Tapani
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 06 14:30, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no
> v-chair in
> > > > > after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2
> you
> > > > > can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs,
> which
> > > > > means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their
> advantage.
> > > > >
> > > > > I recommend option 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > avri
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> > > > > > so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and
> would
> > > > > > rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > > > > FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12
> we
> > > > > > > want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To recap, the choices were like this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting
> only,
> > > > > > > the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the
> NCA;
> > > > > > > should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > > > > > > between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Opinions?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tapani
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
> > > > > > > <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Tapani
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this
> morning's NCPH
> > > > > > > meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to
> progress the
> > > > > > > remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects
> its
> > > > > > > preferred
> > > > > > > approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with
> that choice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you please let us know your decision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



-- 

*Mar?lia Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161107/a43f4d7a/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Nov  7 12:43:59 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:13:59 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2m_5fyA+O-X2QaEF80VDiUOL=CZBrn02UcxsPRJgghCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
	<20161106091640.dxtsimpqozvdl6cc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107021204.kr6oepr6s2biamxn@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<ee42ebff-14bc-b182-8a78-642a0da545ae@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161107043305.f43e34cy7mhmqywo@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK2m_5fyA+O-X2QaEF80VDiUOL=CZBrn02UcxsPRJgghCA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161107104358.v7xtjx5yp5vnp3uz@roller.tarvainen.info>

Thank you Marilia.

By my count now we have Matthew, Stephanie and Marilia supporting
option 1 (no VC) and Stefania and Ed hedging their bets.

Of observers Avri and Bill support 1 as well.

I'm happy with 1, too.

Enough for me. Given the urgency of this I'll call it done
unless someone objects within half an hour.

Tapani

On Nov 07 11:34, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote:

> Option 1 would be my preference. Thanks
> 
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> > wrote:
> 
> > Dear PC members,
> >
> > Please express your preferences quickly. We really need
> > to decide this fast.
> >
> > In the end I don't think this matters all that much, either
> > option will work as an incentive to resolve the issue,
> > which is the main point.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > On Nov 06 23:24, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I believe it will politicize the NCAs even more than they already are.
> > Yes
> > > it is unfortunate that selecting option 1 puts pressure on the chair and
> > the
> > > other vice chair....but it does not trouble me that they will be putting
> > > pressure on our house to get its act together.
> > >
> > > SP
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2016-11-06 21:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > One additional point here I forgot to mention: in option 2
> > > > there's the NCA clause, so if CSG tries to play dirty we
> > > > could invoke that and have the NCA as VC until they give up.
> > > >
> > > > Of course some future NCA might be disastrous but still
> > > > I don't see option 2 being any better for CSG than for us.
> > > >
> > > > Tapani
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 06 14:46, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Avri,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your point is good, but the situation would be reverse in the
> > > > > next round - in the long term it'd balance out.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I really don't think CSG would reject our candidate simply
> > > > > because it'd give them "half VC" ever after.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tapani
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 06 14:30, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no
> > v-chair in
> > > > > > after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2
> > you
> > > > > > can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs,
> > which
> > > > > > means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their
> > advantage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I recommend option 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > avri
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> > > > > > > so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and
> > would
> > > > > > > rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > > > > > FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12
> > we
> > > > > > > > want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To recap, the choices were like this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting
> > only,
> > > > > > > > the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the
> > NCA;
> > > > > > > > should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > > > > > > > between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Opinions?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tapani
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
> > > > > > > > <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear Tapani
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this
> > morning's NCPH
> > > > > > > > meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to
> > progress the
> > > > > > > > remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects
> > its
> > > > > > > > preferred
> > > > > > > > approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with
> > that choice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please let us know your decision.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> 
> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
> *Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
> *@MariliaM*




From Stefania.Milan  Mon Nov  7 12:48:45 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:48:45 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161107104358.v7xtjx5yp5vnp3uz@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<f5e421cf-a3ef-4485-383f-ed0da4e60764@cdt.org>
	<8ed9fa12-e499-50ca-d635-967d47991ae6@apc.org>
	<20161106091640.dxtsimpqozvdl6cc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107021204.kr6oepr6s2biamxn@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<ee42ebff-14bc-b182-8a78-642a0da545ae@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<20161107043305.f43e34cy7mhmqywo@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CACpVkK2m_5fyA+O-X2QaEF80VDiUOL=CZBrn02UcxsPRJgghCA@mail.gmail.com>,
	<20161107104358.v7xtjx5yp5vnp3uz@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB52108FF7218395ADDA59A34F7A70@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Option 1 for me, too.
Stefania

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Inviato: luned? 7 novembre 2016 11.43.59
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections

Thank you Marilia.

By my count now we have Matthew, Stephanie and Marilia supporting
option 1 (no VC) and Stefania and Ed hedging their bets.

Of observers Avri and Bill support 1 as well.

I'm happy with 1, too.

Enough for me. Given the urgency of this I'll call it done
unless someone objects within half an hour.

Tapani

On Nov 07 11:34, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote:

> Option 1 would be my preference. Thanks
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> > wrote:
>
> > Dear PC members,
> >
> > Please express your preferences quickly. We really need
> > to decide this fast.
> >
> > In the end I don't think this matters all that much, either
> > option will work as an incentive to resolve the issue,
> > which is the main point.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > On Nov 06 23:24, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I believe it will politicize the NCAs even more than they already are.
> > Yes
> > > it is unfortunate that selecting option 1 puts pressure on the chair and
> > the
> > > other vice chair....but it does not trouble me that they will be putting
> > > pressure on our house to get its act together.
> > >
> > > SP
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2016-11-06 21:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > One additional point here I forgot to mention: in option 2
> > > > there's the NCA clause, so if CSG tries to play dirty we
> > > > could invoke that and have the NCA as VC until they give up.
> > > >
> > > > Of course some future NCA might be disastrous but still
> > > > I don't see option 2 being any better for CSG than for us.
> > > >
> > > > Tapani
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 06 14:46, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Avri,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your point is good, but the situation would be reverse in the
> > > > > next round - in the long term it'd balance out.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I really don't think CSG would reject our candidate simply
> > > > > because it'd give them "half VC" ever after.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tapani
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 06 14:30, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no
> > v-chair in
> > > > > > after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2
> > you
> > > > > > can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs,
> > which
> > > > > > means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their
> > advantage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I recommend option 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > avri
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> > > > > > > so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and
> > would
> > > > > > > rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > > > > > FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12
> > we
> > > > > > > > want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To recap, the choices were like this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting
> > only,
> > > > > > > > the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the
> > NCA;
> > > > > > > > should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > > > > > > > between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Opinions?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tapani
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
> > > > > > > > <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear Tapani
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this
> > morning's NCPH
> > > > > > > > meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to
> > progress the
> > > > > > > > remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects
> > its
> > > > > > > > preferred
> > > > > > > > approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with
> > that choice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please let us know your decision.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
> *Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
> *@MariliaM*


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

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



From dave  Mon Nov  7 13:06:40 2016
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:36:40 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>

I go for option 1. 

David

> On 6 Nov. 2016, at 2:15 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> 
> To recap, the choices were like this:
> 
> "
> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> 
> [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> 
> [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> "
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Tapani
> 
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> 
> Dear Tapani
> 
> First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion. 
> 
> 
> The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its preferred
> approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
> 
> 
> Could you please let us know your decision.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Tony
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From pileleji  Mon Nov  7 13:09:47 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:09:47 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
Message-ID: <CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>

Option 1 also

On 7 November 2016 at 11:06, David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:

> I go for option 1.
>
> David
>
> > On 6 Nov. 2016, at 2:15 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> wrote:
> >
> > FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> > want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> >
> > To recap, the choices were like this:
> >
> > "
> > 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> >
> > [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> >
> > [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> > the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> > should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > "
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
> -----
> >
> > Dear Tapani
> >
> > First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> > meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> > remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> >
> >
> > The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
> preferred
> > approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
> >
> >
> > Could you please let us know your decision.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>



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






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161107/4cdc29a7/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Nov  7 13:14:40 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:44:40 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
	<CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161107111439.ewmtih63ylyfvypq@roller.tarvainen.info>

OK, that's good - and makes our choice clear enough.

And the half hour is up.

I'll let CSG know.

Thank you all,

Tapani

On Nov 07 11:09, Poncelet Ileleji (pileleji at ymca.gm) wrote:

> Option 1 also
> 
> On 7 November 2016 at 11:06, David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:
> 
> > I go for option 1.
> >
> > David
> >
> > > On 6 Nov. 2016, at 2:15 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> > > want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> > >
> > > To recap, the choices were like this:
> > >
> > > "
> > > 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> > >
> > > [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> > >
> > > [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> > > the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> > > should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > > between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > > "
> > >
> > > Opinions?
> > >
> > > Tapani
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
> > -----
> > >
> > > Dear Tapani
> > >
> > > First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> > > meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> > > remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> > >
> > >
> > > The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
> > preferred
> > > approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you please let us know your decision.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > ----- End forwarded message -----
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org



From ncsg  Mon Nov  7 13:15:34 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:45:34 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
	<CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161107111534.5nzjwhaa7myapg2l@roller.tarvainen.info>

For reference, this is the agreed text:


1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.

2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second
one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other
SG after the first term.

3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could
result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need
to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.

4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection
or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a
candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would
presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be
subject to review and approval by the other SG.

5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered
as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.

6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and
approval by the first SG, through a "listening tour" process.

7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the
"non-incumbent" SG, both SGs have to approve the candidate.

8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate
another candidate, up to two additional times if necessary.

9. If approval is not achieved even after two re-nominations, the
NCA shall attempt to mediate and find a compromise candidate that
both SGs would find acceptable.

10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG
would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the
Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go
to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.

11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair the presumptive
rotation would continue after her or his term as if it hadn't
happened.

12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From ncsg  Mon Nov  7 13:30:11 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:00:11 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161107111534.5nzjwhaa7myapg2l@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
	<CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161107111534.5nzjwhaa7myapg2l@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20161107113010.2fcsouytyek7zju6@roller.tarvainen.info>

I should add that this is intended to apply immediately,
meaning we support second year for Heather.

Tapani

On Nov 07 16:45, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> For reference, this is the agreed text:
> 
> 
> 1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.
> 
> 2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second
> one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other
> SG after the first term.
> 
> 3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could
> result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need
> to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.
> 
> 4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection
> or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a
> candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would
> presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be
> subject to review and approval by the other SG.
> 
> 5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered
> as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.
> 
> 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and
> approval by the first SG, through a "listening tour" process.
> 
> 7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the
> "non-incumbent" SG, both SGs have to approve the candidate.
> 
> 8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate
> another candidate, up to two additional times if necessary.
> 
> 9. If approval is not achieved even after two re-nominations, the
> NCA shall attempt to mediate and find a compromise candidate that
> both SGs would find acceptable.
> 
> 10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG
> would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the
> Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go
> to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.
> 
> 11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair the presumptive
> rotation would continue after her or his term as if it hadn't
> happened.
> 
> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen



From dave  Mon Nov  7 13:49:12 2016
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:19:12 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161107113010.2fcsouytyek7zju6@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
	<CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161107111534.5nzjwhaa7myapg2l@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107113010.2fcsouytyek7zju6@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <10BA0AE6-3ACA-4580-9757-CBAFA1F2D77B@davecake.net>

Well Wolf-Ulrich just announced that Heather is elected.

David

> On 7 Nov. 2016, at 5:00 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> I should add that this is intended to apply immediately,
> meaning we support second year for Heather.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Nov 07 16:45, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> 
>> For reference, this is the agreed text:
>> 
>> 
>> 1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.
>> 
>> 2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second
>> one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other
>> SG after the first term.
>> 
>> 3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could
>> result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need
>> to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.
>> 
>> 4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection
>> or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a
>> candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would
>> presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be
>> subject to review and approval by the other SG.
>> 
>> 5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered
>> as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.
>> 
>> 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and
>> approval by the first SG, through a "listening tour" process.
>> 
>> 7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the
>> "non-incumbent" SG, both SGs have to approve the candidate.
>> 
>> 8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate
>> another candidate, up to two additional times if necessary.
>> 
>> 9. If approval is not achieved even after two re-nominations, the
>> NCA shall attempt to mediate and find a compromise candidate that
>> both SGs would find acceptable.
>> 
>> 10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG
>> would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the
>> Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go
>> to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.
>> 
>> 11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair the presumptive
>> rotation would continue after her or his term as if it hadn't
>> happened.
>> 
>> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
>> there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From ncsg  Mon Nov  7 13:53:22 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:23:22 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <10BA0AE6-3ACA-4580-9757-CBAFA1F2D77B@davecake.net>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
	<CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161107111534.5nzjwhaa7myapg2l@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107113010.2fcsouytyek7zju6@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<10BA0AE6-3ACA-4580-9757-CBAFA1F2D77B@davecake.net>
Message-ID: <20161107115321.r26kjq4x5igf4q4f@roller.tarvainen.info>

Yes. I told him just before sending the note to this list.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

On Nov 07 17:19, David Cake (dave at davecake.net) wrote:

> Well Wolf-Ulrich just announced that Heather is elected.
> 
> David
> 
> > On 7 Nov. 2016, at 5:00 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> > 
> > I should add that this is intended to apply immediately,
> > meaning we support second year for Heather.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Nov 07 16:45, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > 
> >> For reference, this is the agreed text:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.
> >> 
> >> 2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second
> >> one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other
> >> SG after the first term.
> >> 
> >> 3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could
> >> result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need
> >> to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.
> >> 
> >> 4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection
> >> or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a
> >> candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would
> >> presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be
> >> subject to review and approval by the other SG.
> >> 
> >> 5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered
> >> as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.
> >> 
> >> 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and
> >> approval by the first SG, through a "listening tour" process.
> >> 
> >> 7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the
> >> "non-incumbent" SG, both SGs have to approve the candidate.
> >> 
> >> 8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate
> >> another candidate, up to two additional times if necessary.
> >> 
> >> 9. If approval is not achieved even after two re-nominations, the
> >> NCA shall attempt to mediate and find a compromise candidate that
> >> both SGs would find acceptable.
> >> 
> >> 10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG
> >> would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the
> >> Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go
> >> to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.
> >> 
> >> 11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair the presumptive
> >> rotation would continue after her or his term as if it hadn't
> >> happened.
> >> 
> >> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> >> there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Tapani Tarvainen
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 



From mshears  Mon Nov  7 13:37:45 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:37:45 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161107113010.2fcsouytyek7zju6@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
	<CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161107111534.5nzjwhaa7myapg2l@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107113010.2fcsouytyek7zju6@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <cc8b861f-b9e2-a804-16b1-359ad73edfec@cdt.org>

fine for me


On 07/11/2016 11:30, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> I should add that this is intended to apply immediately,
> meaning we support second year for Heather.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Nov 07 16:45, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
>> For reference, this is the agreed text:
>>
>>
>> 1. Vice Chairs would serve one-year terms.
>>
>> 2. The first-term Vice Chair would presumptively serve a second
>> one-year term, but would be subject to review and consent by the other
>> SG after the first term.
>>
>> 3. Review and consent by the other SG after the first term could
>> result in a rejection of the sitting Vice Chair, but there would need
>> to be extraordinary reasons for this rejection.
>>
>> 4. If a Vice Chair does not serve a second term (whether by rejection
>> or for any other reason), that Vice Chair's SG would nominate a
>> candidate for the upcoming term, but that Vice Chair would
>> presumptively serve only one one-year term. The new candidate would be
>> subject to review and approval by the other SG.
>>
>> 5. After two years with one SG, the Vice Chair-ship would be offered
>> as a first nomination to the "non-incumbent" SG.
>>
>> 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and
>> approval by the first SG, through a "listening tour" process.
>>
>> 7. While there would be a presumption in favor of the candidate of the
>> "non-incumbent" SG, both SGs have to approve the candidate.
>>
>> 8. If approval is not achieved, the "non-incumbent" SG would nominate
>> another candidate, up to two additional times if necessary.
>>
>> 9. If approval is not achieved even after two re-nominations, the
>> NCA shall attempt to mediate and find a compromise candidate that
>> both SGs would find acceptable.
>>
>> 10. In case either SG member becomes the Chair of GNSO, the other SG
>> would get to select Vice Chair. It would not affect rotation after the
>> Chair passes on to the CPH again, presumptive Vice Chair turn would go
>> to whichever SG did not hold Vice Chair before.
>>
>> 11. If SGs agree to nominate the NCA as Vice Chair the presumptive
>> rotation would continue after her or his term as if it hadn't
>> happened.
>>
>> 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
>> there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting.
>>
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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




From stephanie.perrin  Mon Nov  7 15:26:58 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 08:26:58 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <20161107115321.r26kjq4x5igf4q4f@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
	<CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161107111534.5nzjwhaa7myapg2l@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107113010.2fcsouytyek7zju6@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<10BA0AE6-3ACA-4580-9757-CBAFA1F2D77B@davecake.net>
	<20161107115321.r26kjq4x5igf4q4f@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <c181ede8-9c8c-c090-2e5b-bdb3f1337372@mail.utoronto.ca>

In future please tell us councillors first, so that those of us who 
don't have good deadpan control don't look surprised, raise an eyebrow, 
etc. We were talking about it but somehow I missed the actual decision, 
possibly when running out to the other meeting yesterday.  I would of 
course have read the email; only reason this decision was in doubt was 
that I thought we were delaying on that decision until we had an agreed 
text on the bylaws motion....for leverage.  We did mention that the 
other day as a possibility.

cheers Steph


On 2016-11-07 06:53, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Yes. I told him just before sending the note to this list.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161107/acc0c63a/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Nov  7 18:24:32 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 21:54:32 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections
In-Reply-To: <c181ede8-9c8c-c090-2e5b-bdb3f1337372@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20161106084521.as2n6k3lw2uxjqwc@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<F1BDDE1E-89B5-45A5-B3D6-5D6E26633431@davecake.net>
	<CAEux40t3GtQaPE9RmJUNa2jWoH+1i-qNM8_8coimTwNQoeQpkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161107111534.5nzjwhaa7myapg2l@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<20161107113010.2fcsouytyek7zju6@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<10BA0AE6-3ACA-4580-9757-CBAFA1F2D77B@davecake.net>
	<20161107115321.r26kjq4x5igf4q4f@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<c181ede8-9c8c-c090-2e5b-bdb3f1337372@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20161107162431.sorxpax2yfopoddd@roller.tarvainen.info>

Hi Stephanie,

I thought I'd talked about it with all councillors, my apologies
if I'd missed someone or hadn't been clear enough.

And yes, the bylaws motion leverage was a factor, I deliberately
held this until it had been deferred.

Again, apologies for the rush and for being unclear, but time
was indeed very short. I'll try to do better next time.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

On Nov 07 08:26, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> In future please tell us councillors first, so that those of us who don't
> have good deadpan control don't look surprised, raise an eyebrow, etc. We
> were talking about it but somehow I missed the actual decision, possibly
> when running out to the other meeting yesterday.  I would of course have
> read the email; only reason this decision was in doubt was that I thought we
> were delaying on that decision until we had an agreed text on the bylaws
> motion....for leverage.  We did mention that the other day as a possibility.
> 
> cheers Steph
> 
> 
> On 2016-11-07 06:53, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > Yes. I told him just before sending the note to this list.
> > 
> 

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



From stephanie.perrin  Tue Nov  8 02:17:17 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 19:17:17 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
In-Reply-To: <37638abd21784c86b15083075eb0d59d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <37638abd21784c86b15083075eb0d59d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <580a1591-5e0f-50b8-9837-7caeaacee414@mail.utoronto.ca>

Doubtless our preparations for the GNSO council development session 
would have been discussed during the NCSG meeting that I missed in order 
to attend the public interest session on Sunday (once again, my 
apologies for having to run out.) As you can see from the attached, 
there is homework to be done, particularly in respect of how our SG 
wants to work with council, what we are prepared to volunteer for, and 
what our goals are.  Since one of my goals is to improve communications 
among council members in our SG and share information better, would it 
be possible for us to get together for a short meeting and think about 
the answers to some of the questions on this list?  Or perhaps if this 
was done on Sunday, someone could debrief me on what I missed.

Thanks

Stephanie

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
Date: 	Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:46:25 +0000
From: 	Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
To: 	Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, kdrazek at Verisign.com 
<kdrazek at Verisign.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>, James M. Bladel 
<jbladel at godaddy.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, 
michele at blacknight.com <michele at blacknight.com>, susank at fb.com 
<susank at fb.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Heather Forrest 
<Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>, icanned at stefaniamilan.net 
<icanned at stefaniamilan.net>, Valerie Tan <valtanhp at gmail.com>, WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, harris at cabase.org.ar 
<harris at cabase.org.ar>, Stephanie Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Rafik Dammak 
<rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, egmorris1 at toast.net <egmorris1 at toast.net>, 
Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G. 
<crg at isoc-cr.org>, ocl at gih.com <ocl at gih.com>, Paul McGrady 
<policy at paulmcgrady.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
CC: 	David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, Marika Konings 
<marika.konings at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, Robert 
Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>



Dear  Councillors,

Attached please find the proposed agenda for the Council development 
dinner on Tuesday 8 November in Ohris Rubaiyat

https://www.zomato.com/hyderabad/ohris-rubaiyat-hitech-city

and the Council development session on Wednesday 9 November 2016 in 
Granite 1, Novotel.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Glen

*Glen de Saint G?ry***

GNSO Secretariat

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

http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

/Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO///

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161107/11fa153c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1032704 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161107/11fa153c/attachment-0002.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 1032704 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161107/11fa153c/attachment-0003.doc>


From Stefania.Milan  Tue Nov  8 06:31:38 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 04:31:38 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
In-Reply-To: <580a1591-5e0f-50b8-9837-7caeaacee414@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <37638abd21784c86b15083075eb0d59d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>,
	<580a1591-5e0f-50b8-9837-7caeaacee414@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <07931D09-5FA0-4D63-B828-76A6C6497044@EUI.eu>

thanks for taking the initiative Steph. I am in if we can meet this afternoon. I am off tonight

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 8, 2016, at 05:48, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> Doubtless our preparations for the GNSO council development session would have been discussed during the NCSG meeting that I missed in order to attend the public interest session on Sunday (once again, my apologies for having to run out.) As you can see from the attached, there is homework to be done, particularly in respect of how our SG wants to work with council, what we are prepared to volunteer for, and what our goals are.  Since one of my goals is to improve communications among council members in our SG and share information better, would it be possible for us to get together for a short meeting and think about the answers to some of the questions on this list?  Or perhaps if this was done on Sunday, someone could debrief me on what I missed.
>
> Thanks
>
> Stephanie
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
> Date:   Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:46:25 +0000
> From:   Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
> To:     Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, kdrazek at Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com> <kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br>, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com> <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com> <susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>, icanned at stefaniamilan.net<mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net> <icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net>, Valerie Tan <valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, harris at cabase.org.ar<mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar> <harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net> <egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com>, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>, ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com> <ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com>, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>
> CC:     David Olive <david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>
>
> Dear  Councillors,
>
> Attached please find the proposed agenda for the Council development dinner on Tuesday 8 November in Ohris Rubaiyat
> https://www.zomato.com/hyderabad/ohris-rubaiyat-hitech-city
> and the Council development session on Wednesday 9 November 2016 in Granite 1, Novotel.
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>
>
> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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



From stephanie.perrin  Tue Nov  8 08:02:39 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 01:02:39 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
In-Reply-To: <07931D09-5FA0-4D63-B828-76A6C6497044@EUI.eu>
References: <37638abd21784c86b15083075eb0d59d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<580a1591-5e0f-50b8-9837-7caeaacee414@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<07931D09-5FA0-4D63-B828-76A6C6497044@EUI.eu>
Message-ID: <7ffdf62b-6f38-bc24-a768-1214972d4553@mail.utoronto.ca>

Maybe we could eat lunch together at the free lunch, there are tables 
there big enough I think if we jammed them together??

SP


On 2016-11-07 23:31, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> thanks for taking the initiative Steph. I am in if we can meet this afternoon. I am off tonight
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 8, 2016, at 05:48, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Doubtless our preparations for the GNSO council development session would have been discussed during the NCSG meeting that I missed in order to attend the public interest session on Sunday (once again, my apologies for having to run out.) As you can see from the attached, there is homework to be done, particularly in respect of how our SG wants to work with council, what we are prepared to volunteer for, and what our goals are.  Since one of my goals is to improve communications among council members in our SG and share information better, would it be possible for us to get together for a short meeting and think about the answers to some of the questions on this list?  Or perhaps if this was done on Sunday, someone could debrief me on what I missed.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:        Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
>> Date:   Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:46:25 +0000
>> From:   Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>> To:     Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, kdrazek at Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com> <kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br>, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com> <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com> <susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>, icanned at stefaniamilan.net<mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net> <icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net>, Valerie Tan <valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, harris at cabase.org.ar<mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar> <harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net> <egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com>, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>, ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com> <ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com>, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>
>> CC:     David Olive <david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear  Councillors,
>>
>> Attached please find the proposed agenda for the Council development dinner on Tuesday 8 November in Ohris Rubaiyat
>> https://www.zomato.com/hyderabad/ohris-rubaiyat-hitech-city
>> and the Council development session on Wednesday 9 November 2016 in Granite 1, Novotel.
>>
>> Thank you.
>> Kind regards,
>> Glen
>>
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>
>>
>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
>> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161108/6b2698d8/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Tue Nov  8 08:20:02 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 06:20:02 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
In-Reply-To: <7ffdf62b-6f38-bc24-a768-1214972d4553@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <37638abd21784c86b15083075eb0d59d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<580a1591-5e0f-50b8-9837-7caeaacee414@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<07931D09-5FA0-4D63-B828-76A6C6497044@EUI.eu>,
	<7ffdf62b-6f38-bc24-a768-1214972d4553@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <9C07CD69-F709-42D9-93A4-6CC588FAD69B@EUI.eu>

i have made arrangements for lunch already :(

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 8, 2016, at 11:33, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:


Maybe we could eat lunch together at the free lunch, there are tables there big enough I think if we jammed them together??

SP

On 2016-11-07 23:31, Milan, Stefania wrote:

thanks for taking the initiative Steph. I am in if we can meet this afternoon. I am off tonight

Sent from my iPhone



On Nov 8, 2016, at 05:48, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

Doubtless our preparations for the GNSO council development session would have been discussed during the NCSG meeting that I missed in order to attend the public interest session on Sunday (once again, my apologies for having to run out.) As you can see from the attached, there is homework to be done, particularly in respect of how our SG wants to work with council, what we are prepared to volunteer for, and what our goals are.  Since one of my goals is to improve communications among council members in our SG and share information better, would it be possible for us to get together for a short meeting and think about the answers to some of the questions on this list?  Or perhaps if this was done on Sunday, someone could debrief me on what I missed.

Thanks

Stephanie

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
Date:   Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:46:25 +0000
From:   Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
To:     Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, kdrazek at Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com> <kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br>, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com> <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com> <susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>, icanned at stefaniamilan.net<mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net> <icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net>, Valerie Tan <valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, harris at cabase.org.ar<mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar> <harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net> <egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com>, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>, ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com> <ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com>, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>
CC:     David Olive <david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>


Dear  Councillors,

Attached please find the proposed agenda for the Council development dinner on Tuesday 8 November in Ohris Rubaiyat
https://www.zomato.com/hyderabad/ohris-rubaiyat-hitech-city
and the Council development session on Wednesday 9 November 2016 in Granite 1, Novotel.

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen

Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org><mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org><mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/><http://gnso.icann.org/>

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






<GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
<GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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



The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161108/53c78c3f/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Nov  8 08:35:55 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 01:35:55 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
In-Reply-To: <9C07CD69-F709-42D9-93A4-6CC588FAD69B@EUI.eu>
References: <37638abd21784c86b15083075eb0d59d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<580a1591-5e0f-50b8-9837-7caeaacee414@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<07931D09-5FA0-4D63-B828-76A6C6497044@EUI.eu>
	<7ffdf62b-6f38-bc24-a768-1214972d4553@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<9C07CD69-F709-42D9-93A4-6CC588FAD69B@EUI.eu>
Message-ID: <1cc5ac05-37fc-5ff9-8d9f-9425efd5b248@mail.utoronto.ca>

Ok is there another time?  It is a busy enough day....but perhaps later 
before the reception (closing cocktail on the lawn)

SP


On 2016-11-08 01:20, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> i have made arrangements for lunch already :(
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 11:33, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>> Maybe we could eat lunch together at the free lunch, there are tables 
>> there big enough I think if we jammed them together??
>>
>> SP
>>
>>
>> On 2016-11-07 23:31, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>>> thanks for taking the initiative Steph. I am in if we can meet this afternoon. I am off tonight
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Nov 8, 2016, at 05:48, Stephanie Perrin<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Doubtless our preparations for the GNSO council development session would have been discussed during the NCSG meeting that I missed in order to attend the public interest session on Sunday (once again, my apologies for having to run out.) As you can see from the attached, there is homework to be done, particularly in respect of how our SG wants to work with council, what we are prepared to volunteer for, and what our goals are.  Since one of my goals is to improve communications among council members in our SG and share information better, would it be possible for us to get together for a short meeting and think about the answers to some of the questions on this list?  Or perhaps if this was done on Sunday, someone could debrief me on what I missed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>> Subject:        Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
>>>> Date:   Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:46:25 +0000
>>>> From:   Glen de Saint G?ry<Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>>>> To:     Austin, Donna<Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>,kdrazek at Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com>  <kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com>, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br>, James M. Bladel<jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>, Darcy Southwell<darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>,michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>  <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>,susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com>  <susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com>, Phil Corwin<psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Heather Forrest<Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>,icanned at stefaniamilan.net<mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net>  <icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net>, Valerie Tan<valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com>, WUKnoben<wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>,harris at cabase.org.ar<mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>  <harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>, Stephanie Perrin<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>,egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>  <egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>, Johan Helsingius<julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com>, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G.<crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>,ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>  <ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com>, Paul McGrady<policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr<langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>
>>>> CC:     David Olive<david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org>, Marika Konings<marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, Mary Wong<mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth<robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry<Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear  Councillors,
>>>>
>>>> Attached please find the proposed agenda for the Council development dinner on Tuesday 8 November in Ohris Rubaiyat
>>>> https://www.zomato.com/hyderabad/ohris-rubaiyat-hitech-city
>>>> and the Council development session on Wednesday 9 November 2016 in Granite 1, Novotel.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>
>>>>
>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>  and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
>>>> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity 
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, 
> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in 
> reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the 
> intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the 
> sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact 
> the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161108/9f56c674/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Tue Nov  8 09:29:47 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:29:47 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
In-Reply-To: <1cc5ac05-37fc-5ff9-8d9f-9425efd5b248@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <37638abd21784c86b15083075eb0d59d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<580a1591-5e0f-50b8-9837-7caeaacee414@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<07931D09-5FA0-4D63-B828-76A6C6497044@EUI.eu>
	<7ffdf62b-6f38-bc24-a768-1214972d4553@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<9C07CD69-F709-42D9-93A4-6CC588FAD69B@EUI.eu>
	<1cc5ac05-37fc-5ff9-8d9f-9425efd5b248@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <48e86b0b-fe8e-64de-6fea-00b8058283d6@cdt.org>

I can do lunch now if that would be useful.



On 08/11/2016 06:35, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Ok is there another time?  It is a busy enough day....but perhaps 
> later before the reception (closing cocktail on the lawn)
>
> SP
>
>
> On 2016-11-08 01:20, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>> i have made arrangements for lunch already :(
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2016, at 11:33, Stephanie Perrin 
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we could eat lunch together at the free lunch, there are 
>>> tables there big enough I think if we jammed them together??
>>>
>>> SP
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016-11-07 23:31, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>>>> thanks for taking the initiative Steph. I am in if we can meet this afternoon. I am off tonight
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 8, 2016, at 05:48, Stephanie Perrin<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Doubtless our preparations for the GNSO council development session would have been discussed during the NCSG meeting that I missed in order to attend the public interest session on Sunday (once again, my apologies for having to run out.) As you can see from the attached, there is homework to be done, particularly in respect of how our SG wants to work with council, what we are prepared to volunteer for, and what our goals are.  Since one of my goals is to improve communications among council members in our SG and share information better, would it be possible for us to get together for a short meeting and think about the answers to some of the questions on this list?  Or perhaps if this was done on Sunday, someone could debrief me on what I missed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>> Subject:        Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
>>>>> Date:   Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:46:25 +0000
>>>>> From:   Glen de Saint G?ry<Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>>>>> To:     Austin, Donna<Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>,kdrazek at Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com>  <kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com>, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br>, James M. Bladel<jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>, Darcy Southwell<darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>,michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>  <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>,susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com>  <susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com>, Phil Corwin<psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Heather Forrest<Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>,icanned at stefaniamilan.net<mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net>  <icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net>, Valerie Tan<valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com>, WUKnoben<wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>,harris at cabase.org.ar<mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>  <harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>, Stephanie Perrin<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>,egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>  <egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>, Johan Helsingius<julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com>, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G.<crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>,ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>  <ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com>, Paul McGrady<policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr<langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>
>>>>> CC:     David Olive<david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org>, Marika Konings<marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, Mary Wong<mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth<robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry<Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear  Councillors,
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached please find the proposed agenda for the Council development dinner on Tuesday 8 November in Ohris Rubaiyat
>>>>> https://www.zomato.com/hyderabad/ohris-rubaiyat-hitech-city
>>>>> and the Council development session on Wednesday 9 November 2016 in Granite 1, Novotel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Glen
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>  and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
>>>>> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity 
>> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or 
>> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, 
>> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in 
>> reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the 
>> intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of 
>> the sender. If you received this communication in error, please 
>> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161108/afabe947/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Tue Nov  8 10:07:28 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 08:07:28 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
In-Reply-To: <48e86b0b-fe8e-64de-6fea-00b8058283d6@cdt.org>
References: <37638abd21784c86b15083075eb0d59d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<580a1591-5e0f-50b8-9837-7caeaacee414@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<07931D09-5FA0-4D63-B828-76A6C6497044@EUI.eu>
	<7ffdf62b-6f38-bc24-a768-1214972d4553@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<9C07CD69-F709-42D9-93A4-6CC588FAD69B@EUI.eu>
	<1cc5ac05-37fc-5ff9-8d9f-9425efd5b248@mail.utoronto.ca>,
	<48e86b0b-fe8e-64de-6fea-00b8058283d6@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5215C51E54CDABEA5AE3ACCF7A60@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

6pm then?

----------------------
Stefania Milan, PhD
University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey

fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Inviato: marted? 8 novembre 2016 08.29.47
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session

I can do lunch now if that would be useful.


On 08/11/2016 06:35, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

Ok is there another time?  It is a busy enough day....but perhaps later before the reception (closing cocktail on the lawn)

SP

On 2016-11-08 01:20, Milan, Stefania wrote:
i have made arrangements for lunch already :(

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 8, 2016, at 11:33, Stephanie Perrin <<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:


Maybe we could eat lunch together at the free lunch, there are tables there big enough I think if we jammed them together??

SP

On 2016-11-07 23:31, Milan, Stefania wrote:

thanks for taking the initiative Steph. I am in if we can meet this afternoon. I am off tonight

Sent from my iPhone



On Nov 8, 2016, at 05:48, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

Doubtless our preparations for the GNSO council development session would have been discussed during the NCSG meeting that I missed in order to attend the public interest session on Sunday (once again, my apologies for having to run out.) As you can see from the attached, there is homework to be done, particularly in respect of how our SG wants to work with council, what we are prepared to volunteer for, and what our goals are.  Since one of my goals is to improve communications among council members in our SG and share information better, would it be possible for us to get together for a short meeting and think about the answers to some of the questions on this list?  Or perhaps if this was done on Sunday, someone could debrief me on what I missed.

Thanks

Stephanie

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
Date:   Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:46:25 +0000
From:   Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
To:     Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, kdrazek at Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com> <kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br>, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com> <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com> <susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>, icanned at stefaniamilan.net<mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net> <icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net>, Valerie Tan <valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, harris at cabase.org.ar<mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar> <harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net> <egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com>, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>, ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com> <ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com>, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>
CC:     David Olive <david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>


Dear  Councillors,

Attached please find the proposed agenda for the Council development dinner on Tuesday 8 November in Ohris Rubaiyat
https://www.zomato.com/hyderabad/ohris-rubaiyat-hitech-city
and the Council development session on Wednesday 9 November 2016 in Granite 1, Novotel.

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen

Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org><mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org><mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/><http://gnso.icann.org/>

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






<GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
<GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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



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




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



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


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



From stephanie.perrin  Tue Nov  8 10:42:15 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 03:42:15 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5215C51E54CDABEA5AE3ACCF7A60@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <37638abd21784c86b15083075eb0d59d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<580a1591-5e0f-50b8-9837-7caeaacee414@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<07931D09-5FA0-4D63-B828-76A6C6497044@EUI.eu>
	<7ffdf62b-6f38-bc24-a768-1214972d4553@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<9C07CD69-F709-42D9-93A4-6CC588FAD69B@EUI.eu>
	<1cc5ac05-37fc-5ff9-8d9f-9425efd5b248@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<48e86b0b-fe8e-64de-6fea-00b8058283d6@cdt.org>
	<DB3PR05MB5215C51E54CDABEA5AE3ACCF7A60@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5f93bac1-0c4d-5979-8a99-2c67ec861da6@mail.utoronto.ca>

works for me!  where


On 2016-11-08 03:07, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> 6pm then?
>
> ----------------------
> Stefania Milan, PhD
> University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
> Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
> Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
> mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
> stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
>
> fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
> Inviato: marted? 8 novembre 2016 08.29.47
> A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
>
> I can do lunch now if that would be useful.
>
>
> On 08/11/2016 06:35, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Ok is there another time?  It is a busy enough day....but perhaps later before the reception (closing cocktail on the lawn)
>
> SP
>
> On 2016-11-08 01:20, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> i have made arrangements for lunch already :(
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 11:33, Stephanie Perrin <<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe we could eat lunch together at the free lunch, there are tables there big enough I think if we jammed them together??
>
> SP
>
> On 2016-11-07 23:31, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>
> thanks for taking the initiative Steph. I am in if we can meet this afternoon. I am off tonight
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 05:48, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> Doubtless our preparations for the GNSO council development session would have been discussed during the NCSG meeting that I missed in order to attend the public interest session on Sunday (once again, my apologies for having to run out.) As you can see from the attached, there is homework to be done, particularly in respect of how our SG wants to work with council, what we are prepared to volunteer for, and what our goals are.  Since one of my goals is to improve communications among council members in our SG and share information better, would it be possible for us to get together for a short meeting and think about the answers to some of the questions on this list?  Or perhaps if this was done on Sunday, someone could debrief me on what I missed.
>
> Thanks
>
> Stephanie
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        Proposed agenda GNSO Council Development Session
> Date:   Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:46:25 +0000
> From:   Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
> To:     Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz><mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, kdrazek at Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com> <kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at Verisign.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br><mailto:rubensk at nic.br>, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com><mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com> <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com> <susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au><mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>, icanned at stefaniamilan.net<mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net> <icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net><mailto:icanned at stefaniamilan.net>, Valerie Tan <valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com><mailto:valtanhp at gmail.com>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, harris at cabase.org.ar<mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar> <harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar><mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net> <egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com><mailto:julf at julf.com>, Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>, ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com> <ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com>, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>
> CC:     David Olive <david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org><mailto:david.olive at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org><mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org><mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org><mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>
>
> Dear  Councillors,
>
> Attached please find the proposed agenda for the Council development dinner on Tuesday 8 November in Ohris Rubaiyat
> https://www.zomato.com/hyderabad/ohris-rubaiyat-hitech-city
> and the Council development session on Wednesday 9 November 2016 in Granite 1, Novotel.
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org><mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org><mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/><http://gnso.icann.org/>
>
> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso><http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers><http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
> <GNSO Council Development Session - Proposed Agenda - 9 November 2016.doc>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161108/910d45b3/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Nov 11 13:12:07 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 20:12:07 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and
 Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC strategy
consultation. it is basically asking about adding non-commercial
perspective to the strategy, there was support and no objection in the
mailing list, I think the PC can endorse this as NCSG comment.
with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while Marilia or Matthew
or  David can send the NCSG endorsment later,

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and Adjoining
Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu


Hi everyone,

Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on MEAC strategy:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3
uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing


I have not received any response from NCSG members about whether they would
accept the comments drafted in google doc.

Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if members do not act on
this, then perhaps I can leave it to NCSG policy committee for approval.

On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hamza Ben Mehrez
> Policy Analyst Lead
> Internet Governance MENA Region Program
> *T *+ 216 21 415 833 | *I *www.igmena.org <http://www.hivos.org/>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy public comment
>> until Thursday. If you accept the document as is would be grateful if you
>> could express your support.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on "Middle East and
>>> Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>>
>>> I have drafted some comments, they are available here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjc
>>> MMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the page for the public comment announcement: https://www.ican
>>> n.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the strategic plan : https://www.icann.org/en/sys
>>> tem/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
>>>
>>> Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for submission is 17 Nov,
>>> it would be good to give PC some time for submission.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>
>


-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161111/21597346/attachment.html>


From t.tropina  Fri Nov 11 15:20:54 2016
From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:20:54 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
 and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>

Dear Rafik and Farzy,

 thanks a lot for taking care of this and tip-o'-hat to Farzy for being
a penholder.

I endorse. Hope the PC can endorse this quickly so the chair or one of
the co-chairs can submit it on time.

Cheers

Tanya


On 11/11/16 12:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC strategy
> consultation. it is basically asking about adding non-commercial
> perspective to the strategy, there was support and no objection in the
> mailing list, I think the PC can endorse this as NCSG comment.
> with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while Marilia or
> Matthew or  David can send the NCSG endorsment later,
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *farzaneh badii* <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
> Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and
> Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on MEAC
> strategy:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing>
>
>
> I have not received any response from NCSG members about whether they
> would accept the comments drafted in google doc.
>
> Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if members do not act
> on this, then perhaps I can leave it to NCSG policy committee for
> approval. 
>
> On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez
> <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com <mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder! 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Hamza Ben Mehrez 
>     Policy Analyst Lead 
>     Internet Governance MENA Region Program 
>     *T *+* *216 21 415 833* *| *I *www.igmena.org <http://www.hivos.org/> 
>
>
>     On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii
>     <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hello,
>
>         Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy public
>         comment until Thursday. If you accept the document as is would
>         be grateful if you could express your support.
>
>         Best 
>
>         Farzaneh
>
>         On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii
>         <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
>         wrote:
>
>             Hi everyone,
>
>             There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on
>             "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy" 
>
>             I have drafted some comments, they are available
>             here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing>
>
>
>
>             Here is the page for the public comment
>             announcement: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en
>             <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en>
>
>
>             Here is the strategic plan
>             : https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
>             <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf>
>             Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for
>             submission is 17 Nov, it would be good to give PC some
>             time for submission.
>             Thanks 
>             -- 
>             Farzaneh
>
>         -- 
>         Farzaneh
>
> -- 
> Farzaneh
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161111/602654d7/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Fri Nov 11 15:27:15 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:27:15 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
 and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <8fd97c79-7781-593c-ecf6-8f816ca1c133@cdt.org>

OK with strategy - assume that if there are any little issues they can 
be incorporated later.

So Farzi to file, PC to circulate (but not really for comment, more FYI?)

Matthew


On 11/11/2016 13:20, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>
> Dear Rafik and Farzy,
>
>  thanks a lot for taking care of this and tip-o'-hat to Farzy for 
> being a penholder.
>
> I endorse. Hope the PC can endorse this quickly so the chair or one of 
> the co-chairs can submit it on time.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tanya
>
>
> On 11/11/16 12:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC strategy 
>> consultation. it is basically asking about adding non-commercial 
>> perspective to the strategy, there was support and no objection in 
>> the mailing list, I think the PC can endorse this as NCSG comment.
>> with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while Marilia or 
>> Matthew or  David can send the NCSG endorsment later,
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *farzaneh badii* <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and 
>> Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on MEAC 
>> strategy: 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing 
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>
>> I have not received any response from NCSG members about whether they 
>> would accept the comments drafted in google doc.
>>
>> Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if members do not 
>> act on this, then perhaps I can leave it to NCSG policy committee for 
>> approval.
>>
>> On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez 
>> <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com <mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Hamza Ben Mehrez
>>     Policy Analyst Lead
>>     Internet Governance MENA Region Program
>>     *T *+**216 21 415 833**|*I *www.igmena.org <http://www.hivos.org/>
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii
>>     <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hello,
>>
>>         Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy public
>>         comment until Thursday. If you accept the document as is
>>         would be grateful if you could express your support.
>>
>>         Best
>>
>>         Farzaneh
>>
>>         On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii
>>         <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
>>         wrote:
>>
>>             Hi everyone,
>>
>>             There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on
>>             "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>
>>             I have drafted some comments, they are available here:
>>             https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>
>>
>>             Here is the page for the public comment announcement:
>>             https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en
>>             <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en>
>>
>>
>>             Here is the strategic plan :
>>             https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
>>             <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf>
>>             Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for
>>             submission is 17 Nov, it would be good to give PC some
>>             time for submission.
>>             Thanks
>>             -- 
>>             Farzaneh
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Farzaneh
>>
>> -- 
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161111/76b833b4/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Fri Nov 11 15:29:57 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:29:57 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
 and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>,
	<97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521728117C73506CDCEA625F7BB0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Rafik, thanks for the reminder, and thanks much Farzi for taking the time to do this.
I fully support the submission of the public comment.

I am wondering whether there is anything else we can add to the area of capacity building... that it should also be directed to noncommercial users and civil society organizations. The only section  of the document that reflects on capacity-building is the one on "The Middle  East  and  Adjoining  Countries  School  on  Internet  Governance  (MEAC-SIG)". While there is no indication of the stakeholders this is aimed at, a reminder wouldn't hurt.

But as I am getting to this last minute, better to submit what we have if further inclusions are not viable at this stage.
Thanks again, Stefania


----------------------
Stefania Milan, PhD
University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey

fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
Inviato: venerd? 11 novembre 2016 14.20.54
A: Rafik Dammak; NCSG-Policy; farzaneh badii
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"

Dear Rafik and Farzy,

 thanks a lot for taking care of this and tip-o'-hat to Farzy for being a penholder.

I endorse. Hope the PC can endorse this quickly so the chair or one of the co-chairs can submit it on time.

Cheers

Tanya

On 11/11/16 12:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi everyone,

Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC strategy consultation. it is basically asking about adding non-commercial perspective to the strategy, there was support and no objection in the mailing list, I think the PC can endorse this as NCSG comment.
with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while Marilia or Matthew or  David can send the NCSG endorsment later,

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>


Hi everyone,

Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on MEAC strategy:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing


I have not received any response from NCSG members about whether they would accept the comments drafted in google doc.

Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if members do not act on this, then perhaps I can leave it to NCSG policy committee for approval.

On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com<mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder!







Hamza Ben Mehrez
Policy Analyst Lead
Internet Governance MENA Region Program
T + 216 21 415 833 | I www.igmena.org<http://www.hivos.org/>


On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,

Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy public comment until Thursday. If you accept the document as is would be grateful if you could express your support.

Best

Farzaneh

On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"

I have drafted some comments, they are available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing



Here is the page for the public comment announcement: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en


Here is the strategic plan : https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for submission is 17 Nov, it would be good to give PC some time for submission.
Thanks
--
Farzaneh
--
Farzaneh
--
Farzaneh


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



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



From rafik.dammak  Fri Nov 11 15:41:05 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 22:41:05 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
 and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvAeF8KsQa-Zw47bg0+urY-Q9YQPvXfGgOwMETes_6rEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
	<DB3PR05MB521728117C73506CDCEA625F7BB0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAN1qJvAeF8KsQa-Zw47bg0+urY-Q9YQPvXfGgOwMETes_6rEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=MzJGQ9JaW0C8h29Awq5kj1n4ApR=o0ekfq+7A7=HXBQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Farzaneh,

Thanks, so we get few days to  add more comments.

Rafik

2016-11-11 22:34 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:

> Hello PC
>
> Deadline for filing  is 17 Nov.
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On 11 November 2016 at 14:29, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rafik, thanks for the reminder, and thanks much Farzi for taking the
>> time to do this.
>> I fully support the submission of the public comment.
>>
>> I am wondering whether there is anything else we can add to the area of
>> capacity building... that it should also be directed to noncommercial users
>> and civil society organizations. The only section  of the document that
>> reflects on capacity-building is the one on "The Middle  East  and
>> Adjoining  Countries  School  on  Internet  Governance  (MEAC-SIG)". While
>> there is no indication of the stakeholders this is aimed at, a reminder
>> wouldn't hurt.
>>
>> But as I am getting to this last minute, better to submit what we have if
>> further inclusions are not viable at this stage.
>> Thanks again, Stefania
>>
>>
>> ----------------------
>> Stefania Milan, PhD
>> University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
>> Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
>> Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
>> mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 -
>> 2309945 (I)
>> stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
>>
>> fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Dr. Tatiana
>> Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>> Inviato: venerd? 11 novembre 2016 14.20.54
>> A: Rafik Dammak; NCSG-Policy; farzaneh badii
>> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle
>> East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>
>> Dear Rafik and Farzy,
>>
>>  thanks a lot for taking care of this and tip-o'-hat to Farzy for being a
>> penholder.
>>
>> I endorse. Hope the PC can endorse this quickly so the chair or one of
>> the co-chairs can submit it on time.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On 11/11/16 12:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC strategy
>> consultation. it is basically asking about adding non-commercial
>> perspective to the strategy, there was support and no objection in the
>> mailing list, I think the PC can endorse this as NCSG comment.
>> with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while Marilia or
>> Matthew or  David can send the NCSG endorsment later,
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:
>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and Adjoining
>> Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on MEAC strategy:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R
>> 2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> I have not received any response from NCSG members about whether they
>> would accept the comments drafted in google doc.
>>
>> Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if members do not act on
>> this, then perhaps I can leave it to NCSG policy committee for approval.
>>
>> On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com
>> <mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hamza Ben Mehrez
>> Policy Analyst Lead
>> Internet Governance MENA Region Program
>> T + 216 21 415 833 | I www.igmena.org<http://www.hivos.org/>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy public comment
>> until Thursday. If you accept the document as is would be grateful if you
>> could express your support.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on "Middle East and
>> Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>
>> I have drafted some comments, they are available here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R
>> 2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the page for the public comment announcement:
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en
>>
>>
>> Here is the strategic plan : https://www.icann.org/en/syste
>> m/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
>> Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for submission is 17 Nov,
>> it would be good to give PC some time for submission.
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
>> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
>> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
>> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
>> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
>> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
>> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
>> material from any computer.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161111/15374acd/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Sat Nov 12 03:56:07 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:26:07 +0530
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Suggestion
Message-ID: <68218AE7-FE75-401F-84F1-A303F336FA02@toast.net>

Hi everybody,

As a result of interactions in Hyderabad I'd like to ask our leadership to consider folding the Accountability call led by Robin into the general monthly NCSG policy committee call.

Two reasons for doing so:

1. It would reduce the sheer numbers of calls that are challenging many of us involved in multiple ICANN processes, and

2. It would better inform the wider NCSG community of the issues involved in the CCWG WS2 effort (and hopefully encourage more members to sign up).

The later reason is the more important  of the two. I met many members in India who were ignorant of all but one or two of the WS2 subgroups and that's not right. I'd like to receive input from our wider community into the work of the 5 subgroups I'm part of: during informal conversations in India I received several suggestions from Members that I'll be taking back to the subgroups.

If we do this we'd need to be very efficient on the call, perhaps with time limits for those reporting on the activities of the subgroups. If we went this rout I'd hope,  of course, Robin would be willing to lead this section of the call.

Just an idea - interested in what others think. It's a small effort to try to reduce the time burden on our volunteers while maximising he dissemination of information to our members.

Thanks for considering,

Ed 

Sent from my iPhone



From rafik.dammak  Wed Nov 16 08:31:52 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:31:52 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
 and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvAeF8KsQa-Zw47bg0+urY-Q9YQPvXfGgOwMETes_6rEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
	<DB3PR05MB521728117C73506CDCEA625F7BB0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAN1qJvAeF8KsQa-Zw47bg0+urY-Q9YQPvXfGgOwMETes_6rEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=PuErn=Wo7pi0iQZQTuU6t2xyFKs6qts_drRTa_9hkZA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

as reminder, the deadline for submission is tomorrow and we need to get
this endorsed by PC within 24hours.

Best,

Rafik

2016-11-11 22:34 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:

> Hello PC
>
> Deadline for filing  is 17 Nov.
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On 11 November 2016 at 14:29, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rafik, thanks for the reminder, and thanks much Farzi for taking the
>> time to do this.
>> I fully support the submission of the public comment.
>>
>> I am wondering whether there is anything else we can add to the area of
>> capacity building... that it should also be directed to noncommercial users
>> and civil society organizations. The only section  of the document that
>> reflects on capacity-building is the one on "The Middle  East  and
>> Adjoining  Countries  School  on  Internet  Governance  (MEAC-SIG)". While
>> there is no indication of the stakeholders this is aimed at, a reminder
>> wouldn't hurt.
>>
>> But as I am getting to this last minute, better to submit what we have if
>> further inclusions are not viable at this stage.
>> Thanks again, Stefania
>>
>>
>> ----------------------
>> Stefania Milan, PhD
>> University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
>> Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
>> Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
>> mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 -
>> 2309945 (I)
>> stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
>>
>> fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Dr. Tatiana
>> Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>> Inviato: venerd? 11 novembre 2016 14.20.54
>> A: Rafik Dammak; NCSG-Policy; farzaneh badii
>> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle
>> East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>
>> Dear Rafik and Farzy,
>>
>>  thanks a lot for taking care of this and tip-o'-hat to Farzy for being a
>> penholder.
>>
>> I endorse. Hope the PC can endorse this quickly so the chair or one of
>> the co-chairs can submit it on time.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On 11/11/16 12:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC strategy
>> consultation. it is basically asking about adding non-commercial
>> perspective to the strategy, there was support and no objection in the
>> mailing list, I think the PC can endorse this as NCSG comment.
>> with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while Marilia or
>> Matthew or  David can send the NCSG endorsment later,
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:
>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and Adjoining
>> Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on MEAC strategy:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R
>> 2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> I have not received any response from NCSG members about whether they
>> would accept the comments drafted in google doc.
>>
>> Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if members do not act on
>> this, then perhaps I can leave it to NCSG policy committee for approval.
>>
>> On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com
>> <mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hamza Ben Mehrez
>> Policy Analyst Lead
>> Internet Governance MENA Region Program
>> T + 216 21 415 833 | I www.igmena.org<http://www.hivos.org/>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy public comment
>> until Thursday. If you accept the document as is would be grateful if you
>> could express your support.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on "Middle East and
>> Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>
>> I have drafted some comments, they are available here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R
>> 2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the page for the public comment announcement:
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en
>>
>>
>> Here is the strategic plan : https://www.icann.org/en/syste
>> m/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
>> Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for submission is 17 Nov,
>> it would be good to give PC some time for submission.
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
>> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
>> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
>> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
>> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
>> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
>> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
>> material from any computer.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161116/00b96e57/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Thu Nov 17 18:13:15 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:13:15 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
 and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=PuErn=Wo7pi0iQZQTuU6t2xyFKs6qts_drRTa_9hkZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
	<DB3PR05MB521728117C73506CDCEA625F7BB0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAN1qJvAeF8KsQa-Zw47bg0+urY-Q9YQPvXfGgOwMETes_6rEsQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<CAH5sTh=PuErn=Wo7pi0iQZQTuU6t2xyFKs6qts_drRTa_9hkZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D074798D-E85F-4035-B2F2-A11871514D81@EUI.eu>

i support it, thanks Farzi

Inviato da iPhone

Il giorno 16 nov 2016, alle ore 07:32, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> ha scritto:

Hi,

as reminder, the deadline for submission is tomorrow and we need to get this endorsed by PC within 24hours.

Best,

Rafik

2016-11-11 22:34 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>:
Hello PC

Deadline for filing  is 17 Nov.

Best

Farzaneh

On 11 November 2016 at 14:29, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu<mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>> wrote:
Hi Rafik, thanks for the reminder, and thanks much Farzi for taking the time to do this.
I fully support the submission of the public comment.

I am wondering whether there is anything else we can add to the area of capacity building... that it should also be directed to noncommercial users and civil society organizations. The only section  of the document that reflects on capacity-building is the one on "The Middle  East  and  Adjoining  Countries  School  on  Internet  Governance  (MEAC-SIG)". While there is no indication of the stakeholders this is aimed at, a reminder wouldn't hurt.

But as I am getting to this last minute, better to submit what we have if further inclusions are not viable at this stage.
Thanks again, Stefania


----------------------
Stefania Milan, PhD
University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl<http://mediastudies.nl> ||
Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net<http://data-activism.net>
Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
stefaniamilan.net<http://stefaniamilan.net> || @annliffey

fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> per conto di Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de<mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>>
Inviato: venerd? 11 novembre 2016 14.20.54
A: Rafik Dammak; NCSG-Policy; farzaneh badii
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"

Dear Rafik and Farzy,

 thanks a lot for taking care of this and tip-o'-hat to Farzy for being a penholder.

I endorse. Hope the PC can endorse this quickly so the chair or one of the co-chairs can submit it on time.

Cheers

Tanya

On 11/11/16 12:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi everyone,

Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC strategy consultation. it is basically asking about adding non-commercial perspective to the strategy, there was support and no objection in the mailing list, I think the PC can endorse this as NCSG comment.
with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while Marilia or Matthew or  David can send the NCSG endorsment later,

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>>
Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>


Hi everyone,

Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on MEAC strategy:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing


I have not received any response from NCSG members about whether they would accept the comments drafted in google doc.

Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if members do not act on this, then perhaps I can leave it to NCSG policy committee for approval.

On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com<mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com><mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com<mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>>> wrote:
Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder!







Hamza Ben Mehrez
Policy Analyst Lead
Internet Governance MENA Region Program
T + 216 21 415 833<tel:%2B%20216%2021%20415%20833> | I www.igmena.org<http://www.igmena.org><http://www.hivos.org/>


On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hello,

Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy public comment until Thursday. If you accept the document as is would be grateful if you could express your support.

Best

Farzaneh

On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"

I have drafted some comments, they are available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing



Here is the page for the public comment announcement: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en


Here is the strategic plan : https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for submission is 17 Nov, it would be good to give PC some time for submission.
Thanks
--
Farzaneh
--
Farzaneh
--
Farzaneh


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



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



--
Farzaneh


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161117/6ba9fe36/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Nov 17 18:18:25 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:18:25 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
 and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <D074798D-E85F-4035-B2F2-A11871514D81@EUI.eu>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
	<DB3PR05MB521728117C73506CDCEA625F7BB0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAN1qJvAeF8KsQa-Zw47bg0+urY-Q9YQPvXfGgOwMETes_6rEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=PuErn=Wo7pi0iQZQTuU6t2xyFKs6qts_drRTa_9hkZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D074798D-E85F-4035-B2F2-A11871514D81@EUI.eu>
Message-ID: <2953430c-e7e7-8c8a-e5e6-025022c1c96b@mail.utoronto.ca>

I support, apologies for not contributing actively, am sick like dog.

Steph


On 2016-11-17 11:13, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> i support it, thanks Farzi
>
> Inviato da iPhone
>
> Il giorno 16 nov 2016, alle ore 07:32, Rafik Dammak 
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> as reminder, the deadline for submission is tomorrow and we need to 
>> get this endorsed by PC within 24hours.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2016-11-11 22:34 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>     Hello PC
>>
>>     Deadline for filing  is 17 Nov.
>>
>>     Best
>>
>>     Farzaneh
>>
>>     On 11 November 2016 at 14:29, Milan, Stefania
>>     <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Rafik, thanks for the reminder, and thanks much Farzi for
>>         taking the time to do this.
>>         I fully support the submission of the public comment.
>>
>>         I am wondering whether there is anything else we can add to
>>         the area of capacity building... that it should also be
>>         directed to noncommercial users and civil society
>>         organizations. The only section  of the document that
>>         reflects on capacity-building is the one on "The Middle 
>>         East  and Adjoining  Countries  School  on  Internet
>>         Governance  (MEAC-SIG)". While there is no indication of the
>>         stakeholders this is aimed at, a reminder wouldn't hurt.
>>
>>         But as I am getting to this last minute, better to submit
>>         what we have if further inclusions are not viable at this stage.
>>         Thanks again, Stefania
>>
>>
>>         ----------------------
>>         Stefania Milan, PhD
>>         University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl
>>         <http://mediastudies.nl> ||
>>         Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
>>         <http://data-activism.net>
>>         Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
>>         mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) ||
>>         [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
>>         stefaniamilan.net <http://stefaniamilan.net> || @annliffey
>>
>>         fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>>
>>         ________________________________________
>>         Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>>         <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> per conto di Dr.
>>         Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>>
>>         Inviato: venerd? 11 novembre 2016 14.20.54
>>         A: Rafik Dammak; NCSG-Policy; farzaneh badii
>>         Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for
>>         "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>
>>         Dear Rafik and Farzy,
>>
>>          thanks a lot for taking care of this and tip-o'-hat to Farzy
>>         for being a penholder.
>>
>>         I endorse. Hope the PC can endorse this quickly so the chair
>>         or one of the co-chairs can submit it on time.
>>
>>         Cheers
>>
>>         Tanya
>>
>>         On 11/11/16 12:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>         Hi everyone,
>>
>>         Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC
>>         strategy consultation. it is basically asking about adding
>>         non-commercial perspective to the strategy, there was support
>>         and no objection in the mailing list, I think the PC can
>>         endorse this as NCSG comment.
>>         with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while
>>         Marilia or Matthew or  David can send the NCSG endorsment later,
>>
>>         Best,
>>
>>         Rafik
>>
>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>         From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>>
>>         Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
>>         Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
>>         and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>         To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>>
>>
>>         Hi everyone,
>>
>>         Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on
>>         MEAC strategy:
>>         https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>         <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>
>>         I have not received any response from NCSG members about
>>         whether they would accept the comments drafted in google doc.
>>
>>         Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if members
>>         do not act on this, then perhaps I can leave it to NCSG
>>         policy committee for approval.
>>
>>         On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez
>>         <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com><mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>         Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         Hamza Ben Mehrez
>>         Policy Analyst Lead
>>         Internet Governance MENA Region Program
>>         T + 216 21 415 833 <tel:%2B%20216%2021%20415%20833> | I
>>         www.igmena.org <http://www.igmena.org><http://www.hivos.org/
>>         <http://www.hivos.org/>>
>>
>>
>>         On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii
>>         <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>         Hello,
>>
>>         Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy public
>>         comment until Thursday. If you accept the document as is
>>         would be grateful if you could express your support.
>>
>>         Best
>>
>>         Farzaneh
>>
>>         On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii
>>         <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>         Hi everyone,
>>
>>         There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on
>>         "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>
>>         I have drafted some comments, they are available here:
>>         https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>         <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>
>>
>>         Here is the page for the public comment announcement:
>>         https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en
>>         <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en>
>>
>>
>>         Here is the strategic plan :
>>         https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
>>         <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf>
>>         Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for submission
>>         is 17 Nov, it would be good to give PC some time for submission.
>>         Thanks
>>         --
>>         Farzaneh
>>         --
>>         Farzaneh
>>         --
>>         Farzaneh
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>         <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>         <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>         <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>
>>
>>
>>         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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Farzaneh
>>
>>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity 
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, 
> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in 
> reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the 
> intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the 
> sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact 
> the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161117/8f116189/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Nov 17 18:44:06 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:44:06 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
	and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <2953430c-e7e7-8c8a-e5e6-025022c1c96b@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
	<DB3PR05MB521728117C73506CDCEA625F7BB0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAN1qJvAeF8KsQa-Zw47bg0+urY-Q9YQPvXfGgOwMETes_6rEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=PuErn=Wo7pi0iQZQTuU6t2xyFKs6qts_drRTa_9hkZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D074798D-E85F-4035-B2F2-A11871514D81@EUI.eu>
	<2953430c-e7e7-8c8a-e5e6-025022c1c96b@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <E4F970B1-B359-480B-90F8-ADF1EDD274AE@egyptig.org>

Same here..., about supporting, not about being sick. Thanks for this, Farzi. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Nov 17, 2016, at 6:18 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> I support, apologies for not contributing actively, am sick like dog.
> 
> Steph
> 
>> On 2016-11-17 11:13, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>> i support it, thanks Farzi
>> 
>> Inviato da iPhone
>> 
>> Il giorno 16 nov 2016, alle ore 07:32, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> as reminder, the deadline for submission is tomorrow and we need to get this endorsed by PC within 24hours.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 2016-11-11 22:34 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>>>> Hello PC
>>>> 
>>>> Deadline for filing  is 17 Nov.
>>>> 
>>>> Best 
>>>> 
>>>> Farzaneh 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11 November 2016 at 14:29, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Rafik, thanks for the reminder, and thanks much Farzi for taking the time to do this.
>>>>> I fully support the submission of the public comment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am wondering whether there is anything else we can add to the area of capacity building... that it should also be directed to noncommercial users and civil society organizations. The only section  of the document that reflects on capacity-building is the one on "The Middle  East  and  Adjoining  Countries  School  on  Internet  Governance  (MEAC-SIG)". While there is no indication of the stakeholders this is aimed at, a reminder wouldn't hurt.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But as I am getting to this last minute, better to submit what we have if further inclusions are not viable at this stage.
>>>>> Thanks again, Stefania
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>> Stefania Milan, PhD
>>>>> University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
>>>>> Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
>>>>> Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
>>>>> mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
>>>>> stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
>>>>> 
>>>>> fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>>>> Inviato: venerd? 11 novembre 2016 14.20.54
>>>>> A: Rafik Dammak; NCSG-Policy; farzaneh badii
>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Rafik and Farzy,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  thanks a lot for taking care of this and tip-o'-hat to Farzy for being a penholder.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I endorse. Hope the PC can endorse this quickly so the chair or one of the co-chairs can submit it on time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tanya
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/11/16 12:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC strategy consultation. it is basically asking about adding non-commercial perspective to the strategy, there was support and no objection in the mailing list, I think the PC can endorse this as NCSG comment.
>>>>> with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while Marilia or Matthew or  David can send the NCSG endorsment later,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
>>>>> Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on MEAC strategy:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have not received any response from NCSG members about whether they would accept the comments drafted in google doc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if members do not act on this, then perhaps I can leave it to NCSG policy committee for approval.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com<mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder!
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hamza Ben Mehrez
>>>>> Policy Analyst Lead
>>>>> Internet Governance MENA Region Program
>>>>> T + 216 21 415 833 | I www.igmena.org<http://www.hivos.org/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy public comment until Thursday. If you accept the document as is would be grateful if you could express your support.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best
>>>>> 
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have drafted some comments, they are available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here is the page for the public comment announcement: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here is the strategic plan : https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
>>>>> Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for submission is 17 Nov, it would be good to give PC some time for submission.
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> --
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>> --
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>> --
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is                             addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Farzaneh
>>  
>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161117/44ed509c/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Thu Nov 17 18:53:43 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:53:43 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle East
 and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvAr+3gk0Qr0dskH+ko0=QpCua4hawm06SyVqRxFpXM0mQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAW73Nmchwu9X6PzaV2eLEULKMDwr1gXU40eY5axQ2Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvB5MRNh99uLOqKS-Epd5RToX=mDK225nq0w58WiX+vqYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoywP2oMa6q3BXbyD-KYnOg6nVqY_H5sYYotn-fr2b0Ra1qng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvDDzf4wo1mxbV1Z8LH2G7UCPhpCMOYQKoPUY2N_K6NQog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnbsjaepBfNpLHentJ_r7F4Y0z=GFS61X8x9CF62PoC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<97db1eb3-90c7-4b3e-8aac-3798614fbdeb@mpicc.de>
	<DB3PR05MB521728117C73506CDCEA625F7BB0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAN1qJvAeF8KsQa-Zw47bg0+urY-Q9YQPvXfGgOwMETes_6rEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=PuErn=Wo7pi0iQZQTuU6t2xyFKs6qts_drRTa_9hkZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN1qJvAr+3gk0Qr0dskH+ko0=QpCua4hawm06SyVqRxFpXM0mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <253b2f53-df5e-c959-f1ea-d1ba10e9d76a@cdt.org>

Hi

I think this has had sufficient time and circulation on the lists - I 
endorse and suggest that we proceed.

Matthew

On 17/11/2016 16:12, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need to know if PC endorses this. Deadline is today. If PC does not 
> manage to endorse within 6 hours, I will submit it as an individual 
> comment.
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On 16 November 2016 at 07:31, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     as reminder, the deadline for submission is tomorrow and we need
>     to get this endorsed by PC within 24hours.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Rafik
>
>     2016-11-11 22:34 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii
>     <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>:
>
>         Hello PC
>
>         Deadline for filing  is 17 Nov.
>
>         Best
>
>         Farzaneh
>
>         On 11 November 2016 at 14:29, Milan, Stefania
>         <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>> wrote:
>
>             Hi Rafik, thanks for the reminder, and thanks much Farzi
>             for taking the time to do this.
>             I fully support the submission of the public comment.
>
>             I am wondering whether there is anything else we can add
>             to the area of capacity building... that it should also be
>             directed to noncommercial users and civil society
>             organizations. The only section  of the document that
>             reflects on capacity-building is the one on "The Middle 
>             East  and Adjoining  Countries  School  on Internet 
>             Governance  (MEAC-SIG)". While there is no indication of
>             the stakeholders this is aimed at, a reminder wouldn't hurt.
>
>             But as I am getting to this last minute, better to submit
>             what we have if further inclusions are not viable at this
>             stage.
>             Thanks again, Stefania
>
>
>             ----------------------
>             Stefania Milan, PhD
>             University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl
>             <http://mediastudies.nl> ||
>             Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
>             <http://data-activism.net>
>             Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
>             mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA)
>             || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
>             stefaniamilan.net <http://stefaniamilan.net> || @annliffey
>
>             fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850 EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>
>             ________________________________________
>             Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
>             <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> per conto di Dr.
>             Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de
>             <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>>
>             Inviato: venerd? 11 novembre 2016 14.20.54
>             A: Rafik Dammak; NCSG-Policy; farzaneh badii
>             Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment
>             for "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>
>             Dear Rafik and Farzy,
>
>              thanks a lot for taking care of this and tip-o'-hat to
>             Farzy for being a penholder.
>
>             I endorse. Hope the PC can endorse this quickly so the
>             chair or one of the co-chairs can submit it on time.
>
>             Cheers
>
>             Tanya
>
>             On 11/11/16 12:12, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>             Hi everyone,
>
>             Farzaneh prepared the draft for a short comment to MEAC
>             strategy consultation. it is basically asking about adding
>             non-commercial perspective to the strategy, there was
>             support and no objection in the mailing list, I think the
>             PC can endorse this as NCSG comment.
>             with regard to the deadline, Farzaneh can send it while
>             Marilia or Matthew or  David can send the NCSG endorsment
>             later,
>
>             Best,
>
>             Rafik
>
>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>             From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>             <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>             <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>>
>             Date: 2016-11-10 22:10 GMT+09:00
>             Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment for "Middle
>             East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>             To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>             <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>             <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>
>
>             Hi everyone,
>
>             Today is the last day to comment on the public comment on
>             MEAC strategy:
>             https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing>
>
>
>             I have not received any response from NCSG members about
>             whether they would accept the comments drafted in google doc.
>
>             Wanted to submit this as NCSG public comment but if
>             members do not act on this, then perhaps I can leave it to
>             NCSG policy committee for approval.
>
>             On 8 November 2016 at 23:29, Hamza Ben Mehrez
>             <hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com
>             <mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com><mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com
>             <mailto:hamzabenmehrez at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>             Thank you Farzaneh for your constant reminder!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Hamza Ben Mehrez
>             Policy Analyst Lead
>             Internet Governance MENA Region Program
>             T + 216 21 415 833 <tel:%2B%20216%2021%20415%20833> | I
>             www.igmena.org
>             <http://www.igmena.org><http://www.hivos.org/
>             <http://www.hivos.org/>>
>
>
>             On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, farzaneh badii
>             <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>             <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>             <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>             Hello,
>
>             Just a reminder to comment on the Middle East Strategy
>             public comment until Thursday. If you accept the document
>             as is would be grateful if you could express your support.
>
>             Best
>
>             Farzaneh
>
>             On 5 November 2016 at 10:10, farzaneh badii
>             <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>             <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com><mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>             <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>             Hi everyone,
>
>             There is a public comment request by the MEAC group on
>             "Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy"
>
>             I have drafted some comments, they are available here:
>             https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing
>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eFUFkftBUwUjCAQVjcMMyG-R2vFZYHjnIC9d3uxoCwE/edit?usp=sharing>
>
>
>
>             Here is the page for the public comment announcement:
>             https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en
>             <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meac-strategy-2016-10-27-en>
>
>
>             Here is the strategic plan :
>             https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf
>             <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-strategy-draft-27oct16-en.pdf>
>             Please comment by 10th November, the deadline for
>             submission is 17 Nov, it would be good to give PC some
>             time for submission.
>             Thanks
>             --
>             Farzaneh
>             --
>             Farzaneh
>             --
>             Farzaneh
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>             <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>             <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>             <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
>
>
>             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.
>
>
>
>
>         -- 
>         Farzaneh
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Farzaneh

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161117/fb1ee224/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Nov 18 23:16:27 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:16:27 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS
	Review
In-Reply-To: <43C1998C-F514-4790-A4A2-83E321C698F3@godaddy.com>
References: <43C1998C-F514-4790-A4A2-83E321C698F3@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <8809583f-e38c-fee0-045c-af06710816d5@mail.utoronto.ca>

How do we feel about this, gang?  I will see if I can dig up the 
original document and forward, notice where it is coming from....

Stephanie

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] FW: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
Date: 	Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:13:13 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>



Council colleagues ?

See message below, and attached document from Margie.  I know some 
(Susan?) have raised concerns with the draft Limited Scope for RDS 
Review, but do we think it is possible for us to gather and submit our 
feedback by 1 DEC?

Thanks?

J.

*From: *Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>
*Date: *Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 19:55

*Subject: *RE: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review

Dear All,

I understand from conversations in Hyderabad that you may need 
additional time to provide feedback from your SO/AC on the RDS Review 
Limited Scope Proposal.

May I suggest a December 1^st deadline for feedback?

All the best,

Margie

_______

Margie Milam

Vice President

MSSI

ICANN

________

*From:*Margie Milam
*Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:53 PM
*Subject:* RE: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review

Dear All-

Here is a clean version of the Limited Scope Proposal, noting the change 
below.

All the best,

Margie

*From:*Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
*Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:28 PM
*To:* Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>; Chris Disspain 
<chris at disspain.uk>
*Cc:* Oscar A. Robles-Garay <oscar at lacnic.net>; Thomas Schneider 
<Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>; Katrina Sataki <katrina at nic.lv>; 
James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>; louie at louie.net; Patrik 
F??ltstr??m <patrik at frobbit.se>; tsinha at umd.edu; bverd at verisign.com; 
bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au; cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org; 
erika at erikamann.com; markus.kummer at board.icann.org; 
steve.crocker at board.icann.org; rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org; 
Rinalia Abdul Rahim (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>; Goran Marby 
<goran.marby at icann.org>; Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>; Cyrus 
Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org>; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>; 
Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>; Samantha Eisner 
<Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>; Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org>; 
Pamela Smith <pamela.smith at icann.org>; Karen Mulberry 
<karen.mulberry at icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
*Subject:* RE: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review

For those trying to understand the proposal, note that there is an 
extraneous "not" in the 4th sub-bullet of Suggested Approach. It should 
read "... and to the extent that it is found to be insufficient or 
inaccurate...". Or alternately, it could read "... and to the extent 
that it is found to not be sufficient or accurate...".

Alan

At 02/11/2016 05:00 AM, Margie Milam wrote:


    Hi Chris & All-

    It seems the next step would be to determine the level of consensus
    to this draft proposal among the SO/AC leaders. Please kindly use
    the attached document, discuss it with your SO/AC, and reply by
    November 9^th if there are any objections to moving forward with
    this proposal.

    All the best,

    Margie Milam

    *From:* Chris Disspain [mailto:chris at disspain.uk
    *Sent:* Wednesday, November 02, 2016 2:02 PM
    *Subject:* Re: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review

    Sorry for not being clear. I mean what do we now need to do so we
    start to take the next steps?



    Cheers,



    Chris

    On 2 Nov 2016, at 08:30, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
    <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> > wrote:

    Hi Chris-

    The next steps are listed in the Proposal:

    ? Circulate proposal to SO/AC leadership to socialize with their
    respective SO/ACs

    ? ; Discuss with Community in Hyderabad at the WHOIS High Interest
    Topic Session

    ? SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN
    CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate
    and articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community

    ? Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought

    ? Reach out to the previous Review Team members and members of the
    Expert Working Group on Registration Directory Services,  and
    encourage them to consider applying for the narrow scoped RDS Review
    Team

    ? Propose a Charter for the RDS Review Team to adopt that tracks the
    limited Scope

    All the best,

    Margie

    From: Chris Disspain [mailto:chris at disspain.uk]

    Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 1:55 PM

    To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
    <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> >

    Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
    <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >; Oscar A. Robles-Garay
    <oscar at lacnic.net <mailto:oscar at lacnic.net>>; Thomas Schneider
    <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
    <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; Katrina Sataki
    <katrina at nic.lv <mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>; James M. Bladel
    <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>; louie at louie.net
    <mailto:louie at louie.net>; Patrik F??ltstr??m <patrik at frobbit.se
    <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>>; tsinha at umd.edu <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>;
    bverd at verisign.com <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>;
    bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
    <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>;
    cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
    <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>; erika at erikamann.com
    <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>; markus.kummer at board.icann.org
    <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>;
    steve.crocker at board.icann.org
    <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>;
    rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>; Rinalia Abdul Rahim
    (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>>; Goran Marby
    <goran.marby at icann.org <mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; Jamie
    Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org> >;
    Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org>
     >; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
    <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>; Theresa Swinehart
    <theresa.swinehart at icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>;
    Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
    <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>; Erika Randall
    <erika.randall at icann.org <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org> >; Pamela
    Smith <pamela.smith at icann.org <mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org> >;
    Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org
    <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org> >; Marika Konings
    <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >

    Subject: Re: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review

    OK??.

    What are our next steps please Margie?

    Cheers,

    Chris

    On 2 Nov 2016, at 08:19, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
    <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> > wrote:

    Dear All-

    Please see the attached document, which includes Alan???s revision.

    Thanks,

    Margie

    From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
    <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>]

    Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 3:42 AM

    To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
    <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> >; chris at disspain.id.au
    <mailto:chris at disspain.id.au>; Oscar A. Robles-Garay
    <oscar at lacnic.net <mailto:oscar at lacnic.net>>; Thomas Schneider
    <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
    <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; Katrina Sataki
    <katrina at nic.lv <mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>; jbladel at godaddy.com
    <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>; louie at louie.net
    <mailto:louie at louie.net>; Patrik F????ltstr????m <patrik at frobbit.se
    <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se> >;tsinha at umd.edu <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>;
    bverd at verisign.com <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>;
    bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
    <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>;
    cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
    <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>; erika at erikamann.com
    <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>; markus.kummer at board.icann.org
    <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>;
    steve.crocker at board.icann.org
    <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>;
    rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>; Rinalia Abdul Rahim
    (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>>; Goran Marby
    <goran.marby at icann.org <mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; Chris
    Disspain <chris at disspain.uk <mailto:chris at disspain.uk>>

    Cc: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
    <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org> >; Cyrus Namazi
    <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org> >; David
    Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>;
    Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org
    <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>; Samantha Eisner
    <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>;
    Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org
    <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org> >; Pamela Smith
    <pamela.smith at icann.org <mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org> >; Karen
    Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org>
     >; Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
    <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >

    Subject: Re: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review

    One more thought. It are some items which were recommended but were
    rejected (or more likely transformed into some other form), so I
    would add one more option to the 2nd bullet. Specifically:

    o Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment"
    reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed
    and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues
    identified by the First WHOIS Review Team; and c) the need for
    additional implementation.

    Alan

    At 28/10/2016 03:37 PM, Margie Milam wrote:




    Dear All,

    Please find attached the draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS
    Review. As I did not receive any suggested revisions, it is
    unchanged from the document circulated earlier.

    Safe travels & see you in India!

    Margie

    From: Margie Milam

    Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 10:03 PM

    To: 'chris at disspain.id.au <mailto:chris at disspain.id.au>'
    <chris at disspain.id.au <mailto:chris at disspain.id.au>>; 'Oscar A.
    Robles-Garay' <oscar at lacnic.net <mailto:oscar at lacnic.net>>; 'Thomas
    Schneider' <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
    <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; 'Katrina Sataki'
    <katrina at nic.lv <mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>; 'jbladel at godaddy.com
    <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>' <jbladel at godaddy.com
    <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>; 'louie at louie.net
    <mailto:louie at louie.net>' <louie at louie.net
    <mailto:louie at louie.net>>; 'alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
    <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>' <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
    <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >; 'Patrik F????ltstr????m'
    <patrik at frobbit.se <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>>; 'tsinha at umd.edu
    <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>' <tsinha at umd.edu <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>>;
    'bverd at verisign.com <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>' <bverd at verisign.com
    <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>>; bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
    <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>;
    'cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
    <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>'
    <cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
    <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org> >;erika at erikamann.com
    <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>; 'markus.kummer at board.icann.org
    <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>'
    <markus.kummer at board.icann.org
    <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>>;
    'steve.crocker at board.icann.org
    <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>'
    <steve.crocker at board.icann.org
    <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>>;
    'rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>'
    <rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>>; Rinalia Abdul Rahim
    (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>>; Goran Marby
    <goran.marby at icann.org <mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; 'Chris
    Disspain' <chris at disspain.uk <mailto:chris at disspain.uk>>

    Cc: 'Board-Ops-Team at icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>'
    <Board-Ops-Team at icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team at icann.org> >;
    Lauren Allison <lauren.allison at icann.org
    <mailto:lauren.allison at icann.org> >; Jamie Hedlund
    <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org> >; Cyrus
    Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org> >;
    David Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>;
    Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org
    <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>; Samantha Eisner
    <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>;
    Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org
    <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org> >; Pamela Smith
    <pamela.smith at icann.org <mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org> >; Karen
    Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org> >

    Subject: RE: Request to SO/AC Leadership from Chris Disspain

    Dear All,

    I would like to provide you an update on the next steps for the
    Registration Directory Services Review (WHOIS-2), following the Oct
    13th telephone call:

    ????         As discussed, Alan Greenberg and I developed the
    attached strawman proposal for a limited scope Registration
    Directory Services Review.

    ???? Please kindly review the attached proposal, and provide any
    initial comments by the close of business on Thursday Oct 27th, and
    a revised version will be circulated on Friday Oct 28th.

    ????         Any additional comments on your SO/AC????s perspective
    on this to topic can be shared at the High Interest Topic Session on
    WHOIS in Hyderabad on Sat, November 5th

    ???? Also, please note we plan to publish the Call for Volunteers
    for the RDS Review on Friday Oct 28th.

    Please let me know if you have any questions.

    Best Personal Regards,

    Margie

    _________

    Margie Milam

    Vice President-

    Multistakeholder Strategy &

    Strategic Initiatives

    _________

    Content-Type:
    application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;

    name="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v2.docx"

    Content-Description: Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v2.docx

    Content-Disposition: attachment;

    filename="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v2.docx";
    size=21322;

    creation-date="Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:11:17 GMT";

    modification-date="Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:54:25 GMT"

    X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:

    1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:z7ZJzyqUUhIV+rYbm7ztXWmOEEIDUYAHsz5qugLtCKtYQygfhnnl7ZjXQLIS1yiJ0LlMsLOv78pLzHgtMNiID0ZtC41jLF2QHIcLuWyey8kE9RF/VT66y4CAXpAekS8UPRfQUw9mztYMiqHq/N6aKk3oqE/RccLM4DXEbPCPTvu+B63ymxG1sBnYwhZhlP/9dwWjaLPrnexlkKb2rXrrqrLkUga9rLSjKVHP8muYXEL/RIhVBL6HI9ZE9JjxS6OdSGbfaR3oW4lHBcgi40bkNrnfBZ/AgSHBe7v9Z8PRAqGOOFtlRkFkVWjfLUBKZlvOxAel/ywgTqVsAA7TdUlocnWbswVevP+4tHssI3+gAZsBXsj5OXmhCagDwnevkRtNuO7bwHbKFX4TYpD+cXltc0A2SbIXPMf97jtNZv9HO48m05uhm6QLRonkxCVMR1ue

    X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:

    ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);

    <Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v3-2-11-16.docx>


    Content-Type:
    application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
              name="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS -
    v3-2-11-16.docx"
    Content-Description: Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS -
    v3-2-11-16.docx
    Content-Disposition: attachment;
              filename="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS -
    v3-2-11-16.docx";
              size=21060; creation-date="Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:12:57 GMT";
              modification-date="Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:13:07 GMT"
    X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
    1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:XkUawjzAAaJU4j1DR3X1unwaSCiumewwnDInu8vzdDiC8jqg0dUg0X9sa2HVdmRY5OT/AE2CmmnyZWG1uMqEUWhiAFW0iOPKB6XAUpvnSOe2mrgLJ8yp5KY0K+DBjA8RxtJQiJ1mZeYG/LZKh03Bunhh8CmvHFYesEGOaORs0KLmKIiA4m5//+YuJSdDAAswMFBHovg1RTPeH+qqJh5wdo8IDd5q+xQJ47/kleB1iCmv02mItqjWr2gaI7yLkheIj93sXoeeYz61fitLAis5+rVhvZjlOLEUubSqCaqabIZbAmPL8DDQcEjJon/HKKAOQSvzd65o3W3UcgPaj0AcuvErjxMNzg4KaIM6PRyNkFduCOhItAVFVqUfIwQ3mSXyKpR53o9E6pHLQDhhSB/ciwgtUzFVF5fclTf6nB7zmS/FaGQBgbECT6ATbUyF0htN
    X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
    ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161118/f92b4e17/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v4-4-11-16.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 93661 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161118/f92b4e17/attachment-0001.pdf>


From wendy  Fri Nov 18 23:35:10 2016
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:35:10 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope
 RDS Review
In-Reply-To: <8809583f-e38c-fee0-045c-af06710816d5@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <43C1998C-F514-4790-A4A2-83E321C698F3@godaddy.com>
	<8809583f-e38c-fee0-045c-af06710816d5@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <90ac57d7-f522-7f4d-ab26-63f75432ce53@seltzer.com>

On 11/18/2016 04:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> How do we feel about this, gang?  I will see if I can dig up the
> original document and forward, notice where it is coming from....

I suggest opposing at least the limited selection criteria for
participation:

"Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new Bylaws)
a small group of review team members that have either participated in,
or tracked closely, the 1 st WHOIS Review Team?s Recommendation."

Limited overlap with other efforts may be appropriate, but "we go back
to our friends and ask them how they think they did" is not.

--Wendy


> 
> Stephanie
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:     [council] FW: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
> Date:     Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:13:13 +0000
> From:     James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> To:     GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Council colleagues ?
> 
> See message below, and attached document from Margie.  I know some
> (Susan?) have raised concerns with the draft Limited Scope for RDS
> Review, but do we think it is possible for us to gather and submit our
> feedback by 1 DEC?
> 
> Thanks?
> 
> J.
> 
> *From: *Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 19:55
> 
> *Subject: *RE: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I understand from conversations in Hyderabad that you may need
> additional time to provide feedback from your SO/AC on the RDS Review
> Limited Scope Proposal.
> 
> May I suggest a December 1^st deadline for feedback?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Margie
> 
> _______
> 
> Margie Milam
> 
> Vice President
> 
> MSSI
> 
> ICANN
> 
> ________
> 
> *From:*Margie Milam
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:53 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
> 
> Dear All-
> 
> Here is a clean version of the Limited Scope Proposal, noting the change
> below.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Margie
> 
> *From:*Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:28 PM
> *To:* Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>; Chris Disspain
> <chris at disspain.uk>
> *Cc:* Oscar A. Robles-Garay <oscar at lacnic.net>; Thomas Schneider
> <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>; Katrina Sataki <katrina at nic.lv>;
> James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>; louie at louie.net; Patrik
> F??ltstr??m <patrik at frobbit.se>; tsinha at umd.edu; bverd at verisign.com;
> bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au; cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org;
> erika at erikamann.com; markus.kummer at board.icann.org;
> steve.crocker at board.icann.org; rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org;
> Rinalia Abdul Rahim (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>; Goran Marby
> <goran.marby at icann.org>; Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>; Cyrus
> Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org>; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>;
> Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>; Samantha Eisner
> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>; Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org>;
> Pamela Smith <pamela.smith at icann.org>; Karen Mulberry
> <karen.mulberry at icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
> 
> For those trying to understand the proposal, note that there is an
> extraneous "not" in the 4th sub-bullet of Suggested Approach. It should
> read "... and to the extent that it is found to be insufficient or
> inaccurate...". Or alternately, it could read "... and to the extent
> that it is found to not be sufficient or accurate...".
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 02/11/2016 05:00 AM, Margie Milam wrote:
> 
> 
>    Hi Chris & All-
> 
>    It seems the next step would be to determine the level of consensus
>    to this draft proposal among the SO/AC leaders. Please kindly use
>    the attached document, discuss it with your SO/AC, and reply by
>    November 9^th if there are any objections to moving forward with
>    this proposal.
> 
>    All the best,
> 
>    Margie Milam
> 
>    *From:* Chris Disspain [mailto:chris at disspain.uk
>    *Sent:* Wednesday, November 02, 2016 2:02 PM
>    *Subject:* Re: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
> 
>    Sorry for not being clear. I mean what do we now need to do so we
>    start to take the next steps?
> 
> 
> 
>    Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
>    Chris
> 
>    On 2 Nov 2016, at 08:30, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
>    <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> > wrote:
> 
>    Hi Chris-
> 
>    The next steps are listed in the Proposal:
> 
>    ? Circulate proposal to SO/AC leadership to socialize with their
>    respective SO/ACs
> 
>    ? ; Discuss with Community in Hyderabad at the WHOIS High Interest
>    Topic Session
> 
>    ? SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN
>    CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate
>    and articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community
> 
>    ? Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought
> 
>    ? Reach out to the previous Review Team members and members of the
>    Expert Working Group on Registration Directory Services,  and
>    encourage them to consider applying for the narrow scoped RDS Review
>    Team
> 
>    ? Propose a Charter for the RDS Review Team to adopt that tracks the
>    limited Scope
> 
>    All the best,
> 
>    Margie
> 
>    From: Chris Disspain [mailto:chris at disspain.uk]
> 
>    Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 1:55 PM
> 
>    To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
>    <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> >
> 
>    Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>    <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >; Oscar A. Robles-Garay
>    <oscar at lacnic.net <mailto:oscar at lacnic.net>>; Thomas Schneider
>    <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
>    <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; Katrina Sataki
>    <katrina at nic.lv <mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>; James M. Bladel
>    <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>; louie at louie.net
>    <mailto:louie at louie.net>; Patrik F??ltstr??m <patrik at frobbit.se
>    <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>>; tsinha at umd.edu <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>;
>    bverd at verisign.com <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>;
>    bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>    <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>;
>    cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>; erika at erikamann.com
>    <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>; markus.kummer at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>;
>    steve.crocker at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>;
>    rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>; Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>    (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
>    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>>; Goran Marby
>    <goran.marby at icann.org <mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; Jamie
>    Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org> >;
>    Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org>
>     >; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
>    <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>; Theresa Swinehart
>    <theresa.swinehart at icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>;
>    Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>    <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>; Erika Randall
>    <erika.randall at icann.org <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org> >; Pamela
>    Smith <pamela.smith at icann.org <mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org> >;
>    Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org
>    <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org> >; Marika Konings
>    <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >
> 
>    Subject: Re: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
> 
>    OK??.
> 
>    What are our next steps please Margie?
> 
>    Cheers,
> 
>    Chris
> 
>    On 2 Nov 2016, at 08:19, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
>    <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> > wrote:
> 
>    Dear All-
> 
>    Please see the attached document, which includes Alan???s revision.
> 
>    Thanks,
> 
>    Margie
> 
>    From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>    <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>]
> 
>    Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 3:42 AM
> 
>    To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
>    <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> >; chris at disspain.id.au
>    <mailto:chris at disspain.id.au>; Oscar A. Robles-Garay
>    <oscar at lacnic.net <mailto:oscar at lacnic.net>>; Thomas Schneider
>    <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
>    <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; Katrina Sataki
>    <katrina at nic.lv <mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>; jbladel at godaddy.com
>    <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>; louie at louie.net
>    <mailto:louie at louie.net>; Patrik F????ltstr????m <patrik at frobbit.se
>    <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se> >;tsinha at umd.edu <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>;
>    bverd at verisign.com <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>;
>    bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>    <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>;
>    cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>; erika at erikamann.com
>    <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>; markus.kummer at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>;
>    steve.crocker at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>;
>    rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>; Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>    (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
>    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>>; Goran Marby
>    <goran.marby at icann.org <mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; Chris
>    Disspain <chris at disspain.uk <mailto:chris at disspain.uk>>
> 
>    Cc: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
>    <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org> >; Cyrus Namazi
>    <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org> >; David
>    Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>;
>    Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org
>    <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>; Samantha Eisner
>    <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>;
>    Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org
>    <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org> >; Pamela Smith
>    <pamela.smith at icann.org <mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org> >; Karen
>    Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org>
>     >; Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
>    <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >
> 
>    Subject: Re: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
> 
>    One more thought. It are some items which were recommended but were
>    rejected (or more likely transformed into some other form), so I
>    would add one more option to the 2nd bullet. Specifically:
> 
>    o Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment"
>    reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed
>    and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues
>    identified by the First WHOIS Review Team; and c) the need for
>    additional implementation.
> 
>    Alan
> 
>    At 28/10/2016 03:37 PM, Margie Milam wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    Dear All,
> 
>    Please find attached the draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS
>    Review. As I did not receive any suggested revisions, it is
>    unchanged from the document circulated earlier.
> 
>    Safe travels & see you in India!
> 
>    Margie
> 
>    From: Margie Milam
> 
>    Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 10:03 PM
> 
>    To: 'chris at disspain.id.au <mailto:chris at disspain.id.au>'
>    <chris at disspain.id.au <mailto:chris at disspain.id.au>>; 'Oscar A.
>    Robles-Garay' <oscar at lacnic.net <mailto:oscar at lacnic.net>>; 'Thomas
>    Schneider' <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
>    <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; 'Katrina Sataki'
>    <katrina at nic.lv <mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>; 'jbladel at godaddy.com
>    <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>' <jbladel at godaddy.com
>    <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>; 'louie at louie.net
>    <mailto:louie at louie.net>' <louie at louie.net
>    <mailto:louie at louie.net>>; 'alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>    <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>' <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>    <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >; 'Patrik F????ltstr????m'
>    <patrik at frobbit.se <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>>; 'tsinha at umd.edu
>    <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>' <tsinha at umd.edu <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>>;
>    'bverd at verisign.com <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>' <bverd at verisign.com
>    <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>>; bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>    <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>;
>    'cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>'
>    <cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org> >;erika at erikamann.com
>    <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>; 'markus.kummer at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>'
>    <markus.kummer at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>>;
>    'steve.crocker at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>'
>    <steve.crocker at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>>;
>    'rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>'
>    <rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
>    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>>; Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>    (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
>    <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>>; Goran Marby
>    <goran.marby at icann.org <mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; 'Chris
>    Disspain' <chris at disspain.uk <mailto:chris at disspain.uk>>
> 
>    Cc: 'Board-Ops-Team at icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>'
>    <Board-Ops-Team at icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team at icann.org> >;
>    Lauren Allison <lauren.allison at icann.org
>    <mailto:lauren.allison at icann.org> >; Jamie Hedlund
>    <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org> >; Cyrus
>    Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org> >;
>    David Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>;
>    Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org
>    <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>; Samantha Eisner
>    <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>;
>    Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org
>    <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org> >; Pamela Smith
>    <pamela.smith at icann.org <mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org> >; Karen
>    Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org> >
> 
>    Subject: RE: Request to SO/AC Leadership from Chris Disspain
> 
>    Dear All,
> 
>    I would like to provide you an update on the next steps for the
>    Registration Directory Services Review (WHOIS-2), following the Oct
>    13th telephone call:
> 
>    ????         As discussed, Alan Greenberg and I developed the
>    attached strawman proposal for a limited scope Registration
>    Directory Services Review.
> 
>    ???? Please kindly review the attached proposal, and provide any
>    initial comments by the close of business on Thursday Oct 27th, and
>    a revised version will be circulated on Friday Oct 28th.
> 
>    ????         Any additional comments on your SO/AC????s perspective
>    on this to topic can be shared at the High Interest Topic Session on
>    WHOIS in Hyderabad on Sat, November 5th
> 
>    ???? Also, please note we plan to publish the Call for Volunteers
>    for the RDS Review on Friday Oct 28th.
> 
>    Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
>    Best Personal Regards,
> 
>    Margie
> 
>    _________
> 
>    Margie Milam
> 
>    Vice President-
> 
>    Multistakeholder Strategy &
> 
>    Strategic Initiatives
> 
>    _________
> 
>    Content-Type:
>    application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
> 
>    name="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v2.docx"
> 
>    Content-Description: Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v2.docx
> 
>    Content-Disposition: attachment;
> 
>    filename="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v2.docx";
>    size=21322;
> 
>    creation-date="Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:11:17 GMT";
> 
>    modification-date="Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:54:25 GMT"
> 
>    X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
>   
> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:z7ZJzyqUUhIV+rYbm7ztXWmOEEIDUYAHsz5qugLtCKtYQygfhnnl7ZjXQLIS1yiJ0LlMsLOv78pLzHgtMNiID0ZtC41jLF2QHIcLuWyey8kE9RF/VT66y4CAXpAekS8UPRfQUw9mztYMiqHq/N6aKk3oqE/RccLM4DXEbPCPTvu+B63ymxG1sBnYwhZhlP/9dwWjaLPrnexlkKb2rXrrqrLkUga9rLSjKVHP8muYXEL/RIhVBL6HI9ZE9JjxS6OdSGbfaR3oW4lHBcgi40bkNrnfBZ/AgSHBe7v9Z8PRAqGOOFtlRkFkVWjfLUBKZlvOxAel/ywgTqVsAA7TdUlocnWbswVevP+4tHssI3+gAZsBXsj5OXmhCagDwnevkRtNuO7bwHbKFX4TYpD+cXltc0A2SbIXPMf97jtNZv9HO48m05uhm6QLRonkxCVMR1ue
> 
> 
>    X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
> 
>    ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
> 
>    <Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v3-2-11-16.docx>
> 
> 
>    Content-Type:
>    application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>              name="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS -
>    v3-2-11-16.docx"
>    Content-Description: Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS -
>    v3-2-11-16.docx
>    Content-Disposition: attachment;
>              filename="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS -
>    v3-2-11-16.docx";
>              size=21060; creation-date="Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:12:57 GMT";
>              modification-date="Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:13:07 GMT"
>    X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>   
> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:XkUawjzAAaJU4j1DR3X1unwaSCiumewwnDInu8vzdDiC8jqg0dUg0X9sa2HVdmRY5OT/AE2CmmnyZWG1uMqEUWhiAFW0iOPKB6XAUpvnSOe2mrgLJ8yp5KY0K+DBjA8RxtJQiJ1mZeYG/LZKh03Bunhh8CmvHFYesEGOaORs0KLmKIiA4m5//+YuJSdDAAswMFBHovg1RTPeH+qqJh5wdo8IDd5q+xQJ47/kleB1iCmv02mItqjWr2gaI7yLkheIj93sXoeeYz61fitLAis5+rVhvZjlOLEUubSqCaqabIZbAmPL8DDQcEjJon/HKKAOQSvzd65o3W3UcgPaj0AcuvErjxMNzg4KaIM6PRyNkFduCOhItAVFVqUfIwQ3mSXyKpR53o9E6pHLQDhhSB/ciwgtUzFVF5fclTf6nB7zmS/FaGQBgbECT6ATbUyF0htN
> 
>    X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>    ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From stephanie.perrin  Fri Nov 18 23:45:31 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:45:31 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope
 RDS Review
In-Reply-To: <90ac57d7-f522-7f4d-ab26-63f75432ce53@seltzer.com>
References: <43C1998C-F514-4790-A4A2-83E321C698F3@godaddy.com>
	<8809583f-e38c-fee0-045c-af06710816d5@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<90ac57d7-f522-7f4d-ab26-63f75432ce53@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <3726e454-3be8-d858-4a7c-fdad7dacb951@mail.utoronto.ca>

I absolutely agree, that was number one for me.

SP


On 2016-11-18 16:35, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> On 11/18/2016 04:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> How do we feel about this, gang?  I will see if I can dig up the
>> original document and forward, notice where it is coming from....
> I suggest opposing at least the limited selection criteria for
> participation:
>
> "Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new Bylaws)
> a small group of review team members that have either participated in,
> or tracked closely, the 1 st WHOIS Review Team?s Recommendation."
>
> Limited overlap with other efforts may be appropriate, but "we go back
> to our friends and ask them how they think they did" is not.
>
> --Wendy
>
>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:     [council] FW: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
>> Date:     Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:13:13 +0000
>> From:     James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> To:     GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Council colleagues ?
>>
>> See message below, and attached document from Margie.  I know some
>> (Susan?) have raised concerns with the draft Limited Scope for RDS
>> Review, but do we think it is possible for us to gather and submit our
>> feedback by 1 DEC?
>>
>> Thanks?
>>
>> J.
>>
>> *From: *Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 19:55
>>
>> *Subject: *RE: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I understand from conversations in Hyderabad that you may need
>> additional time to provide feedback from your SO/AC on the RDS Review
>> Limited Scope Proposal.
>>
>> May I suggest a December 1^st deadline for feedback?
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Margie
>>
>> _______
>>
>> Margie Milam
>>
>> Vice President
>>
>> MSSI
>>
>> ICANN
>>
>> ________
>>
>> *From:*Margie Milam
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:53 PM
>> *Subject:* RE: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
>>
>> Dear All-
>>
>> Here is a clean version of the Limited Scope Proposal, noting the change
>> below.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Margie
>>
>> *From:*Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:28 PM
>> *To:* Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>; Chris Disspain
>> <chris at disspain.uk>
>> *Cc:* Oscar A. Robles-Garay <oscar at lacnic.net>; Thomas Schneider
>> <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>; Katrina Sataki <katrina at nic.lv>;
>> James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>; louie at louie.net; Patrik
>> F??ltstr??m <patrik at frobbit.se>; tsinha at umd.edu; bverd at verisign.com;
>> bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au; cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org;
>> erika at erikamann.com; markus.kummer at board.icann.org;
>> steve.crocker at board.icann.org; rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org;
>> Rinalia Abdul Rahim (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>; Goran Marby
>> <goran.marby at icann.org>; Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>; Cyrus
>> Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org>; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>;
>> Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>; Samantha Eisner
>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>; Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org>;
>> Pamela Smith <pamela.smith at icann.org>; Karen Mulberry
>> <karen.mulberry at icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* RE: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
>>
>> For those trying to understand the proposal, note that there is an
>> extraneous "not" in the 4th sub-bullet of Suggested Approach. It should
>> read "... and to the extent that it is found to be insufficient or
>> inaccurate...". Or alternately, it could read "... and to the extent
>> that it is found to not be sufficient or accurate...".
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 02/11/2016 05:00 AM, Margie Milam wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Hi Chris & All-
>>
>>     It seems the next step would be to determine the level of consensus
>>     to this draft proposal among the SO/AC leaders. Please kindly use
>>     the attached document, discuss it with your SO/AC, and reply by
>>     November 9^th if there are any objections to moving forward with
>>     this proposal.
>>
>>     All the best,
>>
>>     Margie Milam
>>
>>     *From:* Chris Disspain [mailto:chris at disspain.uk
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 02, 2016 2:02 PM
>>     *Subject:* Re: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
>>
>>     Sorry for not being clear. I mean what do we now need to do so we
>>     start to take the next steps?
>>
>>
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>>     Chris
>>
>>     On 2 Nov 2016, at 08:30, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> > wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Chris-
>>
>>     The next steps are listed in the Proposal:
>>
>>     ? Circulate proposal to SO/AC leadership to socialize with their
>>     respective SO/ACs
>>
>>     ? ; Discuss with Community in Hyderabad at the WHOIS High Interest
>>     Topic Session
>>
>>     ? SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN
>>     CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate
>>     and articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community
>>
>>     ? Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought
>>
>>     ? Reach out to the previous Review Team members and members of the
>>     Expert Working Group on Registration Directory Services,  and
>>     encourage them to consider applying for the narrow scoped RDS Review
>>     Team
>>
>>     ? Propose a Charter for the RDS Review Team to adopt that tracks the
>>     limited Scope
>>
>>     All the best,
>>
>>     Margie
>>
>>     From: Chris Disspain [mailto:chris at disspain.uk]
>>
>>     Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 1:55 PM
>>
>>     To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> >
>>
>>     Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>>     <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >; Oscar A. Robles-Garay
>>     <oscar at lacnic.net <mailto:oscar at lacnic.net>>; Thomas Schneider
>>     <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
>>     <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; Katrina Sataki
>>     <katrina at nic.lv <mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>; James M. Bladel
>>     <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>; louie at louie.net
>>     <mailto:louie at louie.net>; Patrik F??ltstr??m <patrik at frobbit.se
>>     <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>>; tsinha at umd.edu <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>;
>>     bverd at verisign.com <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>;
>>     bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>>     <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>;
>>     cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>; erika at erikamann.com
>>     <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>; markus.kummer at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>;
>>     steve.crocker at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>;
>>     rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>; Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>>     (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>>; Goran Marby
>>     <goran.marby at icann.org <mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; Jamie
>>     Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org> >;
>>     Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org>
>>      >; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
>>     <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>; Theresa Swinehart
>>     <theresa.swinehart at icann.org <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>;
>>     Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>; Erika Randall
>>     <erika.randall at icann.org <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org> >; Pamela
>>     Smith <pamela.smith at icann.org <mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org> >;
>>     Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org
>>     <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org> >; Marika Konings
>>     <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >
>>
>>     Subject: Re: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
>>
>>     OK??.
>>
>>     What are our next steps please Margie?
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     Chris
>>
>>     On 2 Nov 2016, at 08:19, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> > wrote:
>>
>>     Dear All-
>>
>>     Please see the attached document, which includes Alan???s revision.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>
>>     Margie
>>
>>     From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>>     <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>]
>>
>>     Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 3:42 AM
>>
>>     To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org> >; chris at disspain.id.au
>>     <mailto:chris at disspain.id.au>; Oscar A. Robles-Garay
>>     <oscar at lacnic.net <mailto:oscar at lacnic.net>>; Thomas Schneider
>>     <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
>>     <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; Katrina Sataki
>>     <katrina at nic.lv <mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>; jbladel at godaddy.com
>>     <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>; louie at louie.net
>>     <mailto:louie at louie.net>; Patrik F????ltstr????m <patrik at frobbit.se
>>     <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se> >;tsinha at umd.edu <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>;
>>     bverd at verisign.com <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>;
>>     bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>>     <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>;
>>     cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>; erika at erikamann.com
>>     <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>; markus.kummer at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>;
>>     steve.crocker at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>;
>>     rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>; Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>>     (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>>; Goran Marby
>>     <goran.marby at icann.org <mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; Chris
>>     Disspain <chris at disspain.uk <mailto:chris at disspain.uk>>
>>
>>     Cc: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org
>>     <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org> >; Cyrus Namazi
>>     <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org> >; David
>>     Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>;
>>     Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org
>>     <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>; Samantha Eisner
>>     <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>;
>>     Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org
>>     <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org> >; Pamela Smith
>>     <pamela.smith at icann.org <mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org> >; Karen
>>     Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org>
>>      >; Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
>>     <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >
>>
>>     Subject: Re: Draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS Review
>>
>>     One more thought. It are some items which were recommended but were
>>     rejected (or more likely transformed into some other form), so I
>>     would add one more option to the 2nd bullet. Specifically:
>>
>>     o Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment"
>>     reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed
>>     and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues
>>     identified by the First WHOIS Review Team; and c) the need for
>>     additional implementation.
>>
>>     Alan
>>
>>     At 28/10/2016 03:37 PM, Margie Milam wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Dear All,
>>
>>     Please find attached the draft Proposal for a Limited Scope RDS
>>     Review. As I did not receive any suggested revisions, it is
>>     unchanged from the document circulated earlier.
>>
>>     Safe travels & see you in India!
>>
>>     Margie
>>
>>     From: Margie Milam
>>
>>     Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 10:03 PM
>>
>>     To: 'chris at disspain.id.au <mailto:chris at disspain.id.au>'
>>     <chris at disspain.id.au <mailto:chris at disspain.id.au>>; 'Oscar A.
>>     Robles-Garay' <oscar at lacnic.net <mailto:oscar at lacnic.net>>; 'Thomas
>>     Schneider' <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
>>     <mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>>; 'Katrina Sataki'
>>     <katrina at nic.lv <mailto:katrina at nic.lv>>; 'jbladel at godaddy.com
>>     <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>' <jbladel at godaddy.com
>>     <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>; 'louie at louie.net
>>     <mailto:louie at louie.net>' <louie at louie.net
>>     <mailto:louie at louie.net>>; 'alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>>     <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>' <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>>     <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >; 'Patrik F????ltstr????m'
>>     <patrik at frobbit.se <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>>; 'tsinha at umd.edu
>>     <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>' <tsinha at umd.edu <mailto:tsinha at umd.edu>>;
>>     'bverd at verisign.com <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>' <bverd at verisign.com
>>     <mailto:bverd at verisign.com>>; bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>>     <mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>;
>>     'cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>'
>>     <cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org> >;erika at erikamann.com
>>     <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>; 'markus.kummer at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>'
>>     <markus.kummer at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:markus.kummer at board.icann.org>>;
>>     'steve.crocker at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>'
>>     <steve.crocker at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:steve.crocker at board.icann.org>>;
>>     'rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>'
>>     <rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org
>>     <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at board.icann.org>>; Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>>     (GMAIL) <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>>; Goran Marby
>>     <goran.marby at icann.org <mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; 'Chris
>>     Disspain' <chris at disspain.uk <mailto:chris at disspain.uk>>
>>
>>     Cc: 'Board-Ops-Team at icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team at icann.org>'
>>     <Board-Ops-Team at icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team at icann.org> >;
>>     Lauren Allison <lauren.allison at icann.org
>>     <mailto:lauren.allison at icann.org> >; Jamie Hedlund
>>     <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org> >; Cyrus
>>     Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org> >;
>>     David Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>;
>>     Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org
>>     <mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>; Samantha Eisner
>>     <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>;
>>     Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org
>>     <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org> >; Pamela Smith
>>     <pamela.smith at icann.org <mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org> >; Karen
>>     Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org> >
>>
>>     Subject: RE: Request to SO/AC Leadership from Chris Disspain
>>
>>     Dear All,
>>
>>     I would like to provide you an update on the next steps for the
>>     Registration Directory Services Review (WHOIS-2), following the Oct
>>     13th telephone call:
>>
>>     ????         As discussed, Alan Greenberg and I developed the
>>     attached strawman proposal for a limited scope Registration
>>     Directory Services Review.
>>
>>     ???? Please kindly review the attached proposal, and provide any
>>     initial comments by the close of business on Thursday Oct 27th, and
>>     a revised version will be circulated on Friday Oct 28th.
>>
>>     ????         Any additional comments on your SO/AC????s perspective
>>     on this to topic can be shared at the High Interest Topic Session on
>>     WHOIS in Hyderabad on Sat, November 5th
>>
>>     ???? Also, please note we plan to publish the Call for Volunteers
>>     for the RDS Review on Friday Oct 28th.
>>
>>     Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>>     Best Personal Regards,
>>
>>     Margie
>>
>>     _________
>>
>>     Margie Milam
>>
>>     Vice President-
>>
>>     Multistakeholder Strategy &
>>
>>     Strategic Initiatives
>>
>>     _________
>>
>>     Content-Type:
>>     application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>>
>>     name="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v2.docx"
>>
>>     Content-Description: Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v2.docx
>>
>>     Content-Disposition: attachment;
>>
>>     filename="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v2.docx";
>>     size=21322;
>>
>>     creation-date="Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:11:17 GMT";
>>
>>     modification-date="Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:54:25 GMT"
>>
>>     X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>>
>>    
>> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:z7ZJzyqUUhIV+rYbm7ztXWmOEEIDUYAHsz5qugLtCKtYQygfhnnl7ZjXQLIS1yiJ0LlMsLOv78pLzHgtMNiID0ZtC41jLF2QHIcLuWyey8kE9RF/VT66y4CAXpAekS8UPRfQUw9mztYMiqHq/N6aKk3oqE/RccLM4DXEbPCPTvu+B63ymxG1sBnYwhZhlP/9dwWjaLPrnexlkKb2rXrrqrLkUga9rLSjKVHP8muYXEL/RIhVBL6HI9ZE9JjxS6OdSGbfaR3oW4lHBcgi40bkNrnfBZ/AgSHBe7v9Z8PRAqGOOFtlRkFkVWjfLUBKZlvOxAel/ywgTqVsAA7TdUlocnWbswVevP+4tHssI3+gAZsBXsj5OXmhCagDwnevkRtNuO7bwHbKFX4TYpD+cXltc0A2SbIXPMf97jtNZv9HO48m05uhm6QLRonkxCVMR1ue
>>
>>
>>     X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>>
>>     ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
>>
>>     <Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS - v3-2-11-16.docx>
>>
>>
>>     Content-Type:
>>     application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>>               name="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS -
>>     v3-2-11-16.docx"
>>     Content-Description: Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS -
>>     v3-2-11-16.docx
>>     Content-Disposition: attachment;
>>               filename="Proposal for a Limited Scope of the RDS -
>>     v3-2-11-16.docx";
>>               size=21060; creation-date="Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:12:57 GMT";
>>               modification-date="Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:13:07 GMT"
>>     X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>>    
>> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:XkUawjzAAaJU4j1DR3X1unwaSCiumewwnDInu8vzdDiC8jqg0dUg0X9sa2HVdmRY5OT/AE2CmmnyZWG1uMqEUWhiAFW0iOPKB6XAUpvnSOe2mrgLJ8yp5KY0K+DBjA8RxtJQiJ1mZeYG/LZKh03Bunhh8CmvHFYesEGOaORs0KLmKIiA4m5//+YuJSdDAAswMFBHovg1RTPeH+qqJh5wdo8IDd5q+xQJ47/kleB1iCmv02mItqjWr2gaI7yLkheIj93sXoeeYz61fitLAis5+rVhvZjlOLEUubSqCaqabIZbAmPL8DDQcEjJon/HKKAOQSvzd65o3W3UcgPaj0AcuvErjxMNzg4KaIM6PRyNkFduCOhItAVFVqUfIwQ3mSXyKpR53o9E6pHLQDhhSB/ciwgtUzFVF5fclTf6nB7zmS/FaGQBgbECT6ATbUyF0htN
>>
>>     X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>>     ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161118/58bc3618/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Sun Nov 20 16:17:16 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 16:17:16 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
Message-ID: <20161120141716.3kza7mhlj4n4w7tt@tarvainen.info>

Dear PC and EC members,

Intersessional planning is moving forward, there's a planning call
on Tuesday. I haven't heard anything official since we discussed
it last, but something new may come up during the call.

The most likely locations based on last meeting are Reykjavik,
Washington DC and Los Angeles (which did not get much support but may
still come up, in particular if meeting with the Board is desired).
It is possible other options will surface, in particular something in
Europe like Brussels; Asian or African locations are almost certainly
out.

As for the date, beginning of February is still most likely (January
is out), April-May option may also still be brought up. June/July and
merger with Johannesburg meeting seems very unlikely to be possible.

Agenda is still very much undecided (only one item I dare to predict
as pretty certain: NCPH board member election procedure).

If you have strong opinions on the location, date or agenda, and
especially if you know already some dates you definitely could not
make it, please let me know before Tuesday.

Thank you,

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From stephanie.perrin  Mon Nov 21 06:21:24 2016
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 04:21:24 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <20161120141716.3kza7mhlj4n4w7tt@tarvainen.info>
References: <20161120141716.3kza7mhlj4n4w7tt@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20161121042123.5570643.92256.49754@mail.utoronto.ca>

Not the US
Stephanie

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
  Original Message
From: Tapani Tarvainen
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 9:17 AM
To: PC-NCSG; NCSG EC
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional


Dear PC and EC members,

Intersessional planning is moving forward, there's a planning call
on Tuesday. I haven't heard anything official since we discussed
it last, but something new may come up during the call.

The most likely locations based on last meeting are Reykjavik,
Washington DC and Los Angeles (which did not get much support but may
still come up, in particular if meeting with the Board is desired).
It is possible other options will surface, in particular something in
Europe like Brussels; Asian or African locations are almost certainly
out.

As for the date, beginning of February is still most likely (January
is out), April-May option may also still be brought up. June/July and
merger with Johannesburg meeting seems very unlikely to be possible.

Agenda is still very much undecided (only one item I dare to predict
as pretty certain: NCPH board member election procedure).

If you have strong opinions on the location, date or agenda, and
especially if you know already some dates you definitely could not
make it, please let me know before Tuesday.

Thank you,

--
Tapani Tarvainen

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



From pileleji  Mon Nov 21 10:29:22 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:29:22 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <20161121042123.5570643.92256.49754@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20161120141716.3kza7mhlj4n4w7tt@tarvainen.info>
	<20161121042123.5570643.92256.49754@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAEux40sNT5AU=6idkrYcE0Fp=wsfWivPpFr78VU0ftJ57t1xUg@mail.gmail.com>

Concurred not the US too

Poncelet

On 21 November 2016 at 04:21, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Not the US
> Stephanie
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>   Original Message
> From: Tapani Tarvainen
> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 9:17 AM
> To: PC-NCSG; NCSG EC
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
>
>
> Dear PC and EC members,
>
> Intersessional planning is moving forward, there's a planning call
> on Tuesday. I haven't heard anything official since we discussed
> it last, but something new may come up during the call.
>
> The most likely locations based on last meeting are Reykjavik,
> Washington DC and Los Angeles (which did not get much support but may
> still come up, in particular if meeting with the Board is desired).
> It is possible other options will surface, in particular something in
> Europe like Brussels; Asian or African locations are almost certainly
> out.
>
> As for the date, beginning of February is still most likely (January
> is out), April-May option may also still be brought up. June/July and
> merger with Johannesburg meeting seems very unlikely to be possible.
>
> Agenda is still very much undecided (only one item I dare to predict
> as pretty certain: NCPH board member election procedure).
>
> If you have strong opinions on the location, date or agenda, and
> especially if you know already some dates you definitely could not
> make it, please let me know before Tuesday.
>
> 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
>



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






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161121/c19ca76d/attachment.html>


From mshears  Mon Nov 21 10:51:16 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:51:16 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40sNT5AU=6idkrYcE0Fp=wsfWivPpFr78VU0ftJ57t1xUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161120141716.3kza7mhlj4n4w7tt@tarvainen.info>
	<20161121042123.5570643.92256.49754@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAEux40sNT5AU=6idkrYcE0Fp=wsfWivPpFr78VU0ftJ57t1xUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65b26720-bc66-f155-a80e-86131e09984e@cdt.org>

I do not have a preference for location.  If we are considering Feb, 
middle to end of month would be better

Thanks.


On 21/11/2016 08:29, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
> Concurred not the US too
>
> Poncelet
>
> On 21 November 2016 at 04:21, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     Not the US
>     Stephanie
>
>     Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>       Original Message
>     From: Tapani Tarvainen
>     Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 9:17 AM
>     To: PC-NCSG; NCSG EC
>     Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
>
>
>     Dear PC and EC members,
>
>     Intersessional planning is moving forward, there's a planning call
>     on Tuesday. I haven't heard anything official since we discussed
>     it last, but something new may come up during the call.
>
>     The most likely locations based on last meeting are Reykjavik,
>     Washington DC and Los Angeles (which did not get much support but may
>     still come up, in particular if meeting with the Board is desired).
>     It is possible other options will surface, in particular something in
>     Europe like Brussels; Asian or African locations are almost certainly
>     out.
>
>     As for the date, beginning of February is still most likely (January
>     is out), April-May option may also still be brought up. June/July and
>     merger with Johannesburg meeting seems very unlikely to be possible.
>
>     Agenda is still very much undecided (only one item I dare to predict
>     as pretty certain: NCPH board member election procedure).
>
>     If you have strong opinions on the location, date or agenda, and
>     especially if you know already some dates you definitely could not
>     make it, please let me know before Tuesday.
>
>     Thank you,
>
>     --
>     Tapani Tarvainen
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> /www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>
> *
> *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161121/3fa43ebd/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Nov 21 16:28:48 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:28:48 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from
	the Bylaws Drafting Team
References: <C0C66594-A2E8-474A-B142-53F704A40A7F@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CC9E8BF2-63E7-49A4-83C7-3865B1E09E59@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I seem to have unknowingly incurred the wrath of some of our colleagues in the NCSG for sending this email to the Council list without consulting with all of you here first. I?d be grateful to hear thoughts from the other Councillors on this, especially what kind of agreement we were involved in that resulted in us being OK with the motion attached to this email.

Personally, I think it?s a terrible motion, but you probably already gathered that from my below email to the Council.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 160126 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161121/344c738e/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
> Date: November 21, 2016 at 2:50:22 PM GMT+2
> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don?t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns:
> 
> 1) Whereas 3:
> 
>> During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
> 
> 
> The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but ?divergent? is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless?.
> 
> The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a ?Strong support but significant opposition? designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I?m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no ?divergence? in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the ?strong support but significant opposition?, although it could have arguably been designated as ?Consensus? (not to be confused with ?Full consensus?).
> 
> 2) Resolved 1:
> 
> Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is ?accepting? the recommendations of the DT instead of ?approving? it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing.
> 
> 3) Resolved 2:
> 
>> The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
> 
> 
> My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway?, no biggie.
> 
> 4) Resolved 4:
> 
>> In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
> 
> 
> I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First?, again there is the use of the word ?divergent?, which I believe should be replaced with something like ?disagreement? or ?lack of full consensus?. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council?s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT?s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT?s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT?
> 
> It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I?m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I?d be happy to suggest some.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>> 
>> James,
>> 
>> I do take those changes as friendly. 
>> 
>> Rubens
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Councilors ?
>>> 
>>> Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night?s working session. 
>>> 
>>> As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly.
>>> Thank you,
>>> J
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1.         MOTION ? Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps
>>> (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016)
>>> Made by: James Bladel
>>> Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
>>> 
>>> WHEREAS:
>>> 1.       On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to ?fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities?;
>>> 2.       In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan ?which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016?;
>>> 3.       During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 
>>> 4.       The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT?s report.
>>> 
>>> RESOLVED:
>>> 
>>> 1.       The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT?s report as submitted.
>>> 2.       The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
>>> 3.       The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed.
>>> 4.       In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
>>> 5.       As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>>> 6.       The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
>>> 
>>> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
>> 
> 
> 



From maryam.bakoshi  Mon Nov 21 18:11:56 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:11:56 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle Poll: NCSG Open Policy Call
Message-ID: <E97B34E8-85D5-429B-82C6-062167F79BDA@icann.org>

Dear all,

To help us schedule a time for the next Monthly NCSG Open Policy Call, please complete the doodle poll below by FRIDAY 25 November, 1200 UTC

http://doodle.com/poll/s9ppw5tygcb6ntg5

Thank you for your time.

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat Support ? NCSG/NCUC/NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
S: maryam.bakoshi.icann
T: +44 7737698036

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161121/b13cb7ef/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Mon Nov 21 19:00:53 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 12:00:53 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] GNSO Review Implementation Plan
Message-ID: <4c05a650508f47ffb4fbccf827ad34fd@toast.net>

Hi all,
  
 This will be on the agenda at the December 1st meeting.
  
 I've looked at the 33 page  report, don't see any red flags, but hope others will take the time to do so to make sure I didn't miss something.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Ed
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:45 PM
To: "Council, GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "ICANN, GNSO-Secr., Glen" <GNSO.SECRETARIAT at gnso.icann.org>, "Wolfe, Jen" <jwolfe at dotbrand360.agency>
Subject: [council] GNSO Review Implementation Plan   

Dear colleagues,  

   

I herewith introduce a motion to adopt the GNSO Review Implementation plan elaborated by the Review WG. Motion and implementation plan are attached. I'm happy to answer any question prior to the council call on 01 Dec.  

   

May I suggest to invite Jen Wolfe, chair of the WG, to the meeting.  

   

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich  

   

  ?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161121/9a0e6d20/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name:  Motion ? Adoption of GNSO Review Working Group Implementation Plan.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 16550 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161121/9a0e6d20/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Review Implementation Plan 21 November 2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1162632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161121/9a0e6d20/attachment-0001.pdf>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 22 01:14:39 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:14:39 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: CCWG-Acct SO/AC Questions
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkYNodf7LJx9N4NuZXjhb6yDWw07saxPOkPYurg1SCm8g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

it seems there is expectation from SG/C to give input to the questions from
the SO/AC accountability subgroup. we should work on this asap to prepare a
response for NCSG.

I am ccing Farzaneh since she is one of the co-rapporteur.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Date: 2016-11-18 13:54 GMT+09:00
Subject: [council] FW: CCWG-Acct SO/AC Questions
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>


Council Colleagues ?



Please see below for a request from the CCWG-WS2 Co-Chairs, seeking
feedback on how each SO/AC (and component organizations) maintain internal
accountability.  I apologize for the delay in submitting this to the list.



If there are no objections, I will work with Heather, Donna and Staff to
draft a response.  But please feel free to share this request with your
SG/C leadership, and relay their feedback as well.



Note that the CCWG co-chairs are looking for a response in early December,
so thanks for giving this your attention.

Thank You,

J.



*From: *Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org>
*Date: *Friday, November 4, 2016 at 4:22

*Subject: *CCWG-Acct SO/AC Questions



Sent on behalf of the CCWG-Accountability WS2 Co-Chair?s



Dear SO/AC Chairs,



As you are aware, the newly-adopted ICANN bylaws tasked our Cross Community
Working Group to investigate several issues as part of our Work Stream 2
effort.  SO/AC Accountability is one of these items. As part of this
effort, we have set up a subgroup, responsible for reviewing how each SO
and AC is accountable to its designated community, and potentially to
global Internet stakeholders as well.  The background and progress for this
group are described here[docs.google.com].



As part of this effort, the group intends to start by an assessment of the
current situation. That?s why we are turning to you to point us to
resources and documents used to maintain accountability to your respective
designated community, taking into account the particular or specific
working modalities of each SO/AC (and any subgroups).



We would appreciate if you could provide responses to the attached
questions within the next 30 days, so that work on this important item of
WS2 can proceed in due course. Responses can be provided to
acct-staff at icann.org. Along with the rapporteurs of the SO/AC
accountability subgroup, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Farzaneh Badii and Steve Del
Bianco, we thank you in advance and remain available for any clarification
that you may need.



Best regards,

Leon, Thomas & Mathieu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161122/44b81b56/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SO AC questions [revised 2-Nov, v2].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 128761 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161122/44b81b56/attachment-0001.docx>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Nov 22 01:25:47 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:25:47 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] GNSO Review Implementation Plan
In-Reply-To: <4c05a650508f47ffb4fbccf827ad34fd@toast.net>
References: <4c05a650508f47ffb4fbccf827ad34fd@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmVAQtny87B8et_WuDVF92NXgsHHqe3ZAkyGY0M7YGSig@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

adding Avri since she is also NCSG alternate rep to the working group.
being in the working group during that short time of its activity, I don't
see a specific concern with the plan. most of the actions are about asking
staff to provide information and/or proposal.
as WG liaison, I was thinking to second the motion.
finally, yes better that everyone go through the document and review it.

Best,

Rafik

2016-11-22 2:00 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi all,
>
> This will be on the agenda at the December 1st meeting.
>
> I've looked at the 33 page  report, don't see any red flags, but hope
> others will take the time to do so to make sure I didn't miss something.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
> *Sent*: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:45 PM
> *To*: "Council, GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Cc*: "ICANN, GNSO-Secr., Glen" <GNSO.SECRETARIAT at gnso.icann.org>,
> "Wolfe, Jen" <jwolfe at dotbrand360.agency>
> *Subject*: [council] GNSO Review Implementation Plan
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> I herewith introduce a motion to adopt the GNSO Review Implementation plan
> elaborated by the Review WG. Motion and implementation plan are attached.
> I'm happy to answer any question prior to the council call on 01 Dec.
>
>
>
> May I suggest to invite Jen Wolfe, chair of the WG, to the meeting.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
> ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161122/c263f333/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Tue Nov 22 09:36:39 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:36:39 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
Message-ID: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>

> April-May option may also still be brought up.

Any opinions of that possibility?

Sounds like staff would prefer it (if only to give them more time for
arrangements). Last we talked nobody much liked it that I can recall -
anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?

Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
would be welcome.)

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From egmorris1  Tue Nov 22 11:19:10 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:19:10 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>

Hi Tapani,


>> April-May option may also still be brought up.
> 
> Any opinions of that possibility?

That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.

1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.

2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.

3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
> -
> anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?

Not really.

> 
> Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
> in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
> please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
> would be welcome.)
> 

I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.


Ed Morris

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




From aelsadr  Tue Nov 22 13:02:12 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:02:12 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
Message-ID: <30385D9F-CF64-48F0-BA71-F8E669D32246@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Speaking for myself, I?ve never been able to make it to an intersessional meeting. This has mainly been because, by the time the meeting location is confirmed and CT start sending out emails to supported travelers, time is already too tight for me to apply for a visa. I don?t believe holding the meeting in the US or EU would make a difference in my case. Sometimes, applying for a Schengen is even more difficult and/or time-consuming than a US visa.

Not that the difference is terribly significant, but my guess is that if the intersessional is moved to so soon after Meeting A, the tight timeframe problem may be compounded for both myself, as well as the CT team. I also imagine that I would have to get visas for both Meeting A and the intersessional before I physically travel to Meeting A. Not sure if this is the case for others as well.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at TOAST.NET> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tapani,
> 
> 
>>> April-May option may also still be brought up.
>> 
>> Any opinions of that possibility?
> 
> That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
> 
> 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
> 
> 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
> as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
> 
> 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
>> -
>> anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
> 
> Not really.
> 
>> 
>> Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
>> in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
>> please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
>> would be welcome.)
>> 
> 
> I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
> 
> 
> Ed Morris
> 
>> -- 
>> 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 ncsg  Tue Nov 22 13:01:13 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:01:13 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
Message-ID: <20161122110112.GB25198@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

On Nov 22 09:19, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:

> > if some of you would be interested in participating
> > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
> > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
> > would be welcome.)

> I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help
> the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.

Seeing no other volunteers I'll invite Ed to join.

If somebody else still wants to jump in, just let me know.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen




From Stefania.Milan  Tue Nov 22 14:26:08 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:26:08 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <20161122110112.GB25198@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>,
	<20161122110112.GB25198@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521593AD58D9B9683721197F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I happy to help, just not available today (too short notice, trapped in departmental meetings)
Maybe you Tapani can fill me in? Or is there going to be a recording or transcript of some kind?

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Inviato: marted? 22 novembre 2016 12.01.13
A: PC-NCSG
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional

On Nov 22 09:19, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:

> > if some of you would be interested in participating
> > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
> > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
> > would be welcome.)

> I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help
> the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.

Seeing no other volunteers I'll invite Ed to join.

If somebody else still wants to jump in, just let me know.

--
Tapani Tarvainen


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

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



From pileleji  Tue Nov 22 14:27:37 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:27:37 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521593AD58D9B9683721197F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<20161122110112.GB25198@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<DB3PR05MB521593AD58D9B9683721197F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tH3rYvH7TWO-yMxpyqLG5i4q2fO37qbwQHCGFyMzuamA@mail.gmail.com>

Tapani am available



On 22 November 2016 at 12:26, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu> wrote:

> I happy to help, just not available today (too short notice, trapped in
> departmental meetings)
> Maybe you Tapani can fill me in? Or is there going to be a recording or
> transcript of some kind?
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen
> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> Inviato: marted? 22 novembre 2016 12.01.13
> A: PC-NCSG
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
>
> On Nov 22 09:19, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>
> > > if some of you would be interested in participating
> > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
> > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
> > > would be welcome.)
>
> > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help
> > the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
>
> Seeing no other volunteers I'll invite Ed to join.
>
> If somebody else still wants to jump in, just let me know.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



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






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161122/6389e7bd/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Tue Nov 22 14:31:48 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:31:48 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40tH3rYvH7TWO-yMxpyqLG5i4q2fO37qbwQHCGFyMzuamA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<20161122110112.GB25198@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<DB3PR05MB521593AD58D9B9683721197F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40tH3rYvH7TWO-yMxpyqLG5i4q2fO37qbwQHCGFyMzuamA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161122123148.znery7llbcvhrwgf@tarvainen.info>

Hi Poncelet,

Great - good to have someone from NPOC there, too.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:27:37PM +0000, Poncelet Ileleji (pileleji at ymca.gm) wrote:

> Tapani am available
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 November 2016 at 12:26, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu> wrote:
> 
> > I happy to help, just not available today (too short notice, trapped in
> > departmental meetings)
> > Maybe you Tapani can fill me in? Or is there going to be a recording or
> > transcript of some kind?
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Tapani Tarvainen
> > <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> > Inviato: marted? 22 novembre 2016 12.01.13
> > A: PC-NCSG
> > Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
> >
> > On Nov 22 09:19, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
> >
> > > > if some of you would be interested in participating
> > > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
> > > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
> > > > would be welcome.)
> >
> > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help
> > > the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
> >
> > Seeing no other volunteers I'll invite Ed to join.
> >
> > If somebody else still wants to jump in, just let me know.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> > forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> > prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> > this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> > material from any computer.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org



From ncsg  Tue Nov 22 16:04:03 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 16:04:03 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521593AD58D9B9683721197F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<20161122110112.GB25198@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<DB3PR05MB521593AD58D9B9683721197F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20161122140403.k6ahnm6fu526pltt@tarvainen.info>

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:26:08PM +0000, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:

> I happy to help, just not available today (too short notice, trapped in departmental meetings)
> Maybe you Tapani can fill me in? Or is there going to be a recording or transcript of some kind?

The call is recorded. I'll let you know when recording is available.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From Stefania.Milan  Tue Nov 22 16:45:27 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:45:27 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <20161122140403.k6ahnm6fu526pltt@tarvainen.info>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<20161122110112.GB25198@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<DB3PR05MB521593AD58D9B9683721197F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>,
	<20161122140403.k6ahnm6fu526pltt@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5214D3C43FC6F962AC74808F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Great, thanks Tapani.
DO we already know when the next coordination call is going to take place?
Thanks, Stefania
________________________________________
Da: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Inviato: marted? 22 novembre 2016 15.04.03
A: Milan, Stefania
Cc: PC-NCSG
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:26:08PM +0000, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:

> I happy to help, just not available today (too short notice, trapped in departmental meetings)
> Maybe you Tapani can fill me in? Or is there going to be a recording or transcript of some kind?

The call is recorded. I'll let you know when recording is available.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

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



From ncsg  Tue Nov 22 17:00:13 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:00:13 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5214D3C43FC6F962AC74808F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<20161122110112.GB25198@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<DB3PR05MB521593AD58D9B9683721197F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<20161122140403.k6ahnm6fu526pltt@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB5214D3C43FC6F962AC74808F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20161122150013.x6jna4kntobecosl@tarvainen.info>

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:45:27PM +0000, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:

> DO we already know when the next coordination call is going to take place?

Same time next week, that is 1400 UTC Nov 29. Planned for 30 minutes only.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From ncsg  Tue Nov 22 17:13:26 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:13:26 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <20161122150013.x6jna4kntobecosl@tarvainen.info>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<20161122110112.GB25198@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<DB3PR05MB521593AD58D9B9683721197F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<20161122140403.k6ahnm6fu526pltt@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB5214D3C43FC6F962AC74808F7B40@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<20161122150013.x6jna4kntobecosl@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20161122151325.u3rthtbf7hoj62fq@tarvainen.info>

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:45:27PM +0000, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
> 
> > DO we already know when the next coordination call is going to take place?
> 
> Same time next week, that is 1400 UTC Nov 29. Planned for 30 minutes only.

And the main issue then is dates, in particular whether or not February can
be agreed on: if the meeting is then it pretty much has to be decided then,
simply because visa processing for some will take long.

It was effectively agreed that if it's in February then it would be
on the week beginning February 13th.

The other alternatives left on the table were end of April and,
as a new idea, some time in August or September.

Comments and opinions on these dates would be most welcome.

It was also more or less agreed that we should do long-term
planning for intersessionals in the future (including whether
we'll have them at all or not).

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From mshears  Tue Nov 22 17:47:24 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:47:24 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
Message-ID: <729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>

+ 1 Ed

The Feb timeframe makes most sense.

Matthew


On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Tapani,
>
>
>>> April-May option may also still be brought up.
>> Any opinions of that possibility?
> That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
>
> 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
>
> 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
> as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
>
> 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
>> -
>> anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
> Not really.
>
>> Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
>> in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
>> please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
>> would be welcome.)
>>
> I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
>
>
> Ed Morris
>
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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


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




From aelsadr  Tue Nov 22 23:47:57 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 23:47:57 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5Bcouncil=5D_=5Bcouncil=5D_Motion_?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=93_GNSO_Council_Communication_to_ICANN_Board_Regarding_T?=
 =?utf-8?q?ransfer_Policy?=
References: <5b3e1939c52f429f801968fc094a3a3b@toast.net>
Message-ID: <88D1BDE8-4A19-4739-AB0F-6E993730B4C1@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I was wondering whether or not any of our Councillors have any concerns with the approach of sending this letter to the Board without submitting it to a motion and vote. I don?t, and plan on supporting Darcy, James and Ed on this. Just wanted to flag it, incase anybody had any other thoughts.

I?ve cc?ed Kathy on this too (although I believe she is still subscribed to the PC list), because she brought it up a few weeks ago as well.

Thanks.

Amr



> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> Subject: re: [council] Re: [council] Motion ? GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy
> Date: November 22, 2016 at 5:47:52 AM GMT+2
> To: "Darcy Southwell" <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Reply-To: egmorris1 at toast.net
> 
> Hi James,
>  
> I completely support both the letter and 
>  
>  ask if we can proceed without a formal motion and submit the letter.  
>  
> your suggestion thereof. This is very time sensitive and will the rules presumably becoming live on December 1st (am I wrong here?) we're already playing catch up.
>  
> A big thanks to Darcy for your hard work on this. This is a very important issue and I'm grateful for your leadership on it.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Ed Morris
>  
>  
>  
> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:29 AM
> To: "Darcy Southwell" <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Re: [council] Motion ? GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy
>  
> Thanks, Darcy, for raising this motion.
> 
> Councilors ? as we discussed in Hyderabad, this request is coming from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, regarding the implementation of a very narrow element of IRTP-C. ICANN GDD Staff has indicated that they do not have the ability to agree to this request, absent a request from the GNSO Council and direction by the ICANN Board.
>  
> Question for the Council:  are there any questions or concerns on this topic, or is this relatively non-controversial?  If the latter, then I would ask that we consider the short time frame before the Board?s next meeting (8 DEC) and ask if we can proceed without a formal motion and submit the letter.  
>  
> Interested in hearing your thoughts.
>  
> Thanks?
>  
> J.
>  
>  
> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
> Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 17:41
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Motion ? GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy
>  
> All,
>  
> Attached is the Motion ? GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy along with a proposed draft communication.  You will recall from our meetings in Hyderabad that ICANN GDD staff advised us that Council would need to submit this issue to the Board for consideration and further direction to ICANN staff.  This motion and the draft communication were prepared based on that advice, and I?d appreciate this being heard at our December 1 meeting.
>  
> Best,
> Darcy
> __________
> Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer
> M: +1 503-453-7305 ? Skype: darcy.enyeart
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161122/7dd7f1c5/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSOCouncilLTRtoICANNBoardreIRTP-C.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18928 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161122/7dd7f1c5/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161122/7dd7f1c5/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attachment 1
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6718 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161122/7dd7f1c5/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161122/7dd7f1c5/attachment-0005.html>


From ncsg  Wed Nov 23 08:11:38 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 08:11:38 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>

All,

We really should try to make a decision amongst ourselves before next
Tuesday. Things won't progress if we leave it until then and fight
with each other as CSG and staff look at us wondering if we can ever
decide anything.

No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.

I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
indicated they'd be willing to accept February.

As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:

* Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.

* Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
anyway, and two months really should be enough.

* Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.

* Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
(For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
vetoed that anyway.)

* Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.

So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.

Have I missed or misunderstood something?

Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?

Tapani

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:

> + 1 Ed
> 
> The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
> > Hi Tapani,
> > 
> > 
> > > > April-May option may also still be brought up.
> > > Any opinions of that possibility?
> > That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
> > 
> > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
> > 
> > 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
> > as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
> > 
> > 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
> > > -
> > > anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
> > Not really.
> > 
> > > Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
> > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
> > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
> > > would be welcome.)
> > > 
> > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
> > 
> > 
> > Ed Morris
> > 
> > > -- 
> > > Tapani Tarvainen
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987



From rafik.dammak  Wed Nov 23 08:39:30 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:39:30 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>

hi,

some comments below:

2016-11-23 15:11 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:

> All,
>
> We really should try to make a decision amongst ourselves before next
> Tuesday. Things won't progress if we leave it until then and fight
> with each other as CSG and staff look at us wondering if we can ever
> decide anything.
>
>
I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and didn'
seems coordinated. so it is fine.


> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.
>
> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case
currently.


> I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
> August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
> indicated they'd be willing to accept February.
>
>
I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to
double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option that
we can consider.


> As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:
>
> * Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
> helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
> Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
> total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.
>
>
the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the location
but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN meetings. the
goal is to reduce the burden here.


> * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
> but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
> people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
> anyway, and two months really should be enough.
>
>
with holidays in the middle for many here.


> * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
> later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
> And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
> same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
> while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.
>
>
that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed
yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really
taking this as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is
always for the same folks and we have to mindful about this.


> * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
> compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
> (For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
> probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
> vetoed that anyway.)
>
>
April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks
before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close.
.

> * Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
> realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
> seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.
>
> no opinion for this.


> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.
>
> Have I missed or misunderstood something?
>
>
as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have to
weigh all options.

Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?
>
>
fine with polling.

Best,

Rafik

>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org)
> wrote:
>
> > + 1 Ed
> >
> > The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> > On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
> > > Hi Tapani,
> > >
> > >
> > > > > April-May option may also still be brought up.
> > > > Any opinions of that possibility?
> > > That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
> > >
> > > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March
> and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's
> just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's
> too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after
> all, not paid employees.
> > >
> > > 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the
> intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise
> ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the
> year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder
> group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
> > > as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year
> ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5
> is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than
> the earlier meeting date.
> > >
> > > 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The
> CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get
> our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting
> will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that
> involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of
> us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an
> intersession at this new proposed time.
> > > > -
> > > > anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
> > > Not really.
> > >
> > > > Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
> > > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
> > > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
> > > > would be welcome.)
> > > >
> > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help
> the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ed Morris
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tapani Tarvainen
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> > --
> > ------------
> > Matthew Shears
> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> > + 44 771 2472987
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161123/4cc5a4ab/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Wed Nov 23 09:23:46 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:23:46 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161123072346.6jznkaclpo2y2gmu@tarvainen.info>

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 03:39:30PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:

> > No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
> > we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.

> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the
> case currently.

That is never the case. Some will always be less satisfied.
We can only hope it'll even out in the long run.

> also April/May is an option that we can consider.

Of course. We are doing it right now. But I've seen no good
arguments in its favour. Do you have some?

> > * Too much total travel time.

> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the location
> but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN meetings. the
> goal is to reduce the burden here.

Agreed on the goal, but still I don't see how any of the choices
on the table now would be any better in that respect.

> > * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
> > but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
> > people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
> > anyway, and two months really should be enough.

> with holidays in the middle for many here.

I already allowed for that in the calculation: If we can make the
decision on Tuesday to have the meeting on the week of Feb 13, it's
two and a half months away. Assume holidays take two weeks of it and
there's still two full months to prepare.

> > * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
> > later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
> > And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
> > same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
> > while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.

> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed
> yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open .

Nothing is agreed on yet.

If Reykjavik turns out to be impossible it takes the latter point away, true,
but all indications are Reykjavik would be possible and acceptable to most.

> I am really taking this as matter of principle because the burden of
> visa issues is always for the same folks and we have to mindful
> about this.

I absolutely agree we need to take a strong stand on the visa issue.

But is there some reason I've missed to believe it would be less of a
problem later on?

> > * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
> > compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.

> April/May still in table.

Yes. Any arguments in its favour?

> mid-february is just 3 weeks before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it
> is too close.

If the intersessional is used at least in part preparing Copenhagen,
relatively short gap between them may even be a good thing.

> Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?

> fine with polling.

A 3x3-way poll perhaps: the three date options and for each
"works for me / could go but wouldn't like / couldn't go at all"?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From egmorris1  Wed Nov 23 10:39:06 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 08:39:06 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>

Hi,

Facts.

I went on this call and heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa problems" or "travel problems".

Correct.

And it really is not fair. I get it.

Life generally is not fair.

The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa and travel problems would be to make the South Africa meeting longer.

Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just implemented.

Meeting B. The short one. DOA.

If that is the only option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to the meeting policy, developed over time in a bottom up multi stakeholder  manner, is more important than an intercessional meeting; the process of adding to meeting B would invariably start a trend to making meeting B the same length as every other meeting. Once we do it ALAC would do it etc.

That is opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one.

For the record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept to be extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too long. We had trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, meeting length  being one impediment to participation. 


>> 
> 
> I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and didn' seems coordinated. so it is fine. 

Fact.

All groups were willing to accept the February 13th date, although it was not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC.

At least that is what I heard.

All CPH groups and the NCSG were willing to go with February 13th. I recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to accept February 13th, in the chat. It was a compromise solution. For most.



>  
>> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
>> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.
>> 
> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case currently.
>  

Correct.

All groups other than the NCUC were willing to accept February 13th.



>> I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
>> August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
>> indicated they'd be willing to accept February.
>> 
> 
> I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option that we can consider. 

The time to consider is over. We need a decision. 

As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need dates. We have lives".

Late April / early May would make the visa situation worse. Those unable to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over may not have enough time to do so for an April meeting; if it is May then South Africa may become a problem and if done completely poorly a date in the middle could impact visa possibilities for both meetings.

In addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, I am told, are heavily scheduled this spring.




>  
>> As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:
>> 
>> * Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
>> helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
>> Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
>> total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.
>> 
> 
> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the location but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden here.

Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the meeting is nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current form. If you want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days is four or five days.

What is the proposed solution that reduces the burden? The only one I've heard is extending the other meetings. Then the term "burden" is one of personal circumstance.

I prefer more and shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. These long meetings wreak havoc on my personal and professional lives in a way shorter meetings do not. 

I understand that my perception and circumstance may be different than others. All are equally valid. None should be considered absolute.



>  
>> * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
>> but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
>> people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
>> anyway, and two months really should be enough.
>> 
> 
> with holidays in the middle for many here.
>  

What exactly do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the meeting, six weeks is enough prep time and we have more than that.


>> * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
>> later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
>> And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
>> same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
>> while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.
>> 
> 
> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really taking this as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is always for the same folks and we have to mindful about this.


Again, I get it. 

Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I could wave a magic wand and do away with   visas worldwide. I have no such wand. 

The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I personally reject, as above.

I'll offer another one: do the meeting remotely. No travel, no visa.

I'd happily support this proposal as a way of reducing the visa and travel burdens and expanding the possibility of participation for all.




>  
>> * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
>> compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
>> (For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
>> probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
>> vetoed that anyway.)
>> 
> 
> April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close. 

Opinion, not fact.

It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and then March and then have a break until
June than it is to have one in March, one in April/May, one in June.

YMMV.


> .  
>> * Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
>> realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
>> seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.
>> 
> no opinion for this.
>  
>> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.
>> 
>> Have I missed or misunderstood something?
>> 
> 
> as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have to weigh all options.

We need a decision, not options.

Options were weighed on the call. A decision should have been made. One was not.

> 
>> Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?
>> 
>  
> fine with polling.

Me too! Glad we agree!

Should we poll just on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing it only in a remote fashion be included as options, who should be polled: the PC or likely meeting invitees?

I'm flexible on all of this and will support whatever option the majority want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We may want to poll not only on 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend if'...

For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend an April/May meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from four to seven days or be able to attend an August/September meeting.

The thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are nothing more than personal preferences. In such an instance polling makes sense. Good idea, Rafik, and one I support.

Ed




> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>> 
>> > + 1 Ed
>> >
>> > The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
>> >
>> > Matthew
>> >
>> >
>> > On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
>> > > Hi Tapani,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > April-May option may also still be brought up.
>> > > > Any opinions of that possibility?
>> > > That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
>> > >
>> > > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
>> > >
>> > > 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
>> > > as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
>> > >
>> > > 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
>> > > > -
>> > > > anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
>> > > Not really.
>> > >
>> > > > Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
>> > > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
>> > > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
>> > > > would be welcome.)
>> > > >
>> > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Ed Morris
>> > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Tapani Tarvainen
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >
>> > --
>> > ------------
>> > Matthew Shears
>> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> > + 44 771 2472987
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161123/193e6c12/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Nov 23 11:00:29 2016
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:00:29 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnAM5ZsQqFdPTodr5rFxkz1kJ--9GzqvYbSWxLKzUQU=A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

as I said polling would give more clarity about the position of everyone .
I will also to highlight that we are having now like in hyderabad several
meetings with CSG so we need to reconsider how that fits with the
intersessional and if we really need all these as matter of efficiency. for
example we could sort-out the procedural part of vice-chair election
basically by emails and having group of volunteers to draft.

Best,

Rafik

2016-11-23 17:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi,
>
> Facts.
>
> I went on this call and heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa problems"
> or "travel problems".
>
> Correct.
>
> And it really is not fair. I get it.
>
> Life generally is not fair.
>
> The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa and travel problems
> would be to make the South Africa meeting longer.
>
> Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just
> implemented.
>
> Meeting B. The short one. DOA.
>
> If that is the only option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to the
> meeting policy, developed over time in a bottom up multi stakeholder
>  manner, is more important than an intercessional meeting; the process of
> adding to meeting B would invariably start a trend to making meeting B the
> same length as every other meeting. Once we do it ALAC would do it etc.
>
> That is opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one.
>
> For the record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept to
> be extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too long. We
> had trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, meeting length
>  being one impediment to participation.
>
>
>
>>
> I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and didn'
> seems coordinated. so it is fine.
>
>
> Fact.
>
> All groups were willing to accept the February 13th date, although it was
> not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC.
>
> At least that is what I heard.
>
> All CPH groups and the NCSG were willing to go with February 13th. I
> recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to accept February 13th, in the chat. It
> was a compromise solution. For most.
>
>
>
>
>
>> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
>> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.
>>
>> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case
> currently.
>
>
>
> Correct.
>
> All groups other than the NCUC were willing to accept February 13th.
>
>
>
> I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
>> August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
>> indicated they'd be willing to accept February.
>>
>>
> I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to
> double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option that
> we can consider.
>
>
> The time to consider is over. We need a decision.
>
> As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need dates. We have lives".
>
> Late April / early May would make the visa situation worse. Those unable
> to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over may not have enough time to do
> so for an April meeting; if it is May then South Africa may become a
> problem and if done completely poorly a date in the middle could impact
> visa possibilities for both meetings.
>
> In addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, I am
> told, are heavily scheduled this spring.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:
>>
>> * Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
>> helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
>> Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
>> total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.
>>
>>
> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the
> location but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN
> meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden here.
>
>
> Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the meeting is
> nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current form. If you
> want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days is four or
> five days.
>
> What is the proposed solution that reduces the burden? The only one I've
> heard is extending the other meetings. Then the term "burden" is one of
> personal circumstance.
>
> I prefer more and shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. These
> long meetings wreak havoc on my personal and professional lives in a way
> shorter meetings do not.
>
> I understand that my perception and circumstance may be different than
> others. All are equally valid. None should be considered absolute.
>
>
>
>
>
>> * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
>> but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
>> people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
>> anyway, and two months really should be enough.
>>
>>
> with holidays in the middle for many here.
>
>
>
> What exactly do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the meeting,
> six weeks is enough prep time and we have more than that.
>
>
> * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
>> later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
>> And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
>> same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
>> while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.
>>
>>
> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed
> yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really
> taking this as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is
> always for the same folks and we have to mindful about this.
>
>
>
> Again, I get it.
>
> Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I could
> wave a magic wand and do away with   visas worldwide. I have no such wand.
>
> The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I personally
> reject, as above.
>
> I'll offer another one: do the meeting remotely. No travel, no visa.
>
> I'd happily support this proposal as a way of reducing the visa and travel
> burdens and expanding the possibility of participation for all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
>> compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
>> (For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
>> probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
>> vetoed that anyway.)
>>
>>
> April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks
> before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close.
>
>
> Opinion, not fact.
>
> It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and then
> March and then have a break until
> June than it is to have one in March, one in April/May, one in June.
>
> YMMV.
>
>
> .
>
>> * Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
>> realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
>> seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.
>>
>> no opinion for this.
>
>
>> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.
>>
>> Have I missed or misunderstood something?
>>
>>
> as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have
> to weigh all options.
>
>
> We need a decision, not options.
>
> Options were weighed on the call. A decision should have been made. One
> was not.
>
>
> Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?
>>
>>
> fine with polling.
>
>
> Me too! Glad we agree!
>
> Should we poll just on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing it
> only in a remote fashion be included as options, who should be polled: the
> PC or likely meeting invitees?
>
> I'm flexible on all of this and will support whatever option the majority
> want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We may want to poll not only on
> 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend if'...
>
> For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend an April/May
> meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from four to seven days
> or be able to attend an August/September meeting.
>
> The thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are nothing
> more than personal preferences. In such an instance polling makes sense.
> Good idea, Rafik, and one I support.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > + 1 Ed
>> >
>> > The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
>> >
>> > Matthew
>> >
>> >
>> > On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
>> > > Hi Tapani,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > April-May option may also still be brought up.
>> > > > Any opinions of that possibility?
>> > > That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
>> > >
>> > > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March
>> and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's
>> just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's
>> too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after
>> all, not paid employees.
>> > >
>> > > 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the
>> intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise
>> ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the
>> year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder
>> group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
>> > > as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the
>> year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4
>> or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes
>> than the earlier meeting date.
>> > >
>> > > 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The
>> CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get
>> our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting
>> will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that
>> involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of
>> us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an
>> intersession at this new proposed time.
>> > > > -
>> > > > anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
>> > > Not really.
>> > >
>> > > > Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
>> > > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
>> > > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
>> > > > would be welcome.)
>> > > >
>> > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help
>> the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Ed Morris
>> > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Tapani Tarvainen
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >
>> > --
>> > ------------
>> > Matthew Shears
>> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> > + 44 771 2472987
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161123/9f6f2e6b/attachment-0001.html>


From egmorris1  Wed Nov 23 11:17:05 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:17:05 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnAM5ZsQqFdPTodr5rFxkz1kJ--9GzqvYbSWxLKzUQU=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnAM5ZsQqFdPTodr5rFxkz1kJ--9GzqvYbSWxLKzUQU=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75CDD82A-91F8-4557-9970-8D9379B0675C@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

I completely agree with everything you have written (below).

It appears that site selection could solve many of the problems with the F2F meeting (which I continue to believe we don't need) you have highlighted. My understanding is that Turkey would largely eliminate visa problems for many of our participants.

As Istanbul is an ICANN hub staff is already posted there and ICANN meetings has experience dealing with local meeting sites.

Should we propose Istanbul as the meeting site to alleviate many problems associated with the other proposed sites?

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Nov 2016, at 09:00, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> as I said polling would give more clarity about the position of everyone .
> I will also to highlight that we are having now like in hyderabad several meetings with CSG so we need to reconsider how that fits with the intersessional and if we really need all these as matter of efficiency. for example we could sort-out the procedural part of vice-chair election basically by emails and having group of volunteers to draft.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2016-11-23 17:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Facts.
>> 
>> I went on this call and heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa problems" or "travel problems".
>> 
>> Correct.
>> 
>> And it really is not fair. I get it.
>> 
>> Life generally is not fair.
>> 
>> The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa and travel problems would be to make the South Africa meeting longer.
>> 
>> Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just implemented.
>> 
>> Meeting B. The short one. DOA.
>> 
>> If that is the only option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to the meeting policy, developed over time in a bottom up multi stakeholder  manner, is more important than an intercessional meeting; the process of adding to meeting B would invariably start a trend to making meeting B the same length as every other meeting. Once we do it ALAC would do it etc.
>> 
>> That is opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one.
>> 
>> For the record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept to be extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too long. We had trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, meeting length  being one impediment to participation. 
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and didn' seems coordinated. so it is fine. 
>> 
>> Fact.
>> 
>> All groups were willing to accept the February 13th date, although it was not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC.
>> 
>> At least that is what I heard.
>> 
>> All CPH groups and the NCSG were willing to go with February 13th. I recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to accept February 13th, in the chat. It was a compromise solution. For most.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>>> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
>>>> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.
>>>> 
>>> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case currently.
>>>  
>> 
>> Correct.
>> 
>> All groups other than the NCUC were willing to accept February 13th.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
>>>> August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
>>>> indicated they'd be willing to accept February.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option that we can consider. 
>> 
>> The time to consider is over. We need a decision. 
>> 
>> As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need dates. We have lives".
>> 
>> Late April / early May would make the visa situation worse. Those unable to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over may not have enough time to do so for an April meeting; if it is May then South Africa may become a problem and if done completely poorly a date in the middle could impact visa possibilities for both meetings.
>> 
>> In addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, I am told, are heavily scheduled this spring.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>>> As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:
>>>> 
>>>> * Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
>>>> helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
>>>> Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
>>>> total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the location but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden here.
>> 
>> Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the meeting is nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current form. If you want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days is four or five days.
>> 
>> What is the proposed solution that reduces the burden? The only one I've heard is extending the other meetings. Then the term "burden" is one of personal circumstance.
>> 
>> I prefer more and shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. These long meetings wreak havoc on my personal and professional lives in a way shorter meetings do not. 
>> 
>> I understand that my perception and circumstance may be different than others. All are equally valid. None should be considered absolute.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>>> * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
>>>> but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
>>>> people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
>>>> anyway, and two months really should be enough.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> with holidays in the middle for many here.
>>>  
>> 
>> What exactly do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the meeting, six weeks is enough prep time and we have more than that.
>> 
>> 
>>>> * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
>>>> later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
>>>> And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
>>>> same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
>>>> while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really taking this as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is always for the same folks and we have to mindful about this.
>> 
>> 
>> Again, I get it. 
>> 
>> Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I could wave a magic wand and do away with   visas worldwide. I have no such wand. 
>> 
>> The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I personally reject, as above.
>> 
>> I'll offer another one: do the meeting remotely. No travel, no visa.
>> 
>> I'd happily support this proposal as a way of reducing the visa and travel burdens and expanding the possibility of participation for all.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>>> * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
>>>> compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
>>>> (For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
>>>> probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
>>>> vetoed that anyway.)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close. 
>> 
>> Opinion, not fact.
>> 
>> It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and then March and then have a break until
>> June than it is to have one in March, one in April/May, one in June.
>> 
>> YMMV.
>> 
>> 
>>> .  
>>>> * Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
>>>> realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
>>>> seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.
>>>> 
>>> no opinion for this.
>>>  
>>>> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.
>>>> 
>>>> Have I missed or misunderstood something?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have to weigh all options.
>> 
>> We need a decision, not options.
>> 
>> Options were weighed on the call. A decision should have been made. One was not.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?
>>>> 
>>>  
>>> fine with polling.
>> 
>> Me too! Glad we agree!
>> 
>> Should we poll just on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing it only in a remote fashion be included as options, who should be polled: the PC or likely meeting invitees?
>> 
>> I'm flexible on all of this and will support whatever option the majority want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We may want to poll not only on 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend if'...
>> 
>> For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend an April/May meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from four to seven days or be able to attend an August/September meeting.
>> 
>> The thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are nothing more than personal preferences. In such an instance polling makes sense. Good idea, Rafik, and one I support.
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > + 1 Ed
>>>> >
>>>> > The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
>>>> >
>>>> > Matthew
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>> > > Hi Tapani,
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > > April-May option may also still be brought up.
>>>> > > > Any opinions of that possibility?
>>>> > > That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
>>>> > > as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
>>>> > > > -
>>>> > > > anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
>>>> > > Not really.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
>>>> > > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
>>>> > > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
>>>> > > > would be welcome.)
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Ed Morris
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > --
>>>> > > > Tapani Tarvainen
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> > >
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > ------------
>>>> > Matthew Shears
>>>> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> > + 44 771 2472987
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161123/382080b2/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 23 12:48:00 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:48:00 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <75CDD82A-91F8-4557-9970-8D9379B0675C@toast.net>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnAM5ZsQqFdPTodr5rFxkz1kJ--9GzqvYbSWxLKzUQU=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<75CDD82A-91F8-4557-9970-8D9379B0675C@toast.net>
Message-ID: <99A1D87A-BE0F-4073-9FE7-9CE678548FE1@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Istanbul is a no-go for me. I actually need a special permit from State Security in Egypt to travel to Turkey, which is virtually impossible to get. I wouldn?t even consider applying for it for an intersessional meeting.

Anyway?, I really appreciate all the effort that has gone in to trying to work these issues out, especially on behalf of those who have visa considerations to be taken account of. It seems to me that my personal case complicates matters far more than is desirable. I?ve never made it to an intersessional meeting, and it?s never impacted my work or participation in any way, so really don?t care if I don?t make it to the next one either.

So Tapani, Ed and Rafik?, thanks for the effort fellas, but as far as I?m concerned, I think I prefer to plan ahead by planning to not attend the meeting. I hope this does at least a little in helping with the planning!! :)

Thanks again.

Amr


> On Nov 23, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Rafik,
> 
> I completely agree with everything you have written (below).
> 
> It appears that site selection could solve many of the problems with the F2F meeting (which I continue to believe we don't need) you have highlighted. My understanding is that Turkey would largely eliminate visa problems for many of our participants.
> 
> As Istanbul is an ICANN hub staff is already posted there and ICANN meetings has experience dealing with local meeting sites.
> 
> Should we propose Istanbul as the meeting site to alleviate many problems associated with the other proposed sites?
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 23 Nov 2016, at 09:00, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> as I said polling would give more clarity about the position of everyone .
>> I will also to highlight that we are having now like in hyderabad several meetings with CSG so we need to reconsider how that fits with the intersessional and if we really need all these as matter of efficiency. for example we could sort-out the procedural part of vice-chair election basically by emails and having group of volunteers to draft.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2016-11-23 17:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Facts.
>> 
>> I went on this call and heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa problems" or "travel problems".
>> 
>> Correct.
>> 
>> And it really is not fair. I get it.
>> 
>> Life generally is not fair.
>> 
>> The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa and travel problems would be to make the South Africa meeting longer.
>> 
>> Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just implemented.
>> 
>> Meeting B. The short one. DOA.
>> 
>> If that is the only option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to the meeting policy, developed over time in a bottom up multi stakeholder  manner, is more important than an intercessional meeting; the process of adding to meeting B would invariably start a trend to making meeting B the same length as every other meeting. Once we do it ALAC would do it etc.
>> 
>> That is opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one.
>> 
>> For the record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept to be extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too long. We had trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, meeting length  being one impediment to participation. 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and didn' seems coordinated. so it is fine. 
>> 
>> Fact.
>> 
>> All groups were willing to accept the February 13th date, although it was not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC.
>> 
>> At least that is what I heard.
>> 
>> All CPH groups and the NCSG were willing to go with February 13th. I recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to accept February 13th, in the chat. It was a compromise solution. For most.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
>>> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.
>>> 
>>> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case currently.
>>>  
>> 
>> Correct.
>> 
>> All groups other than the NCUC were willing to accept February 13th.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
>>> August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
>>> indicated they'd be willing to accept February.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option that we can consider. 
>> 
>> The time to consider is over. We need a decision. 
>> 
>> As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need dates. We have lives".
>> 
>> Late April / early May would make the visa situation worse. Those unable to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over may not have enough time to do so for an April meeting; if it is May then South Africa may become a problem and if done completely poorly a date in the middle could impact visa possibilities for both meetings.
>> 
>> In addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, I am told, are heavily scheduled this spring.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>> As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:
>>> 
>>> * Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
>>> helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
>>> Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
>>> total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the location but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden here.
>> 
>> Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the meeting is nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current form. If you want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days is four or five days.
>> 
>> What is the proposed solution that reduces the burden? The only one I've heard is extending the other meetings. Then the term "burden" is one of personal circumstance.
>> 
>> I prefer more and shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. These long meetings wreak havoc on my personal and professional lives in a way shorter meetings do not. 
>> 
>> I understand that my perception and circumstance may be different than others. All are equally valid. None should be considered absolute.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>> * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
>>> but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
>>> people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
>>> anyway, and two months really should be enough.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> with holidays in the middle for many here.
>>>  
>> 
>> What exactly do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the meeting, six weeks is enough prep time and we have more than that.
>> 
>> 
>>> * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
>>> later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
>>> And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
>>> same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
>>> while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really taking this as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is always for the same folks and we have to mindful about this.
>> 
>> 
>> Again, I get it. 
>> 
>> Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I could wave a magic wand and do away with   visas worldwide. I have no such wand. 
>> 
>> The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I personally reject, as above.
>> 
>> I'll offer another one: do the meeting remotely. No travel, no visa.
>> 
>> I'd happily support this proposal as a way of reducing the visa and travel burdens and expanding the possibility of participation for all.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>> * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
>>> compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
>>> (For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
>>> probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
>>> vetoed that anyway.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close. 
>> 
>> Opinion, not fact.
>> 
>> It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and then March and then have a break until
>> June than it is to have one in March, one in April/May, one in June.
>> 
>> YMMV.
>> 
>> 
>>> .  
>>> * Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
>>> realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
>>> seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.
>>> 
>>> no opinion for this.
>>>  
>>> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.
>>> 
>>> Have I missed or misunderstood something?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have to weigh all options.
>> 
>> We need a decision, not options.
>> 
>> Options were weighed on the call. A decision should have been made. One was not.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> fine with polling.
>> 
>> Me too! Glad we agree!
>> 
>> Should we poll just on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing it only in a remote fashion be included as options, who should be polled: the PC or likely meeting invitees?
>> 
>> I'm flexible on all of this and will support whatever option the majority want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We may want to poll not only on 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend if'...
>> 
>> For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend an April/May meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from four to seven days or be able to attend an August/September meeting.
>> 
>> The thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are nothing more than personal preferences. In such an instance polling makes sense. Good idea, Rafik, and one I support.
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>>> 
>>> > + 1 Ed
>>> >
>>> > The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
>>> >
>>> > Matthew
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> > > Hi Tapani,
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > > > April-May option may also still be brought up.
>>> > > > Any opinions of that possibility?
>>> > > That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
>>> > >
>>> > > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
>>> > >
>>> > > 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
>>> > > as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
>>> > >
>>> > > 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
>>> > > > -
>>> > > > anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
>>> > > Not really.
>>> > >
>>> > > > Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
>>> > > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
>>> > > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
>>> > > > would be welcome.)
>>> > > >
>>> > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Ed Morris
>>> > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > Tapani Tarvainen
>>> > > >
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > ------------
>>> > Matthew Shears
>>> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> > + 44 771 2472987
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From egmorris1  Wed Nov 23 12:57:02 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 05:57:02 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <99A1D87A-BE0F-4073-9FE7-9CE678548FE1@egyptig.org>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnAM5ZsQqFdPTodr5rFxkz1kJ--9GzqvYbSWxLKzUQU=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<75CDD82A-91F8-4557-9970-8D9379B0675C@toast.net>
	<99A1D87A-BE0F-4073-9FE7-9CE678548FE1@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <7ed5b97a691444a7b40b213a2dc17e5f@toast.net>

Hi Amr,
  
 Is there a location that is easy for you, Rafik, Farzi, Poncelet, and other visa challenged folks to gain admission to?
  
 I'm a bit of a newbie in visa issues but I really want to predicate our site selection as being a location that is as easy as possible for all to get to and get into?
  
 I might be looking for a magic kingdom that does not exist but...for example, as March is in Copenhagen would it be easier if the meeting in February or April/May is in a Schengen country (the thought being one could apply for both visas at once), in Denmark itself or...
  
 I may be reaching but is there something we could do that would make things easier for everyone? 
  
 Thanks,
  
 Ed
  
  
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:46 AM
To: "PC-NCSG" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional   
Hi, Istanbul is a no-go for me. I actually need a special permit from State Security in Egypt to travel to Turkey, which is virtually impossible to get. I wouldn?t even consider applying for it for an intersessional meeting. Anyway?, I really appreciate all the effort that has gone in to trying to work these issues out, especially on behalf of those who have visa considerations to be taken account of. It seems to me that my personal case complicates matters far more than is desirable. I?ve never made it to an intersessional meeting, and it?s never impacted my work or participation in any way, so really don?t care if I don?t make it to the next one either. So Tapani, Ed and Rafik?, thanks for the effort fellas, but as far as I?m concerned, I think I prefer to plan ahead by planning to not attend the meeting. I hope this does at least a little in helping with the planning!! :) Thanks again. Amr > On Nov 23, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote: > > Hi Rafik, > > I completely agree with everything you have written (below). > > It appears that site selection could solve many of the problems with the F2F meeting (which I continue to believe we don't need) you have highlighted. My understanding is that Turkey would largely eliminate visa problems for many of our participants. > > As Istanbul is an ICANN hub staff is already posted there and ICANN meetings has experience dealing with local meeting sites. > > Should we propose Istanbul as the meeting site to alleviate many problems associated with the other proposed sites? > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 23 Nov 2016, at 09:00, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> as I said polling would give more clarity about the position of everyone . >> I will also to highlight that we are having now like in hyderabad several meetings with CSG so we need to reconsider how that fits with the intersessional and if we really need all these as matter of efficiency. for example we could sort-out the procedural part of vice-chair election basically by emails and having group of volunteers to draft. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2016-11-23 17:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>: >> Hi, >> >> Facts. >> >> I went on this call and heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa problems" or "travel problems". >> >> Correct. >> >> And it really is not fair. I get it. >> >> Life generally is not fair. >> >> The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa and travel problems would be to make the South Africa meeting longer. >> >> Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just implemented. >> >> Meeting B. The short one. DOA. >> >> If that is the only option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to the meeting policy, developed over time in a bottom up multi stakeholder manner, is more important than an intercessional meeting; the process of adding to meeting B would invariably start a trend to making meeting B the same length as every other meeting. Once we do it ALAC would do it etc. >> >> That is opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one. >> >> For the record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept to be extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too long. We had trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, meeting length being one impediment to participation. >> >> >>> >>> >>> I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and didn' seems coordinated. so it is fine. >> >> Fact. >> >> All groups were willing to accept the February 13th date, although it was not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC. >> >> At least that is what I heard. >> >> All CPH groups and the NCSG were willing to go with February 13th. I recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to accept February 13th, in the chat. It was a compromise solution. For most. >> >> >> >>> >>> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody), >>> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise. >>> >>> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case currently. >>> >> >> Correct. >> >> All groups other than the NCUC were willing to accept February 13th. >> >> >> >>> I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that >>> August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also >>> indicated they'd be willing to accept February. >>> >>> >>> I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option that we can consider. >> >> The time to consider is over. We need a decision. >> >> As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need dates. We have lives". >> >> Late April / early May would make the visa situation worse. Those unable to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over may not have enough time to do so for an April meeting; if it is May then South Africa may become a problem and if done completely poorly a date in the middle could impact visa possibilities for both meetings. >> >> In addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, I am told, are heavily scheduled this spring. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> As far as I can tell, the main points against it are: >>> >>> * Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be >>> helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or >>> Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in >>> total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August. >>> >>> >>> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the location but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden here. >> >> Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the meeting is nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current form. If you want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days is four or five days. >> >> What is the proposed solution that reduces the burden? The only one I've heard is extending the other meetings. Then the term "burden" is one of personal circumstance. >> >> I prefer more and shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. These long meetings wreak havoc on my personal and professional lives in a way shorter meetings do not. >> >> I understand that my perception and circumstance may be different than others. All are equally valid. None should be considered absolute. >> >> >> >>> >>> * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare >>> but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help - >>> people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer >>> anyway, and two months really should be enough. >>> >>> >>> with holidays in the middle for many here. >>> >> >> What exactly do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the meeting, six weeks is enough prep time and we have more than that. >> >> >>> * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier >>> later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter. >>> And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the >>> same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places), >>> while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa. >>> >>> >>> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really taking this as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is always for the same folks and we have to mindful about this. >> >> >> Again, I get it. >> >> Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I could wave a magic wand and do away with visas worldwide. I have no such wand. >> >> The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I personally reject, as above. >> >> I'll offer another one: do the meeting remotely. No travel, no visa. >> >> I'd happily support this proposal as a way of reducing the visa and travel burdens and expanding the possibility of participation for all. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best >>> compromise, April and August are much busier for most people. >>> (For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I >>> probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already >>> vetoed that anyway.) >>> >>> >>> April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close. >> >> Opinion, not fact. >> >> It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and then March and then have a break until >> June than it is to have one in March, one in April/May, one in June. >> >> YMMV. >> >> >>> . >>> * Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any >>> realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but - >>> seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors. >>> >>> no opinion for this. >>> >>> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice. >>> >>> Have I missed or misunderstood something? >>> >>> >>> as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have to weigh all options. >> >> We need a decision, not options. >> >> Options were weighed on the call. A decision should have been made. One was not. >> >>> >>> Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help? >>> >>> >>> fine with polling. >> >> Me too! Glad we agree! >> >> Should we poll just on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing it only in a remote fashion be included as options, who should be polled: the PC or likely meeting invitees? >> >> I'm flexible on all of this and will support whatever option the majority want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We may want to poll not only on 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend if'... >> >> For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend an April/May meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from four to seven days or be able to attend an August/September meeting. >> >> The thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are nothing more than personal preferences. In such an instance polling makes sense. Good idea, Rafik, and one I support. >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote: >>> >>> > + 1 Ed >>> > >>> > The Feb timeframe makes most sense. >>> > >>> > Matthew >>> > >>> > >>> > On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote: >>> > > Hi Tapani, >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > April-May option may also still be brought up. >>> > > > Any opinions of that possibility? >>> > > That timing would not be good from a few perspectives. >>> > > >>> > > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings. March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees. >>> > > >>> > > 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well >>> > > as the SG PC, together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date. >>> > > >>> > > 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective, it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time. >>> > > > - >>> > > > anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable? >>> > > Not really. >>> > > >>> > > > Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating >>> > > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails, >>> > > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group >>> > > > would be welcome.) >>> > > > >>> > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Ed Morris >>> > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > Tapani Tarvainen >>> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > -- >>> > ------------ >>> > Matthew Shears >>> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >>> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >>> > + 44 771 2472987 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161123/afec96cf/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Wed Nov 23 12:59:12 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:59:12 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <99A1D87A-BE0F-4073-9FE7-9CE678548FE1@egyptig.org>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnAM5ZsQqFdPTodr5rFxkz1kJ--9GzqvYbSWxLKzUQU=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<75CDD82A-91F8-4557-9970-8D9379B0675C@toast.net>
	<99A1D87A-BE0F-4073-9FE7-9CE678548FE1@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20161123105911.GD31636@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Hi Amr,

Istanbul is apparently no-go for everyone at the moment as far
as ICANN is concerned. (For me it'd of course be the easiest
possible location, same timezone and all.)

Otherwise, the visa problem affects several people, and I hope you
will not make a decision about attending before we know where and when
the intersessional will be. It would be good to have you there,
especially after you missed Hyderabad, too.

Tapani

On Nov 23 12:48, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Istanbul is a no-go for me. I actually need a special permit from State Security in Egypt to travel to Turkey, which is virtually impossible to get. I wouldn?t even consider applying for it for an intersessional meeting.
> 
> Anyway?, I really appreciate all the effort that has gone in to trying to work these issues out, especially on behalf of those who have visa considerations to be taken account of. It seems to me that my personal case complicates matters far more than is desirable. I?ve never made it to an intersessional meeting, and it?s never impacted my work or participation in any way, so really don?t care if I don?t make it to the next one either.
> 
> So Tapani, Ed and Rafik?, thanks for the effort fellas, but as far as I?m concerned, I think I prefer to plan ahead by planning to not attend the meeting. I hope this does at least a little in helping with the planning!! :)
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> 
> > On Nov 23, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Rafik,
> > 
> > I completely agree with everything you have written (below).
> > 
> > It appears that site selection could solve many of the problems with the F2F meeting (which I continue to believe we don't need) you have highlighted. My understanding is that Turkey would largely eliminate visa problems for many of our participants.
> > 
> > As Istanbul is an ICANN hub staff is already posted there and ICANN meetings has experience dealing with local meeting sites.
> > 
> > Should we propose Istanbul as the meeting site to alleviate many problems associated with the other proposed sites?
> > 
> > Ed
> > 
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > 
> > On 23 Nov 2016, at 09:00, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> as I said polling would give more clarity about the position of everyone .
> >> I will also to highlight that we are having now like in hyderabad several meetings with CSG so we need to reconsider how that fits with the intersessional and if we really need all these as matter of efficiency. for example we could sort-out the procedural part of vice-chair election basically by emails and having group of volunteers to draft.
> >> 
> >> Best,
> >> 
> >> Rafik
> >> 
> >> 2016-11-23 17:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> Facts.
> >> 
> >> I went on this call and heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa problems" or "travel problems".
> >> 
> >> Correct.
> >> 
> >> And it really is not fair. I get it.
> >> 
> >> Life generally is not fair.
> >> 
> >> The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa and travel problems would be to make the South Africa meeting longer.
> >> 
> >> Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just implemented.
> >> 
> >> Meeting B. The short one. DOA.
> >> 
> >> If that is the only option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to the meeting policy, developed over time in a bottom up multi stakeholder  manner, is more important than an intercessional meeting; the process of adding to meeting B would invariably start a trend to making meeting B the same length as every other meeting. Once we do it ALAC would do it etc.
> >> 
> >> That is opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one.
> >> 
> >> For the record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept to be extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too long. We had trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, meeting length  being one impediment to participation. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and didn' seems coordinated. so it is fine. 
> >> 
> >> Fact.
> >> 
> >> All groups were willing to accept the February 13th date, although it was not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC.
> >> 
> >> At least that is what I heard.
> >> 
> >> All CPH groups and the NCSG were willing to go with February 13th. I recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to accept February 13th, in the chat. It was a compromise solution. For most.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>  
> >>> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
> >>> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.
> >>> 
> >>> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case currently.
> >>>  
> >> 
> >> Correct.
> >> 
> >> All groups other than the NCUC were willing to accept February 13th.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
> >>> August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
> >>> indicated they'd be willing to accept February.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option that we can consider. 
> >> 
> >> The time to consider is over. We need a decision. 
> >> 
> >> As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need dates. We have lives".
> >> 
> >> Late April / early May would make the visa situation worse. Those unable to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over may not have enough time to do so for an April meeting; if it is May then South Africa may become a problem and if done completely poorly a date in the middle could impact visa possibilities for both meetings.
> >> 
> >> In addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, I am told, are heavily scheduled this spring.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>  
> >>> As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:
> >>> 
> >>> * Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
> >>> helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
> >>> Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
> >>> total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the location but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden here.
> >> 
> >> Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the meeting is nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current form. If you want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days is four or five days.
> >> 
> >> What is the proposed solution that reduces the burden? The only one I've heard is extending the other meetings. Then the term "burden" is one of personal circumstance.
> >> 
> >> I prefer more and shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. These long meetings wreak havoc on my personal and professional lives in a way shorter meetings do not. 
> >> 
> >> I understand that my perception and circumstance may be different than others. All are equally valid. None should be considered absolute.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>  
> >>> * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
> >>> but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
> >>> people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
> >>> anyway, and two months really should be enough.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> with holidays in the middle for many here.
> >>>  
> >> 
> >> What exactly do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the meeting, six weeks is enough prep time and we have more than that.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
> >>> later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
> >>> And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
> >>> same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
> >>> while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really taking this as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is always for the same folks and we have to mindful about this.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Again, I get it. 
> >> 
> >> Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I could wave a magic wand and do away with   visas worldwide. I have no such wand. 
> >> 
> >> The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I personally reject, as above.
> >> 
> >> I'll offer another one: do the meeting remotely. No travel, no visa.
> >> 
> >> I'd happily support this proposal as a way of reducing the visa and travel burdens and expanding the possibility of participation for all.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>  
> >>> * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
> >>> compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
> >>> (For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
> >>> probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
> >>> vetoed that anyway.)
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close. 
> >> 
> >> Opinion, not fact.
> >> 
> >> It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and then March and then have a break until
> >> June than it is to have one in March, one in April/May, one in June.
> >> 
> >> YMMV.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> .  
> >>> * Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
> >>> realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
> >>> seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.
> >>> 
> >>> no opinion for this.
> >>>  
> >>> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.
> >>> 
> >>> Have I missed or misunderstood something?
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have to weigh all options.
> >> 
> >> We need a decision, not options.
> >> 
> >> Options were weighed on the call. A decision should have been made. One was not.
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?
> >>> 
> >>>  
> >>> fine with polling.
> >> 
> >> Me too! Glad we agree!
> >> 
> >> Should we poll just on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing it only in a remote fashion be included as options, who should be polled: the PC or likely meeting invitees?
> >> 
> >> I'm flexible on all of this and will support whatever option the majority want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We may want to poll not only on 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend if'...
> >> 
> >> For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend an April/May meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from four to seven days or be able to attend an August/September meeting.
> >> 
> >> The thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are nothing more than personal preferences. In such an instance polling makes sense. Good idea, Rafik, and one I support.
> >> 
> >> Ed
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Best,
> >>> 
> >>> Rafik 
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> > + 1 Ed
> >>> >
> >>> > The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
> >>> >
> >>> > Matthew
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
> >>> > > Hi Tapani,
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > > April-May option may also still be brought up.
> >>> > > > Any opinions of that possibility?
> >>> > > That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
> >>> > > as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
> >>> > > > -
> >>> > > > anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
> >>> > > Not really.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
> >>> > > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
> >>> > > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
> >>> > > > would be welcome.)
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Ed Morris
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > --
> >>> > > > Tapani Tarvainen
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > _______________________________________________
> >>> > > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> > >
> >>> > > _______________________________________________
> >>> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > ------------
> >>> > Matthew Shears
> >>> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >>> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >>> > + 44 771 2472987
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-- 
Yli-insin??ri Tapani Tarvainen         
Informaatioteknologian tiedekunta, PL 35, 40014 Jyv?skyl?n yliopisto
puh. 050-3130446, fax  014-2602771, email tapani.j.tarvainen at jyu.fi




From pileleji  Wed Nov 23 13:29:11 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:29:11 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <7ed5b97a691444a7b40b213a2dc17e5f@toast.net>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnAM5ZsQqFdPTodr5rFxkz1kJ--9GzqvYbSWxLKzUQU=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<75CDD82A-91F8-4557-9970-8D9379B0675C@toast.net>
	<99A1D87A-BE0F-4073-9FE7-9CE678548FE1@egyptig.org>
	<7ed5b97a691444a7b40b213a2dc17e5f@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAEux40sNbdEZ_tvy3xWJrHPskC3S_pqcMO6tUb48Bvc1O=-d8g@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ed,

Definitely your points are well noted, the USA was a no go for me, based on
my last experience for two days in LA and travel time etc basically two
days on traveling etc, I think personally visa challenges will always exist
its the time factor hence we need a head start, but its obvious Schegen
countries look appropriate even the United Kingdom.  Since ICANN has
offices in Turkey and Brussels to me those could have been  obvious
choices, but based on Amr / Tapani statement, seems Turkey should be ruled
out, but what of Brussels as it has an ICANN office,easier for logistics to
me, I really do not know how Iceland came about especially since we going
to be in the Nordic region in March 2017, am sure though it has its merit.

Just my thought, however location is secondary now, till we agree on a
Date, then we can have a location which from discuss now is definitely a
Schegen country

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 23 November 2016 at 10:57, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
>
> Is there a location that is easy for you, Rafik, Farzi, Poncelet, and
> other visa challenged folks to gain admission to?
>
> I'm a bit of a newbie in visa issues but I really want to predicate our
> site selection as being a location that is as easy as possible for all to
> get to and get into?
>
> I might be looking for a magic kingdom that does not exist but...for
> example, as March is in Copenhagen would it be easier if the meeting in
> February or April/May is in a Schengen country (the thought being one could
> apply for both visas at once), in Denmark itself or...
>
> I may be reaching but is there something we could do that would make
> things easier for everyone?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:46 AM
> *To*: "PC-NCSG" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
>
> Hi, Istanbul is a no-go for me. I actually need a special permit from
> State Security in Egypt to travel to Turkey, which is virtually impossible
> to get. I wouldn?t even consider applying for it for an intersessional
> meeting. Anyway?, I really appreciate all the effort that has gone in to
> trying to work these issues out, especially on behalf of those who have
> visa considerations to be taken account of. It seems to me that my personal
> case complicates matters far more than is desirable. I?ve never made it to
> an intersessional meeting, and it?s never impacted my work or participation
> in any way, so really don?t care if I don?t make it to the next one either.
> So Tapani, Ed and Rafik?, thanks for the effort fellas, but as far as I?m
> concerned, I think I prefer to plan ahead by planning to not attend the
> meeting. I hope this does at least a little in helping with the planning!!
> :) Thanks again. Amr > On Nov 23, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Edward Morris <
> egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote: > > Hi Rafik, > > I completely agree with
> everything you have written (below). > > It appears that site selection
> could solve many of the problems with the F2F meeting (which I continue to
> believe we don't need) you have highlighted. My understanding is that
> Turkey would largely eliminate visa problems for many of our participants.
> > > As Istanbul is an ICANN hub staff is already posted there and ICANN
> meetings has experience dealing with local meeting sites. > > Should we
> propose Istanbul as the meeting site to alleviate many problems associated
> with the other proposed sites? > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 23 Nov
> 2016, at 09:00, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >>
> >> as I said polling would give more clarity about the position of everyone
> . >> I will also to highlight that we are having now like in hyderabad
> several meetings with CSG so we need to reconsider how that fits with the
> intersessional and if we really need all these as matter of efficiency. for
> example we could sort-out the procedural part of vice-chair election
> basically by emails and having group of volunteers to draft. >> >> Best, >>
> >> Rafik >> >> 2016-11-23 17:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <
> egmorris1 at toast.net>: >> Hi, >> >> Facts. >> >> I went on this call and
> heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa problems" or "travel problems". >>
> >> Correct. >> >> And it really is not fair. I get it. >> >> Life generally
> is not fair. >> >> The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa
> and travel problems would be to make the South Africa meeting longer. >> >>
> Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just
> implemented. >> >> Meeting B. The short one. DOA. >> >> If that is the only
> option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to the meeting policy,
> developed over time in a bottom up multi stakeholder manner, is more
> important than an intercessional meeting; the process of adding to meeting
> B would invariably start a trend to making meeting B the same length as
> every other meeting. Once we do it ALAC would do it etc. >> >> That is
> opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one. >> >> For the
> record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept to be
> extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too long. We had
> trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, meeting length being one
> impediment to participation. >> >> >>> >>> >>> I think other constituencies
> in CSG expressed different opinions and didn' seems coordinated. so it is
> fine. >> >> Fact. >> >> All groups were willing to accept the February 13th
> date, although it was not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC.
> >> >> At least that is what I heard. >> >> All CPH groups and the NCSG were
> willing to go with February 13th. I recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to
> accept February 13th, in the chat. It was a compromise solution. For most.
> >> >> >> >>> >>> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even
> anybody), >>> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise. >>> >>> if
> we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case
> currently. >>> >> >> Correct. >> >> All groups other than the NCUC were
> willing to accept February 13th. >> >> >> >>> I tend to agree with Ed and
> Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that >>> August is election time for
> council and NCSG), and CSG has also >>> indicated they'd be willing to
> accept February. >>> >>> >>> I am not sure that is the case I would wait
> for the recordings to double-check since new options popped-up. also
> April/May is an option that we can consider. >> >> The time to consider is
> over. We need a decision. >> >> As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need
> dates. We have lives". >> >> Late April / early May would make the visa
> situation worse. Those unable to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over
> may not have enough time to do so for an April meeting; if it is May then
> South Africa may become a problem and if done completely poorly a date in
> the middle could impact visa possibilities for both meetings. >> >> In
> addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, I am
> told, are heavily scheduled this spring. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> As far as I
> can tell, the main points against it are: >>> >>> * Too much total travel
> time. That is definitely true but can't be >>> helped now, attaching the
> intersessional to either Copenhagen or >>> Johannesburg is not going to
> happen, and there's no difference in >>> total travel time whether we meet
> in February, April or August. >>> >>> >>> the point is not just about the
> travel itself which depends of the location but the fact that is 4 or 5
> extra days in addition to ICANN meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden
> here. >> >> Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the
> meeting is nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current
> form. If you want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days
> is four or five days. >> >> What is the proposed solution that reduces the
> burden? The only one I've heard is extending the other meetings. Then the
> term "burden" is one of personal circumstance. >> >> I prefer more and
> shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. These long meetings wreak
> havoc on my personal and professional lives in a way shorter meetings do
> not. >> >> I understand that my perception and circumstance may be
> different than others. All are equally valid. None should be considered
> absolute. >> >> >> >>> >>> * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've
> had all year to prepare >>> but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect
> more time would help - >>> people simply won't start doing much until the
> meeting is closer >>> anyway, and two months really should be enough. >>>
> >>> >>> with holidays in the middle for many here. >>> >> >> What exactly
> do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the meeting, six weeks is
> enough prep time and we have more than that. >> >> >>> * Visa problems. As
> far as I can see, they would not get any easier >>> later, more likely
> worse as the time between meetings will be shorter. >>> And it may be
> possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the >>> same time
> (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places), >>> while that
> definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa. >>> >>> >>> that is
> assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed yet . so
> the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really taking this
> as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is always for the
> same folks and we have to mindful about this. >> >> >> Again, I get it. >>
> >> Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I
> could wave a magic wand and do away with visas worldwide. I have no such
> wand. >> >> The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I
> personally reject, as above. >> >> I'll offer another one: do the meeting
> remotely. No travel, no visa. >> >> I'd happily support this proposal as a
> way of reducing the visa and travel burdens and expanding the possibility
> of participation for all. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> * Scheduling conflicts.
> Again, mid-February seems to be the best >>> compromise, April and August
> are much busier for most people. >>> (For my part I could manage any of
> them. The only alternative I >>> probably could not make is tacked on to
> Copenhagen, but ISPs already >>> vetoed that anyway.) >>> >>> >>> April/May
> still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks before
> ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close. >> >> Opinion, not fact. >>
> >> It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and then
> March and then have a break until >> June than it is to have one in March,
> one in April/May, one in June. >> >> YMMV. >> >> >>> . >>> * Weather and
> climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any >>> realistic
> alternative would be nicer in April or August, but - >>> seriously? It's
> not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors. >>> >>> no opinion for
> this. >>> >>> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice. >>>
> >>> Have I missed or misunderstood something? >>> >>> >>> as I commented
> above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have to weigh all
> options. >> >> We need a decision, not options. >> >> Options were weighed
> on the call. A decision should have been made. One was not. >> >>> >>> Can
> we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help? >>> >>> >>>
> fine with polling. >> >> Me too! Glad we agree! >> >> Should we poll just
> on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing it only in a remote
> fashion be included as options, who should be polled: the PC or likely
> meeting invitees? >> >> I'm flexible on all of this and will support
> whatever option the majority want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We
> may want to poll not only on 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend
> if'... >> >> For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend
> an April/May meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from four
> to seven days or be able to attend an August/September meeting. >> >> The
> thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are nothing more
> than personal preferences. In such an instance polling makes sense. Good
> idea, Rafik, and one I support. >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>>
> Rafik >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (
> mshears at cdt.org) wrote: >>> >>> > + 1 Ed >>> > >>> > The Feb timeframe
> makes most sense. >>> > >>> > Matthew >>> > >>> > >>> > On 22/11/2016
> 09:19, Edward Morris wrote: >>> > > Hi Tapani, >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >
> April-May option may also still be brought up. >>> > > > Any opinions of
> that possibility? >>> > > That timing would not be good from a few
> perspectives. >>> > > >>> > > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks,
> including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings. March,
> April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with
> jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without
> families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees. >>> > > >>> > >
> 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the
> intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise
> ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the
> year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder
> group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
> >>> > > as the SG PC, together for the first time to plan things for the
> year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4
> or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes
> than the earlier meeting date. >>> > > >>> > > 3. For this year, from a
> scheduling perspective, it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in
> June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April
> through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from
> completing this important project, one that involves many of those who
> otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily
> involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at
> this new proposed time. >>> > > > - >>> > > > anybody now who'd see find it
> good or even acceptable? >>> > > Not really. >>> > > >>> > > > Another
> point: if some of you would be interested in participating >>> > > > in the
> planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails, >>> > > >
> please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group >>> > >
> > would be welcome.) >>> > > > >>> > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to
> do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it
> has been in past years. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Ed Morris >>> > > >>> > > >
> -- >>> > > > Tapani Tarvainen >>> > > > >>> > > >
> _______________________________________________ >>> > > > PC-NCSG mailing
> list >>> > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > > >
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > > >>> > >
> _______________________________________________ >>> > > PC-NCSG mailing
> list >>> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/
> listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > -- >>> > ------------ >>> > Matthew Shears
> >>> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >>> > Center for Democracy &
> Technology (CDT) >>> > + 44 771 2472987 >>> >>>
> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/
> listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >
> _______________________________________________ > 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
>
>


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






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161123/63a469ca/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 23 13:59:16 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:59:16 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <20161123105911.GD31636@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThnAM5ZsQqFdPTodr5rFxkz1kJ--9GzqvYbSWxLKzUQU=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<75CDD82A-91F8-4557-9970-8D9379B0675C@toast.net>
	<99A1D87A-BE0F-4073-9FE7-9CE678548FE1@egyptig.org>
	<20161123105911.GD31636@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <D4B81987-0841-46CD-AC27-33562CA572CA@egyptig.org>

Hi Ed, Tapani,

I can?t think of any locations that are easy. All require time to process visa application (6-8 weeks, if not longer). There are some that are exceptionally difficult, like Turkey, for reasons beyond visas.

Iceland is an interesting idea because of the point Tapani raised earlier. I was not aware that one could apply for a visa to Iceland from a Danish Consulate. Tapani floated the idea past me yesterday off-list, and I am certainly intrigued (thanks for that, Tapani). However, it would still only work if 1) CT managed to provide paperwork for two visa applications simultaneously, and 2) The Danish Consulate in Cairo agrees to process two visa applications for me at once. Schengen visas are only issues here in Cairo for the exact duration of stay in a Schengen country, so I can?t apply for one that would allow me multiple entries in February and then March?, at least not to my knowledge. And applying for them separately would probably mean that I won?t have my passport on hand for a total of at least 12 weeks, and I would likely as a result miss both meetings altogether.

The thing is, though, I?ve never made it to an intersessional because of tight timelines that do not accommodate for time required for visa applications. Not once. But it never felt like my participation was terribly necessary, and I?m quite sure that my absence has never interfered with my duties on Council. At the end of the day, these are NCPH meetings, not GNSO meetings.

So if my non-participation makes the planning process a little easier, I don?t see any reason why I shouldn?t just plan to not attend. Can you think of a reason why my presence may be required? I?m confident that others who are present can contribute as effectively as I would, if not, more.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Nov 23, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> 
> Istanbul is apparently no-go for everyone at the moment as far
> as ICANN is concerned. (For me it'd of course be the easiest
> possible location, same timezone and all.)
> 
> Otherwise, the visa problem affects several people, and I hope you
> will not make a decision about attending before we know where and when
> the intersessional will be. It would be good to have you there,
> especially after you missed Hyderabad, too.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Nov 23 12:48, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Istanbul is a no-go for me. I actually need a special permit from State Security in Egypt to travel to Turkey, which is virtually impossible to get. I wouldn?t even consider applying for it for an intersessional meeting.
>> 
>> Anyway?, I really appreciate all the effort that has gone in to trying to work these issues out, especially on behalf of those who have visa considerations to be taken account of. It seems to me that my personal case complicates matters far more than is desirable. I?ve never made it to an intersessional meeting, and it?s never impacted my work or participation in any way, so really don?t care if I don?t make it to the next one either.
>> 
>> So Tapani, Ed and Rafik?, thanks for the effort fellas, but as far as I?m concerned, I think I prefer to plan ahead by planning to not attend the meeting. I hope this does at least a little in helping with the planning!! :)
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 23, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>> 
>>> I completely agree with everything you have written (below).
>>> 
>>> It appears that site selection could solve many of the problems with the F2F meeting (which I continue to believe we don't need) you have highlighted. My understanding is that Turkey would largely eliminate visa problems for many of our participants.
>>> 
>>> As Istanbul is an ICANN hub staff is already posted there and ICANN meetings has experience dealing with local meeting sites.
>>> 
>>> Should we propose Istanbul as the meeting site to alleviate many problems associated with the other proposed sites?
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 23 Nov 2016, at 09:00, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> as I said polling would give more clarity about the position of everyone .
>>>> I will also to highlight that we are having now like in hyderabad several meetings with CSG so we need to reconsider how that fits with the intersessional and if we really need all these as matter of efficiency. for example we could sort-out the procedural part of vice-chair election basically by emails and having group of volunteers to draft.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 2016-11-23 17:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Facts.
>>>> 
>>>> I went on this call and heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa problems" or "travel problems".
>>>> 
>>>> Correct.
>>>> 
>>>> And it really is not fair. I get it.
>>>> 
>>>> Life generally is not fair.
>>>> 
>>>> The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa and travel problems would be to make the South Africa meeting longer.
>>>> 
>>>> Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just implemented.
>>>> 
>>>> Meeting B. The short one. DOA.
>>>> 
>>>> If that is the only option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to the meeting policy, developed over time in a bottom up multi stakeholder  manner, is more important than an intercessional meeting; the process of adding to meeting B would invariably start a trend to making meeting B the same length as every other meeting. Once we do it ALAC would do it etc.
>>>> 
>>>> That is opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one.
>>>> 
>>>> For the record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept to be extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too long. We had trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, meeting length  being one impediment to participation. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and didn' seems coordinated. so it is fine. 
>>>> 
>>>> Fact.
>>>> 
>>>> All groups were willing to accept the February 13th date, although it was not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC.
>>>> 
>>>> At least that is what I heard.
>>>> 
>>>> All CPH groups and the NCSG were willing to go with February 13th. I recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to accept February 13th, in the chat. It was a compromise solution. For most.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
>>>>> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.
>>>>> 
>>>>> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case currently.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Correct.
>>>> 
>>>> All groups other than the NCUC were willing to accept February 13th.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
>>>>> August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
>>>>> indicated they'd be willing to accept February.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option that we can consider. 
>>>> 
>>>> The time to consider is over. We need a decision. 
>>>> 
>>>> As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need dates. We have lives".
>>>> 
>>>> Late April / early May would make the visa situation worse. Those unable to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over may not have enough time to do so for an April meeting; if it is May then South Africa may become a problem and if done completely poorly a date in the middle could impact visa possibilities for both meetings.
>>>> 
>>>> In addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, I am told, are heavily scheduled this spring.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
>>>>> helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
>>>>> Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
>>>>> total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the location but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden here.
>>>> 
>>>> Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the meeting is nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current form. If you want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days is four or five days.
>>>> 
>>>> What is the proposed solution that reduces the burden? The only one I've heard is extending the other meetings. Then the term "burden" is one of personal circumstance.
>>>> 
>>>> I prefer more and shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. These long meetings wreak havoc on my personal and professional lives in a way shorter meetings do not. 
>>>> 
>>>> I understand that my perception and circumstance may be different than others. All are equally valid. None should be considered absolute.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
>>>>> but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
>>>>> people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
>>>>> anyway, and two months really should be enough.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> with holidays in the middle for many here.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> What exactly do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the meeting, six weeks is enough prep time and we have more than that.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
>>>>> later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
>>>>> And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
>>>>> same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
>>>>> while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really taking this as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is always for the same folks and we have to mindful about this.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Again, I get it. 
>>>> 
>>>> Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I could wave a magic wand and do away with   visas worldwide. I have no such wand. 
>>>> 
>>>> The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I personally reject, as above.
>>>> 
>>>> I'll offer another one: do the meeting remotely. No travel, no visa.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd happily support this proposal as a way of reducing the visa and travel burdens and expanding the possibility of participation for all.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
>>>>> compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
>>>>> (For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
>>>>> probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
>>>>> vetoed that anyway.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close. 
>>>> 
>>>> Opinion, not fact.
>>>> 
>>>> It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and then March and then have a break until
>>>> June than it is to have one in March, one in April/May, one in June.
>>>> 
>>>> YMMV.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> .  
>>>>> * Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
>>>>> realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
>>>>> seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.
>>>>> 
>>>>> no opinion for this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have I missed or misunderstood something?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have to weigh all options.
>>>> 
>>>> We need a decision, not options.
>>>> 
>>>> Options were weighed on the call. A decision should have been made. One was not.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> fine with polling.
>>>> 
>>>> Me too! Glad we agree!
>>>> 
>>>> Should we poll just on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing it only in a remote fashion be included as options, who should be polled: the PC or likely meeting invitees?
>>>> 
>>>> I'm flexible on all of this and will support whatever option the majority want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We may want to poll not only on 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend if'...
>>>> 
>>>> For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend an April/May meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from four to seven days or be able to attend an August/September meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> The thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are nothing more than personal preferences. In such an instance polling makes sense. Good idea, Rafik, and one I support.
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> + 1 Ed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Tapani,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> April-May option may also still be brought up.
>>>>>>>> Any opinions of that possibility?
>>>>>>> That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
>>>>>>> as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
>>>>>>> Not really.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
>>>>>>>> in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
>>>>>>>> please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
>>>>>>>> would be welcome.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ed Morris
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>> + 44 771 2472987
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Yli-insin??ri Tapani Tarvainen         
> Informaatioteknologian tiedekunta, PL 35, 40014 Jyv?skyl?n yliopisto
> puh. 050-3130446, fax  014-2602771, email tapani.j.tarvainen at jyu.fi
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mshears  Wed Nov 23 12:01:24 2016
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:01:24 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional
In-Reply-To: <D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
References: <20161122073639.gfqsx7bg6klj7pjo@tarvainen.info>
	<18BFB1AB-BF50-47AE-AA10-00E1E81E5184@toast.net>
	<729e0255-1159-3fe2-4bf1-8efe25c8a50e@cdt.org>
	<20161123061138.ul7u7rdq36xno4un@tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sThkK-Z3-Zh=ok7L0bckLo6DvQoZz5ODruN6EsJwPhyhHNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0E4B332-4426-45C2-A33C-2A4E0EACBD1B@toast.net>
Message-ID: <b590cefc-2023-c661-6fc5-29d9843ffcb5@cdt.org>

+ 1 Ed

If we can't agree on a date then lets just go with the date that others 
can agree on (which I assume is the Feb date Ed refers to below).  At 
least then we know what we are working with and can try and make it as 
doable and useful as possible.

Matthew


On 23/11/2016 08:39, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Facts.
>
> I went on this call and heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa 
> problems" or "travel problems".
>
> Correct.
>
> And it really is not fair. I get it.
>
> Life generally is not fair.
>
> The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa and travel 
> problems would be to make the South Africa meeting longer.
>
> Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just 
> implemented.
>
> Meeting B. The short one. DOA.
>
> If that is the only option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to 
> the meeting policy, developed over time in a bottom up multi 
> stakeholder  manner, is more important than an intercessional meeting; 
> the process of adding to meeting B would invariably start a trend to 
> making meeting B the same length as every other meeting. Once we do it 
> ALAC would do it etc.
>
> That is opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one.
>
> For the record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept 
> to be extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too 
> long. We had trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, 
> meeting length  being one impediment to participation.
>
>
>>
>>
>> I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and 
>> didn' seems coordinated. so it is fine.
>
> Fact.
>
> All groups were willing to accept the February 13th date, although it 
> was not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC.
>
> At least that is what I heard.
>
> All CPH groups and the NCSG were willing to go with February 13th. I 
> recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to accept February 13th, in the 
> chat. It was a compromise solution. For most.
>
>
>
>>     No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
>>     we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.
>>
>> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case 
>> currently.
>
> Correct.
>
> All groups other than the NCUC were willing to accept February 13th.
>
>
>
>>     I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
>>     August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
>>     indicated they'd be willing to accept February.
>>
>>
>> I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to 
>> double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option 
>> that we can consider.
>
> The time to consider is over. We need a decision.
>
> As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need dates. We have lives".
>
> Late April / early May would make the visa situation worse. Those 
> unable to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over may not have 
> enough time to do so for an April meeting; if it is May then South 
> Africa may become a problem and if done completely poorly a date in 
> the middle could impact visa possibilities for both meetings.
>
> In addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, 
> I am told, are heavily scheduled this spring.
>
>
>
>
>>     As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:
>>
>>     * Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
>>     helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
>>     Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
>>     total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.
>>
>>
>> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the 
>> location but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN 
>> meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden here.
>
> Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the meeting is 
> nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current form. 
> If you want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days 
> is four or five days.
>
> What is the proposed solution that reduces the burden? The only one 
> I've heard is extending the other meetings. Then the term "burden" is 
> one of personal circumstance.
>
> I prefer more and shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. 
> These long meetings wreak havoc on my personal and professional lives 
> in a way shorter meetings do not.
>
> I understand that my perception and circumstance may be different than 
> others. All are equally valid. None should be considered absolute.
>
>
>
>>     * Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to
>>     prepare
>>     but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
>>     people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
>>     anyway, and two months really should be enough.
>>
>>
>> with holidays in the middle for many here.
>
> What exactly do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the 
> meeting, six weeks is enough prep time and we have more than that.
>
>
>>     * Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
>>     later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be
>>     shorter.
>>     And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland
>>     at the
>>     same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many
>>     places),
>>     while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.
>>
>>
>> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something 
>> agreed yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I 
>> am really taking this as matter of principle because the burden of 
>> visa issues is always for the same folks and we have to mindful about 
>> this.
>
>
> Again, I get it.
>
> Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I 
> could wave a magic wand and do away with   visas worldwide. I have no 
> such wand.
>
> The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I 
> personally reject, as above.
>
> I'll offer another one: do the meeting remotely. No travel, no visa.
>
> I'd happily support this proposal as a way of reducing the visa and 
> travel burdens and expanding the possibility of participation for all.
>
>
>
>
>>     * Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
>>     compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
>>     (For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
>>     probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
>>     vetoed that anyway.)
>>
>>
>> April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 
>> weeks before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close.
>
> Opinion, not fact.
>
> It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and 
> then March and then have a break until
> June than it is to have one in March, one in April/May, one in June.
>
> YMMV.
>
>
>> .
>>
>>     * Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
>>     realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
>>     seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.
>>
>> no opinion for this.
>>
>>     So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.
>>
>>     Have I missed or misunderstood something?
>>
>>
>> as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we 
>> have to weigh all options.
>
> We need a decision, not options.
>
> Options were weighed on the call. A decision should have been made. 
> One was not.
>
>>
>>     Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?
>>
>> fine with polling.
>
> Me too! Glad we agree!
>
> Should we poll just on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing 
> it only in a remote fashion be included as options, who should be 
> polled: the PC or likely meeting invitees?
>
> I'm flexible on all of this and will support whatever option the 
> majority want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We may want to 
> poll not only on 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend if'...
>
> For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend an 
> April/May meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from 
> four to seven days or be able to attend an August/September meeting.
>
> The thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are 
> nothing more than personal preferences. In such an instance polling 
> makes sense. Good idea, Rafik, and one I support.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears
>>     (mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>) wrote:
>>
>>     > + 1 Ed
>>     >
>>     > The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
>>     >
>>     > Matthew
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris wrote:
>>     > > Hi Tapani,
>>     > >
>>     > >
>>     > > > > April-May option may also still be brought up.
>>     > > > Any opinions of that possibility?
>>     > > That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
>>     > >
>>     > > 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel,
>>     in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May
>>     and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with
>>     jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people
>>     without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
>>     > >
>>     > > 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects
>>     of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows
>>     us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period
>>     comes at the start of the year and follows some of our
>>     constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment
>>     period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
>>     > > as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for
>>     the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the
>>     year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal
>>     coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
>>     > >
>>     > > 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's
>>     horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under
>>     intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June
>>     periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from
>>     completing this important project, one that involves many of
>>     those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who
>>     are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend
>>     an intersession at this new proposed time.
>>     > > > -
>>     > > > anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
>>     > > Not really.
>>     > >
>>     > > > Another point: if some of you would be interested in
>>     participating
>>     > > > in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and
>>     emails,
>>     > > > please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per
>>     community group
>>     > > > would be welcome.)
>>     > > >
>>     > > I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try
>>     to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in
>>     past years.
>>     > >
>>     > >
>>     > > Ed Morris
>>     > >
>>     > > > --
>>     > > > Tapani Tarvainen
>>     > > >
>>     > > > _______________________________________________
>>     > > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>     > >
>>     > > _______________________________________________
>>     > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>     >
>>     > --
>>     > ------------
>>     > Matthew Shears
>>     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161123/c63136d3/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 23 14:54:36 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:54:36 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from
	the Bylaws Drafting Team
In-Reply-To: <CC9E8BF2-63E7-49A4-83C7-3865B1E09E59@egyptig.org>
References: <C0C66594-A2E8-474A-B142-53F704A40A7F@egyptig.org>
	<CC9E8BF2-63E7-49A4-83C7-3865B1E09E59@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <98105ED1-03DD-4CCF-96D1-C31F7017F76B@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

Just flagging this again, seeing that I received no response. This concerns a motion before the Council, which was deferred from Hyderabad, then seriously amended. At a minimum, I?d like to hear from our Councillors who were there. What are your thoughts on this, and how did you feel the discussions in Hyderabad went, considering this is the motion we ended up with?

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Nov 21, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I seem to have unknowingly incurred the wrath of some of our colleagues in the NCSG for sending this email to the Council list without consulting with all of you here first. I?d be grateful to hear thoughts from the other Councillors on this, especially what kind of agreement we were involved in that resulted in us being OK with the motion attached to this email.
> 
> Personally, I think it?s a terrible motion, but you probably already gathered that from my below email to the Council.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> Subject: Re: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
>> Date: November 21, 2016 at 2:50:22 PM GMT+2
>> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
>> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don?t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns:
>> 
>> 1) Whereas 3:
>> 
>>> During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
>> 
>> 
>> The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but ?divergent? is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless?.
>> 
>> The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a ?Strong support but significant opposition? designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I?m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no ?divergence? in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the ?strong support but significant opposition?, although it could have arguably been designated as ?Consensus? (not to be confused with ?Full consensus?).
>> 
>> 2) Resolved 1:
>> 
>> Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is ?accepting? the recommendations of the DT instead of ?approving? it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing.
>> 
>> 3) Resolved 2:
>> 
>>> The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
>> 
>> 
>> My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway?, no biggie.
>> 
>> 4) Resolved 4:
>> 
>>> In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
>> 
>> 
>> I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First?, again there is the use of the word ?divergent?, which I believe should be replaced with something like ?disagreement? or ?lack of full consensus?. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council?s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT?s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT?s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT?
>> 
>> It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I?m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I?d be happy to suggest some.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>>> 
>>> James,
>>> 
>>> I do take those changes as friendly. 
>>> 
>>> Rubens
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Councilors ?
>>>> 
>>>> Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night?s working session. 
>>>> 
>>>> As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly.
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> J
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 1.         MOTION ? Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps
>>>> (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016)
>>>> Made by: James Bladel
>>>> Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
>>>> 
>>>> WHEREAS:
>>>> 1.       On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to ?fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities?;
>>>> 2.       In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan ?which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016?;
>>>> 3.       During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 
>>>> 4.       The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT?s report.
>>>> 
>>>> RESOLVED:
>>>> 
>>>> 1.       The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT?s report as submitted.
>>>> 2.       The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
>>>> 3.       The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed.
>>>> 4.       In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
>>>> 5.       As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>>>> 6.       The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
>>>> 
>>>> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From Stefania.Milan  Wed Nov 23 14:54:26 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:54:26 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report
 from	the Bylaws Drafting Team
In-Reply-To: <98105ED1-03DD-4CCF-96D1-C31F7017F76B@egyptig.org>
References: <C0C66594-A2E8-474A-B142-53F704A40A7F@egyptig.org>
	<CC9E8BF2-63E7-49A4-83C7-3865B1E09E59@egyptig.org>,
	<98105ED1-03DD-4CCF-96D1-C31F7017F76B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5215E88A2025A04397908A2F7B70@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Thanks for the reminder, Amr.
I concur with you it is a terrible motion. I am unfortunately just emerging from the consequences of the Indian trip (damn the air con), yesterday was my first day at the office and I am buried under tons of tasks. More soon, Stefania

----------------------
Stefania Milan, PhD
University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey

fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Inviato: mercoled? 23 novembre 2016 13.54.36
A: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from      the Bylaws Drafting Team

Hi again,

Just flagging this again, seeing that I received no response. This concerns a motion before the Council, which was deferred from Hyderabad, then seriously amended. At a minimum, I?d like to hear from our Councillors who were there. What are your thoughts on this, and how did you feel the discussions in Hyderabad went, considering this is the motion we ended up with?

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Nov 21, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I seem to have unknowingly incurred the wrath of some of our colleagues in the NCSG for sending this email to the Council list without consulting with all of you here first. I?d be grateful to hear thoughts from the other Councillors on this, especially what kind of agreement we were involved in that resulted in us being OK with the motion attached to this email.
>
> Personally, I think it?s a terrible motion, but you probably already gathered that from my below email to the Council.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> Subject: Re: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
>> Date: November 21, 2016 at 2:50:22 PM GMT+2
>> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
>> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don?t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns:
>>
>> 1) Whereas 3:
>>
>>> During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
>>
>>
>> The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but ?divergent? is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless?.
>>
>> The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a ?Strong support but significant opposition? designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I?m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no ?divergence? in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the ?strong support but significant opposition?, although it could have arguably been designated as ?Consensus? (not to be confused with ?Full consensus?).
>>
>> 2) Resolved 1:
>>
>> Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is ?accepting? the recommendations of the DT instead of ?approving? it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing.
>>
>> 3) Resolved 2:
>>
>>> The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
>>
>>
>> My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway?, no biggie.
>>
>> 4) Resolved 4:
>>
>>> In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
>>
>>
>> I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First?, again there is the use of the word ?divergent?, which I believe should be replaced with something like ?disagreement? or ?lack of full consensus?. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council?s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT?s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT?s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT?
>>
>> It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I?m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I?d be happy to suggest some.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>>>
>>> James,
>>>
>>> I do take those changes as friendly.
>>>
>>> Rubens
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Councilors ?
>>>>
>>>> Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night?s working session.
>>>>
>>>> As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly.
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> J
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1.         MOTION ? Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps
>>>> (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016)
>>>> Made by: James Bladel
>>>> Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
>>>>
>>>> WHEREAS:
>>>> 1.       On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to ?fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities?;
>>>> 2.       In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan ?which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016?;
>>>> 3.       During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
>>>> 4.       The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT?s report.
>>>>
>>>> RESOLVED:
>>>>
>>>> 1.       The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT?s report as submitted.
>>>> 2.       The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
>>>> 3.       The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed.
>>>> 4.       In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
>>>> 5.       As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>>>> 6.       The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
>>>>
>>>> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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

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



From kathy  Wed Nov 23 20:02:05 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:02:05 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from
 the Bylaws Drafting Team
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5215E88A2025A04397908A2F7B70@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <C0C66594-A2E8-474A-B142-53F704A40A7F@egyptig.org>
	<CC9E8BF2-63E7-49A4-83C7-3865B1E09E59@egyptig.org>
	<98105ED1-03DD-4CCF-96D1-C31F7017F76B@egyptig.org>
	<DB3PR05MB5215E88A2025A04397908A2F7B70@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <7ff1e891-d537-63f8-a460-5bbf5b6f5cab@kathykleiman.com>

I got very sick too - also from the air circulation on the plane (I 
think). Hope you are feeling better, Stefania!

Kathy


On 11/23/2016 7:54 AM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> Thanks for the reminder, Amr.
> I concur with you it is a terrible motion. I am unfortunately just emerging from the consequences of the Indian trip (damn the air con), yesterday was my first day at the office and I am buried under tons of tasks. More soon, Stefania
>
> ----------------------
> Stefania Milan, PhD
> University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
> Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
> Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
> mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
> stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
>
> fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Inviato: mercoled? 23 novembre 2016 13.54.36
> A: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from      the Bylaws Drafting Team
>
> Hi again,
>
> Just flagging this again, seeing that I received no response. This concerns a motion before the Council, which was deferred from Hyderabad, then seriously amended. At a minimum, I?d like to hear from our Councillors who were there. What are your thoughts on this, and how did you feel the discussions in Hyderabad went, considering this is the motion we ended up with?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Nov 21, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I seem to have unknowingly incurred the wrath of some of our colleagues in the NCSG for sending this email to the Council list without consulting with all of you here first. I?d be grateful to hear thoughts from the other Councillors on this, especially what kind of agreement we were involved in that resulted in us being OK with the motion attached to this email.
>>
>> Personally, I think it?s a terrible motion, but you probably already gathered that from my below email to the Council.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
>>> Date: November 21, 2016 at 2:50:22 PM GMT+2
>>> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
>>> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don?t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns:
>>>
>>> 1) Whereas 3:
>>>
>>>> During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
>>>
>>> The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but ?divergent? is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless?.
>>>
>>> The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a ?Strong support but significant opposition? designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I?m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no ?divergence? in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the ?strong support but significant opposition?, although it could have arguably been designated as ?Consensus? (not to be confused with ?Full consensus?).
>>>
>>> 2) Resolved 1:
>>>
>>> Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is ?accepting? the recommendations of the DT instead of ?approving? it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing.
>>>
>>> 3) Resolved 2:
>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway?, no biggie.
>>>
>>> 4) Resolved 4:
>>>
>>>> In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
>>>
>>> I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First?, again there is the use of the word ?divergent?, which I believe should be replaced with something like ?disagreement? or ?lack of full consensus?. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council?s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT?s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT?s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT?
>>>
>>> It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I?m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I?d be happy to suggest some.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> James,
>>>>
>>>> I do take those changes as friendly.
>>>>
>>>> Rubens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Councilors ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night?s working session.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly.
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> J
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.         MOTION ? Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps
>>>>> (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016)
>>>>> Made by: James Bladel
>>>>> Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
>>>>>
>>>>> WHEREAS:
>>>>> 1.       On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to ?fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities?;
>>>>> 2.       In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan ?which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016?;
>>>>> 3.       During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
>>>>> 4.       The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT?s report.
>>>>>
>>>>> RESOLVED:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.       The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT?s report as submitted.
>>>>> 2.       The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
>>>>> 3.       The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed.
>>>>> 4.       In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
>>>>> 5.       As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>>>>> 6.       The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
>>>>>
>>>>> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Mon Nov 28 14:46:02 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:46:02 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report
	from	the Bylaws Drafting Team
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5215E88A2025A04397908A2F7B70@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <C0C66594-A2E8-474A-B142-53F704A40A7F@egyptig.org>
	<CC9E8BF2-63E7-49A4-83C7-3865B1E09E59@egyptig.org>
	<98105ED1-03DD-4CCF-96D1-C31F7017F76B@egyptig.org>
	<DB3PR05MB5215E88A2025A04397908A2F7B70@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CE48EB23-AA9B-4BAA-BA42-FEC409D202C4@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Following up on this topic. Ed, Matt, Farzi and I (former DT members) have been working together on a way forward on this, and what we?ve come up with is:

1. An amended motion. I?ve attached the draft motion + amendments to this email. The changes are really lightweight, and only serve to make the motion as factually correct as possible, without any unnecessary advocacy for one position over the other.

2. We need to organize our approach to the upcoming public comment periods on this. I stress that there will be more than one. The first will be a result of this motion, and will last for 40 days. It should cover the DT?s report + minority report, as well as the suggested changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and ICANN Bylaws. The second public comment period will take place when the ICANN Board is considering the GNSO?s recommendations to amend the Bylaws, and will follow a new process now that includes the role of the Empowered Community in changes to the Bylaws.

I look forward to discussing this in more detail on tomorrow?s monthly policy call, but wanted to give our Councillors and PC members a heads-up now. I would also like to send the suggested amendments to the Council email list today, in order to give the Council enough time to consider the amendments before Thursday?s Council meeting.

In the meantime, I would be grateful for any thoughts on this.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1] + edits AE.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 157884 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161128/a1574674/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Nov 23, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at EUI.EU> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the reminder, Amr.
> I concur with you it is a terrible motion. I am unfortunately just emerging from the consequences of the Indian trip (damn the air con), yesterday was my first day at the office and I am buried under tons of tasks. More soon, Stefania
> 
> ----------------------
> Stefania Milan, PhD
> University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
> Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
> Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
> mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
> stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
> 
> fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
> 
> ________________________________________
> Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Inviato: mercoled? 23 novembre 2016 13.54.36
> A: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
> Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from      the Bylaws Drafting Team
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> Just flagging this again, seeing that I received no response. This concerns a motion before the Council, which was deferred from Hyderabad, then seriously amended. At a minimum, I?d like to hear from our Councillors who were there. What are your thoughts on this, and how did you feel the discussions in Hyderabad went, considering this is the motion we ended up with?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Nov 21, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I seem to have unknowingly incurred the wrath of some of our colleagues in the NCSG for sending this email to the Council list without consulting with all of you here first. I?d be grateful to hear thoughts from the other Councillors on this, especially what kind of agreement we were involved in that resulted in us being OK with the motion attached to this email.
>> 
>> Personally, I think it?s a terrible motion, but you probably already gathered that from my below email to the Council.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
>>> Date: November 21, 2016 at 2:50:22 PM GMT+2
>>> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
>>> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don?t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns:
>>> 
>>> 1) Whereas 3:
>>> 
>>>> During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but ?divergent? is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless?.
>>> 
>>> The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a ?Strong support but significant opposition? designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I?m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no ?divergence? in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the ?strong support but significant opposition?, although it could have arguably been designated as ?Consensus? (not to be confused with ?Full consensus?).
>>> 
>>> 2) Resolved 1:
>>> 
>>> Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is ?accepting? the recommendations of the DT instead of ?approving? it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing.
>>> 
>>> 3) Resolved 2:
>>> 
>>>> The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway?, no biggie.
>>> 
>>> 4) Resolved 4:
>>> 
>>>> In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First?, again there is the use of the word ?divergent?, which I believe should be replaced with something like ?disagreement? or ?lack of full consensus?. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council?s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT?s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT?s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT?
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I?m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I?d be happy to suggest some.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> James,
>>>> 
>>>> I do take those changes as friendly.
>>>> 
>>>> Rubens
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Councilors ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night?s working session.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly.
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> J
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.         MOTION ? Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps
>>>>> (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016)
>>>>> Made by: James Bladel
>>>>> Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
>>>>> 
>>>>> WHEREAS:
>>>>> 1.       On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to ?fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities?;
>>>>> 2.       In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan ?which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016?;
>>>>> 3.       During the course of the DT?s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
>>>>> 4.       The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT?s report.
>>>>> 
>>>>> RESOLVED:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.       The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT?s report as submitted.
>>>>> 2.       The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
>>>>> 3.       The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed.
>>>>> 4.       In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
>>>>> 5.       As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>>>>> 6.       The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
>>>>> 
>>>>> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



From egmorris1  Tue Nov 29 13:03:08 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:03:08 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Extension Request
References: <9BCBAA3A-1FE1-44F2-AF5F-3C9BF0AF373C@icann.org>
Message-ID: <9542699C-4C44-47A5-A3E3-9207FCD569F2@toast.net>

Hi everybody,

Please note that I requested and received a one week extension to submit a public comment on the XXX / RPM issue. This is an important issue that builds upon our "Odd Couple" reconsideration request.

I hope we are able to generate a public comment during the extended time period we have been granted.

Ed



Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Krista Papac <krista.papac at icann.org>
> Date: 28 November 2016 at 18:49:07 GMT
> To: "egmorris1 at toast.net" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> Cc: Krista Papac <krista.papac at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Extension Request
> 
> Dear Edward Morris,
>  
> Thank you for your note. The public comment period is being extended for an additional seven days. The new close date will be reflected on our website shortly.
>  
> Best,
> Krista Papac
> Director, Registry Services & Engagement
> ICANN ? Global Domains Division
>  
> o: +1 310 578 8937
> m: +1 714 756 0201
> e: krista.papac at icann.org
>  
> 12025 Waterfront Avenue, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>  
> www.icann.org
>  
> From: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> Reply-To: "egmorris1 at toast.net" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> Date: Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 4:15 PM
> To: Krista Papac <krista.papac at icann.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Extension Request
>  
> Dear Krista,
>  
> I note that the public comment deadline for the "Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement" closes at midnight GMT, tonight, 24 November (Thanksgiving Day in the United States of America).
>  
> I further note that only three comments appear to have been received on this issue.
>  
> I would ask that ICANN extend the comment period by one (1) week, seven days, so that more comments can be received and considered by staff.
>  
> As you are aware a sizeable portion of the ICANN community attended the recent ICANN 57 Hyderabad meeting. Travel to and from the meeting along with travel preparation and reacclimation and meeting attendance itself has seriously hampered efforts by some of us to generate a timely response for this comment. An additional week would allow us to fully consult our diverse membership and generate comments that we hope would be helpful to staff and to our community.
>  
> Thank you very much for considering this request.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Edward Morris
> GNSO Council
> Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group, Policy Committee member 
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161129/c6e1a8cd/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Tue Nov 29 14:59:42 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:59:42 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Extension Request
In-Reply-To: <9542699C-4C44-47A5-A3E3-9207FCD569F2@toast.net>
References: <9BCBAA3A-1FE1-44F2-AF5F-3C9BF0AF373C@icann.org>,
	<9542699C-4C44-47A5-A3E3-9207FCD569F2@toast.net>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521ED40845FF34092FC2C47F78D0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

This is great news Ed. Thank you very much for taking action.
I would love to help you drafting the comment, if so desired.

----------------------
Stefania Milan, PhD
University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
Principal Investigator, DATACTIVE || data-activism.net
Councilor, Generic Names Supporting Organization, ICANN
mobile: [31] 62 7875 425 (NL) || [1] 647 - 973 - 6533 (CA) || [+39] 333 - 2309945 (I)
stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey

fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850  EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B

________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Inviato: marted? 29 novembre 2016 12.03.08
A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Oggetto: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Extension Request

Hi everybody,

Please note that I requested and received a one week extension to submit a public comment on the XXX / RPM issue. This is an important issue that builds upon our "Odd Couple" reconsideration request.

I hope we are able to generate a public comment during the extended time period we have been granted.

Ed



Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Krista Papac <krista.papac at icann.org<mailto:krista.papac at icann.org>>
Date: 28 November 2016 at 18:49:07 GMT
To: "egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>" <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
Cc: Krista Papac <krista.papac at icann.org<mailto:krista.papac at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Extension Request

Dear Edward Morris,

Thank you for your note. The public comment period is being extended for an additional seven days. The new close date will be reflected on our website shortly.

Best,
Krista Papac
Director, Registry Services & Engagement
ICANN ? Global Domains Division

o: +1 310 578 8937
m: +1 714 756 0201
e: krista.papac at icann.org<mailto:krista.papac at icann.org>

12025 Waterfront Avenue, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094

www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

From: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
Reply-To: "egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>" <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
Date: Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 4:15 PM
To: Krista Papac <krista.papac at icann.org<mailto:krista.papac at icann.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Extension Request

Dear Krista,

I note that the public comment deadline for the "Proposed Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement" closes at midnight GMT, tonight, 24 November (Thanksgiving Day in the United States of America).

I further note that only three comments appear to have been received on this issue.

I would ask that ICANN extend the comment period by one (1) week, seven days, so that more comments can be received and considered by staff.

As you are aware a sizeable portion of the ICANN community attended the recent ICANN 57 Hyderabad meeting. Travel to and from the meeting along with travel preparation and reacclimation and meeting attendance itself has seriously hampered efforts by some of us to generate a timely response for this comment. An additional week would allow us to fully consult our diverse membership and generate comments that we hope would be helpful to staff and to our community.

Thank you very much for considering this request.

Kind Regards,

Edward Morris
GNSO Council
Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group, Policy Committee member


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



From Stefania.Milan  Wed Nov 30 19:35:36 2016
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:35:36 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] late apologies
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB52146567D57CE277DA3DD9DF78C0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

dear all
my apologies for not attending the policy call yesterday. I am going through an intense stretch of teaching for a couple weeks more, and my teaching was yesterday 2-6pm CET :-(
I should alerted you guys earlier but failed to do so :/
Looking forward to the recording. Stefania

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



From egmorris1  Wed Nov 30 20:01:58 2016
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:01:58 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member
	for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
References: <E3B3A31C-09BB-4BA6-A844-A46EA9A43C60@icann.org>
Message-ID: <A3DD0B84-A6C4-4803-A1BC-5CE663CB57EE@toast.net>

Hi,

Where are we on this?

If nowhere can we get a call out on
list and make sure we are able to get sign off on an appointment by Monday?

Thanks,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Date: 30 November 2016 at 17:52:46 GMT
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
> 
> Dear All,
>  
> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>  
> Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
> Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
> Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
> Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
> Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
> Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
>  
> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that:
>  
> In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
>  
> Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
>  
> Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is represented.
>  
> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Marika
>  
> Marika Konings
> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
> Email: marika.konings at icann.org  
>  
> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. 
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161130/152dcec2/attachment.html>


From kathy  Wed Nov 30 20:05:57 2016
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:05:57 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one
 member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <A3DD0B84-A6C4-4803-A1BC-5CE663CB57EE@toast.net>
References: <E3B3A31C-09BB-4BA6-A844-A46EA9A43C60@icann.org>
	<A3DD0B84-A6C4-4803-A1BC-5CE663CB57EE@toast.net>
Message-ID: <02cd6e66-8816-7dd7-c0e8-04870af7b677@kathykleiman.com>

Agreed - it's a critical place for us to have person. Avri did a lot of 
work on this issue in the past. Other likely candidates (who we might 
recruit)?


On 11/30/2016 1:01 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Where are we on this?
>
> If nowhere can we get a call out on
> list and make sure we are able to get sign off on an appointment by 
> Monday?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From:* Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org 
>> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
>> *Date:* 30 November 2016 at 17:52:46 GMT
>> *To:* "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" 
>> <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>> *Subject:* *[council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for 
>> new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG*
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been 
>> requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction 
>> Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be 
>> made to ensure that members:
>>
>>  1. Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally
>>     expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the
>>     CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include
>>     experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
>>  2. Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on
>>     an on-going and long-term basis;
>>  3. Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and
>>     concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
>>  4. Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
>>  5. Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN
>>     serves (standards, domains and numbers);
>>  6. Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in
>>     which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other
>>     aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
>>
>> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization 
>> appointed members that:
>>
>> /In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed 
>> members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions 
>> (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their 
>> respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and 
>> when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up 
>> to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as 
>> sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG./
>>
>> //
>>
>> /Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member 
>> selection process, to take into account how appointed members can 
>> better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be 
>> achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge 
>> and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering 
>> Organizations appointed members./
>>
>> //
>>
>> /Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive 
>> processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should 
>> include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five 
>> regions is represented./
>>
>> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to 
>> select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed 
>> members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marika
>>
>> */Marika Konings/*
>>
>> /Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet 
>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) /
>>
>> /Email: marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> /
>>
>> //
>>
>> /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/
>>
>> /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 
>> <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer 
>> pages 
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>. 
>> /
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161130/7d7fc989/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 30 22:50:56 2016
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 22:50:56 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member
	for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
In-Reply-To: <02cd6e66-8816-7dd7-c0e8-04870af7b677@kathykleiman.com>
References: <E3B3A31C-09BB-4BA6-A844-A46EA9A43C60@icann.org>
	<A3DD0B84-A6C4-4803-A1BC-5CE663CB57EE@toast.net>
	<02cd6e66-8816-7dd7-c0e8-04870af7b677@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <C6F5703B-FAC9-49C1-8B4D-F1A7C0F9CA93@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Yes?, would be helpful to get this on NCSG-DISCUSS as soon as possible. The PC will eventually need to appoint someone. Best get started sooner, rather than later.

Also, each of the 4 GNSO SGs will be appointing a member, while the GNSO is allowed up to 5 members on the CCWG. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
> 
> Agreed - it's a critical place for us to have person. Avri did a lot of work on this issue in the past. Other likely candidates (who we might recruit)?
> 
> 
> On 11/30/2016 1:01 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Where are we on this?
>> 
>> If nowhere can we get a call out on
>> list and make sure we are able to get sign off on an appointment by Monday?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> Date: 30 November 2016 at 17:52:46 GMT
>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> Subject: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>>  
>>> As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
>>>  
>>> 	? Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
>>> 	? Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
>>> 	? Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
>>> 	? Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
>>> 	? Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
>>> 	? Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
>>>  
>>> The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that:
>>>  
>>> In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
>>>  
>>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members.
>>>  
>>> Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN?s five regions is represented.
>>>  
>>> As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ?The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016?.
>>>  
>>> Best regards,
>>>  
>>> Marika
>>>  
>>> Marika Konings
>>> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org  
>>>  
>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. 
>>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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