From stephanie.perrin Sat Oct 1 02:01:24 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:01:24 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Nomination for GAC Liasion In-Reply-To: <20160930204630.GC23844@tarvainen.info> References: <6663d986-2403-78e9-3110-6c1b26eee230@mail.utoronto.ca> <82BB2FC0-3A41-4BA7-A087-BA1C0CBC99DE@davecake.net> <8eb71eaf-63e1-1260-7973-7f10387ec03d@apc.org> <20160930203607.GA23844@tarvainen.info> <20160930204630.GC23844@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20927365-df1c-af68-e09e-56886119d1e8@mail.utoronto.ca> Fabulous! SP On 2016-09-30 16:46, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Done. (I did have Avri's statement as well as Glen's instructions > at hand, so I think I managed to do it properly.) > > Tapani > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:36:07PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > >> Yes. We clearly have rough consensus of PC behind you, indeed I've >> seen no opposing voices, and as the nominations were supposed to come >> from "The leadership of each Stakeholder Group / Constituency", >> I guess I can do it just as well as PC Chair could. >> >> I will submit Avri's application to to GNSO secretariat without >> further delay. >> >> Tapani >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 04:05:13PM -0400, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote: >> >>> hi, >>> >>> I want to thank the people, 6 of you think, who have endorsed my nomination. >>> >>> I also want to remind you that today is sort of the last day to get a >>> nomination in, if you are going to put one in. >>> >>> Sorry to be a nag about this. >>> >>> thanks >>> avri > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Sat Oct 1 12:09:11 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 05:09:11 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public Comment Message-ID: <079482f6c8c44d22a1043a795ea84fd4@toast.net> Hi everybody I wanted to draw this public comment opportunity to everyone's attention: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lac-dns-marketplace-2016-09-22-en Renata, multiple Carlos' (all of whom I have copied on this email) and others have been asking about engagement in South and Central America. I'd suggest one way to approach things might be to put together a group response to this report. There appear to be a number of areas in the report that may be of interest yet it does not appear that some specific areas of concern to noncommercial interests are included. This isn't an area of expertise of mine but this does appear to be an important report we should comment on. My fear is that with a closing date of November 1st, right before our meeting in India, we may miss it. So consider this an alert to the PC leadership and other interested parties that perhaps we need to try to get something going on this sooner rather than later. Best, Ed Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Mon Oct 3 22:08:39 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:08:39 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] FW: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG In-Reply-To: <117024DF-26EB-4AA9-B73E-79B540F1DEA7@icann.org> References: <117024DF-26EB-4AA9-B73E-79B540F1DEA7@icann.org> Message-ID: Forgive me if this has already been forwarded for comments. We should take a look at it.... stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:42:41 +0000 From: Marika Konings To: Paul McGrady , 'James M. Bladel' , 'GNSO Council List' CC: jrobinson at afilias.info Paul, just to clarify, the charter does not set out the ?process to spend these windfalls?, it outlines the scope for the CCWG that is expected to develop the framework for disbursements of funds. Also, to provide a bit more background on the process and community deliberations that have lead up to this proposed charter: *March 2015*: GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson wrote to SO/AC Chairs to take temperature on the desire for a drafting team to discuss the development of a CCWG *June 2015*: ICANN53, in Buenos Aires: SO/AC Panel High Interest Session and Community Workshop Session *July - August 2015*: Development of Discussion Paper Drafted to take into consideration pertinent issues discussed at ICANN53 *September 2015*: Discussion Paper is published for public comment *December 2015*: Discussion Paper Comments Report published along with updated Discussion Paper *January - February 2016*: Requests for nominations to Drafting Team for CCWG, Board Chair nominates Board Liaisons, First Call of Drafting Team/Feb *March ? September 2016*: Drafting Team work, including review of all the materials and input leading up to the DT, distribution of draft charter for review and discussion prior to ICANN56, community session during ICANN56, review of all comments received during ICANN56 as well as those submitted subsequently by email (see comment review tool at https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw) , *13 September 2016*: Submission of proposed charter to ICANN SO/ACs with the request to identify any pertinent issues that would prevent SO/AC adoption Of course, I will take your suggestion for a public comment period back to the DT, but I also wanted to remind the Council that the DT has specifically requested input on whether there are any pertinent issues that would avoid adoption of the charter by SO/ACs to be able to address these prior to formally submitting the proposed charter to the ICANN SO/ACs for their consideration. The idea of the DT was to obtain this input by the end of September so it would be in a position to make any updates to the proposed charter, if needed, which would allow for formal submission of the proposed charter in time for consideration by the different SO/ACs at ICANN57. For your convenience, I?ve attached the proposed charter here again. 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 ./ *From: * on behalf of Paul McGrady *Date: *Friday 30 September 2016 at 14:47 *To: *"James M. Bladel" , 'GNSO Council List' *Cc: *Jonathan Robinson *Subject: *RE: [council] FW: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG All, Just to follow on from my comments yesterday, it is my personal belief (and not necessarily the view of the IPC, but not necessarily not the view either) that this Charter should be open to a real and robust public comment ? not just to those with the time and resources to have traveled to Helsinki. There is no rush to disburse these funds (correct?), so sending the message to the public that ICANN doesn?t want their opinion on the correct process to spend these windfalls, I believe, is an avoidable mistake. Regards, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy at paulmcgrady.com *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 3:37 PM *To:* GNSO Council List *Subject:* [council] FW: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Councilors - See message below, sent on behalf of the gTLD Auction Proceeds Charter Drafting Team. Their Draft Charter for a proposed CCWG is attached, and they are requesting feedback by 30 September. If time allows, lets plan to add this as a discussion point for our next call (29 SEP). Thank you, J. *From: *Marika Konings > *Date: *Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 12:41 *Subject: *For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Sending on behalf of Jonathan Robinson, new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair: Dear SO/AC Chairs, On behalf of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team (DT), we are delighted to submit to you and your respective SO/ACs, the proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds. As you may recall, representatives of all ICANN SO/ACs, apart from the ccNSO (which decided not to take part in the DT effort), participated in the DT deliberations (see https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw[community.icann.org] for DT members). This proposed charter is the result of extensive input and deliberations, including careful review of input that was received as part of the cross-community session at ICANN 56 in Helsinki (see https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw)[community.icann.org] and we believe it now represents a careful balance between the different viewpoints and perspectives, including from both the DT Members and the ICANN Board liaisons to the DT. As such, the DT would like to request you review the proposed charter with this careful balance in mind and only flag to the DT any pertinent issues that would prevent your respective SO/AC from adopting this charter. We would like to request you highlight such pertinent issues *_by 30 September 2016 at the latest_*, including an indication of when you anticipate your respective SO/AC to be in a position to consider the charter for adoption following 30 September, provided that no pertinent issues have been identified by any of the ICANN SO/ACs. Of course, should you have any clarifying questions, please do not hesitate to respond to this message. The DT looks forward to receiving your feedback. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson, DT Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCWG Auction Proceeds - clean - FINAL Charter - 9 September 2016.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 61324 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Oct 4 16:29:47 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:29:47 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board In-Reply-To: <3AB82D46-81FD-4C97-BF83-2D6DE8EDAA52@isoc-cr.org> References: <3AB82D46-81FD-4C97-BF83-2D6DE8EDAA52@isoc-cr.org> Message-ID: <4ab5e562-ae4d-71ff-c1b5-64b4bede21f4@mail.utoronto.ca> need to consider position on this -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 19:41:08 -0600 From: Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G. To: G?ry Glen de Saint , GNSO Council List Dear Glen, Dear Councillors I submit this motion to approve during our next call on 13 Oct a response to Chairman Crocker?s letter from August 5th 2016, and ask for secondment: Motion on the GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Made by: Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez Seconded by: WHEREAS, On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from Dr. Stephen Crocker seeking an understanding of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group?s (WG) requirements and timing related to advancing a new application process. On 16 August 2016, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the letter and informed the ICANN Board that initial discussions within the GNSO Council and more broadly, within the GNSO community and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, were anticipated. On 12 September 2016, the GNSO Council sent a letter to all of the GNSO?s Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG seeking input to help formulate the Council?s response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council received an important number of responses and divergent positions from many different individuals as well a constituencies within the GNSO community, as well as from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG. RESOLVED, The GNSO Council has synthesized the positions received and prepared a response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council looks forward to ongoing discussions with the broader community, particularly at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India. The GNSO Council expects to continue to consult with the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to determine if there are any significant changes to its schedule or scope of work as defined in its charter. Respectfully Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) Forwarded message: > From: Steve Chan > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez > Cc: Phil Corwin , Drazek, Keith > , James M. Bladel , > Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu , Emily Barabas > , Julie Hedlund , > Paul McGrady > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:34:18 +0000 > > All, > > Carlos, thank you for your comments. Seeing no volunteers to hold the > pen, staff is happy to prepare an initial draft for your > consideration, especially given the contracted timelines until the > next Council meeting. > > With a vote expected to consider and approve this letter at the 13 > October 2016 GNSO Council meeting, staff has prepared a draft motion, > also for your consideration. Unfortunately, the document and motion > deadline is today ? any volunteers to put forth this motion (with > any necessary edits of course)? > > We will try to provide the draft letter as soon as possible, as > ideally, it should be available with the motion, > > Best, > > Steve > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez > Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM > To: Steve Chan > Cc: Phil Corwin , "Drazek, Keith" > , "James M. Bladel" , > "Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu" , Emily Barabas > , Julie Hedlund , > Paul McGrady > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > > Thank you vey much Steve for the excellent overview of the comments to > Chairman?s Crocker letter to date. From my personal point of view, I > belong to the group of the subsequent procedures PDP, that wonders > what the (short term vs. long term) context of the question is. And > just because of that, I?m a strong supporter of a very conservative > stance. > > My initial suggestion for a clear formulation of a response at the > Council level, is to structure around the main (contentious) > issues/areas, including its pro and con arguments, instead of listing > the source of all the different positions. From that perspective I see > 4 main areas/chapters for a structure of the response: > > 1. All the pending studies and PDPs that are analyzing the impact or > the 2012 round and will produce related recommendations: RPM, > Subsequent procedures and CCT-RT. (In general it worked well, but it > needs more refinement) > > 2. The question if the 2007 ?policy? is strong enough for subsequent > procedures without any mayor changes. > > 2.a including the policy equal treatment of all applications (without > any categorization), as compared to restrictions over certain groups > of possible new TLDs (Geographic names, Communities, etc.) > > 3. if the AGB is strong enough as a ?predictable application > process? for subsequent procedures, and if not, which type of > revisions it needs > > 3.a including the question of global fairness (or underserved areas) > > 4. if the ?implementation/delegation? of new gTLDs of the last round > was good enough, or there are few lessons that should be carefully > analyzed and improvements introduced before new delegations > > After reading the summary document I see how a general consensus gets > more and more difficult, as we go down the list here proposed. Then it > should be pretty obvious that the Boards main question should be > answered with a pretty clear ?NO shortcuts?. > > But I also want to hear what the other members of the team think. > > Carlos Ra?l > > El 30 sept 2016, a las 16:20, Steve Chan > escribi?: > > Sept 2016.docx> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue Oct 4 18:12:15 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 11:12:15 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board In-Reply-To: <4ab5e562-ae4d-71ff-c1b5-64b4bede21f4@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <3AB82D46-81FD-4C97-BF83-2D6DE8EDAA52@isoc-cr.org> <4ab5e562-ae4d-71ff-c1b5-64b4bede21f4@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: as co-chair of subpro, it works for me. and is consistent with the position NCSG took a while back to not rush and let the PDP WG do it job. avri On 04-Oct-16 09:29, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > need to consider position on this > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN > Board > Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 19:41:08 -0600 > From: Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G. > To: G?ry Glen de Saint , GNSO Council List > > > > > Dear Glen, > > Dear Councillors > > I submit this motion to approve during our next call on 13 Oct a > response to Chairman Crocker?s letter from August 5th 2016, and ask for > secondment: > > > > Motion on the GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Letter on New > gTLD Subsequent Procedures > > Made by: Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > Seconded by: > > WHEREAS, > > On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from Dr. Stephen > Crocker seeking an understanding of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures > Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group?s (WG) requirements and > timing related to advancing a new application process. > > On 16 August 2016, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the letter > and informed the ICANN Board that initial discussions within the GNSO > Council and more broadly, within the GNSO community and New gTLD > Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, were anticipated. > > On 12 September 2016, the GNSO Council sent a letter to all of the > GNSO?s Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures PDP WG seeking input to help formulate the Council?s > response to the ICANN Board. > > The GNSO Council received an important number of responses and divergent > positions from many different individuals as well a constituencies > within the GNSO community, as well as from the New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures PDP WG. > > RESOLVED, > > The GNSO Council has synthesized the positions received and prepared a > response to the ICANN Board. > > The GNSO Council looks forward to ongoing discussions with the broader > community, particularly at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India. > > The GNSO Council expects to continue to consult with the New gTLD > Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to determine if there are any significant > changes to its schedule or scope of work as defined in its charter. > > > > Respectfully > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > +506 8837 7176 > Skype: carlos.raulg > Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) > Forwarded message: > > > From: Steve Chan > > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez > > Cc: Phil Corwin , Drazek, Keith > > , James M. Bladel , > > Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu , Emily Barabas > > , Julie Hedlund , > > Paul McGrady > > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > > the ICANN Board > > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:34:18 +0000 > > > > All, > > > > Carlos, thank you for your comments. Seeing no volunteers to hold the > > pen, staff is happy to prepare an initial draft for your > > consideration, especially given the contracted timelines until the > > next Council meeting. > > > > With a vote expected to consider and approve this letter at the 13 > > October 2016 GNSO Council meeting, staff has prepared a draft motion, > > also for your consideration. Unfortunately, the document and motion > > deadline is today ? any volunteers to put forth this motion (with > > any necessary edits of course)? > > > > We will try to provide the draft letter as soon as possible, as > > ideally, it should be available with the motion, > > > > Best, > > > > Steve > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez > > Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM > > To: Steve Chan > > Cc: Phil Corwin , "Drazek, Keith" > > , "James M. Bladel" , > > "Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu" , Emily Barabas > > , Julie Hedlund , > > Paul McGrady > > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > > the ICANN Board > > > > Thank you vey much Steve for the excellent overview of the comments to > > Chairman?s Crocker letter to date. From my personal point of view, I > > belong to the group of the subsequent procedures PDP, that wonders > > what the (short term vs. long term) context of the question is. And > > just because of that, I?m a strong supporter of a very conservative > > stance. > > > > My initial suggestion for a clear formulation of a response at the > > Council level, is to structure around the main (contentious) > > issues/areas, including its pro and con arguments, instead of listing > > the source of all the different positions. From that perspective I see > > 4 main areas/chapters for a structure of the response: > > > > 1. All the pending studies and PDPs that are analyzing the impact or > > the 2012 round and will produce related recommendations: RPM, > > Subsequent procedures and CCT-RT. (In general it worked well, but it > > needs more refinement) > > > > 2. The question if the 2007 ?policy? is strong enough for subsequent > > procedures without any mayor changes. > > > > 2.a including the policy equal treatment of all applications (without > > any categorization), as compared to restrictions over certain groups > > of possible new TLDs (Geographic names, Communities, etc.) > > > > 3. if the AGB is strong enough as a ?predictable application > > process? for subsequent procedures, and if not, which type of > > revisions it needs > > > > 3.a including the question of global fairness (or underserved areas) > > > > 4. if the ?implementation/delegation? of new gTLDs of the last round > > was good enough, or there are few lessons that should be carefully > > analyzed and improvements introduced before new delegations > > > > After reading the summary document I see how a general consensus gets > > more and more difficult, as we go down the list here proposed. Then it > > should be pretty obvious that the Boards main question should be > > answered with a pretty clear ?NO shortcuts?. > > > > But I also want to hear what the other members of the team think. > > > > Carlos Ra?l > > > > El 30 sept 2016, a las 16:20, Steve Chan > > escribi?: > > > > > Sept 2016.docx> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 egmorris1 Thu Oct 6 02:26:21 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 19:26:21 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] fw: [council] FW: GNSO Elections Message-ID: Hi everyone, I would like to propose having a discussion of the upcoming Chair election placed on the agenda for the next NCSG policy meeting, this coming Monday. James has been nominated by both the RrSG and RySG. I hope we can quickly join them in supporting James for re-election. He certainly has my support. Kind Regards, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Glen de Saint G?ry" Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 8:59 PM To: "GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)" Subject: [council] FW: GNSO Elections Dear Councillors, Pursuant to the elections procedures https://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/proposed-council-chair-07sep16-en.pdf please find the RrSG and RySG, nominee, James Bladel, for the position of Chair of the GNSO Council. Thank you. Kind regards Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at 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 and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. From: Graeme Bunton Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 9:13 PM To: Glen de Saint G?ry Cc: pdiaz at pir.org; jbladel at godaddy.com; cph-excoms at googlegroups.com Subject: GNSO Elections Hello Glen, The RrSG and RySG, collectively the CPH, wish to nominate James Bladel for the position of Chair of the GNSO Council. Should you have require any further information please let us know. Regards, Graeme -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Analytics and Insights Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 7 01:16:45 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:16:45 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group" In-Reply-To: <38B7E007-D67F-42AF-AE57-E80ECB0746C6@icann.org> References: <38B7E007-D67F-42AF-AE57-E80ECB0746C6@icann.org> Message-ID: <896ce9a9-28e3-b5ac-498a-738ea9178419@mail.utoronto.ca> FYI. We may wish to discuss this on our call. stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group" Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:02:31 +0000 From: Mary Wong To: GNSO Council List CC: Steve Crocker , Chris Disspain , bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au , Markus Kummer , Becky Burr , board-ops-team at icann.org Dear Councilors, Please find attached the ICANN Board?s reply to the GNSO Council?s letter of 31 May 2016 on the topic of protections for IGOs and the Red Cross. The letter also includes the final proposal on IGO acronyms protection that was worked on by the IGO ?small group? of IGO, Board and GAC representatives, facilitated by ICANN staff as appropriate. We will also transmit a copy of this to the co-chairs of the GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections PDP Working Group and the GAC. Best regards, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong at icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Board response to GNSO Council & small group proposal - 4 Oct 2016.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 538546 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 7 01:33:38 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:33:38 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] RE: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group" In-Reply-To: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E2186FF56@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E2186FF56@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> Message-ID: and PHil has reacted already.... SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] RE: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group" Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 22:22:50 +0000 From: Phil Corwin To: Mary Wong , GNSO Council List CC: Steve Crocker , Chris Disspain , bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au , Markus Kummer , Becky Burr , board-ops-team at icann.org For the benefit of Board members, I have just sent the following email to members of the GNSO Council: Fellow Councilors: As Co-Chair of the Working Group reviewing Curative Rights Processes (CRP) for International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), I feel it incumbent to provide my initial reaction to this Board letter. In doing so I note that transmission of the letter has been delayed until after the completion of the IANA transition, and that the post-transition role of governments within ICANN was a central controversy surrounding the transition. The CRP WG has labored for the last two years to develop a report and recommendations that are objective and based in fact and relevant law. In order to assure that our conclusions were sound, we suspended our work for nearly one year in order to locate and secure the services of a legal expert on the central subject of the generally recognized scope of IGO sovereign immunity. During this period we continually urged members of the GAC, and IGOs, to participate in our WG. That participation was so sporadic that it amounted to a near-boycott, and when IGO representatives did provide any input they stressed that they were speaking solely as individuals and were not providing the official views of the organizations that employed them. Of course, why should they participate in the GNSO policy processes when they are permitted to pursue their goals in extended closed door discussions with the Board, and when the Board seeks no input from the GNSO in the course of those talks? Turning to the relevant substance of the Board letter and the attached IGO ?Small Group? Proposal, I note that this Proposal statement is demonstrably incorrect? The IGO-GAC-NGPC small group that has been discussing the topic of appropriate IGO protections, based on the NGPC?s initial proposal of March 2014, agree that the following general principles should underpin the framework for any permanent solution concerning the protection of IGO names and acronyms in the domain name system: (1)*The basis for protection of IGO acronyms should not be founded in trademark law, as IGOs are created by governments under international law and are in an objectively different category of rights-holders; *(Emphasis added) In fact, our WG found that many IGOs have trademarked their organizational names and acronyms and have successfully utilized the UDRP. Further, and more relevant, Article 6ter of the Paris Convention provides IGOs with protection of their names and acronyms _within the trademark law systems of all Convention signatories, as well as all members of the World Trade Organization_, with such protection available through a simple registration procedure with WIPO. So, contrary to the statement quoted above, the basis for IGO acronym protections has already been linked to trademark law. Turning to the relevant portion of the IGO Proposal--- *2. Dispute Resolution Mechanism* ? ICANN will facilitate the development of rules and procedures for a separate(i.e., separate from the existing UDRP) dispute resolution mechanism to resolve claims of abuse of domain names that are registered and being used in situations where the registrant is pretending to be the IGO or that are otherwise likely to result in fraud or deception, /and /(a) are identical to an IGO acronym; (b) are confusingly similar to an IGO acronym; or (c) contain the IGO acronym. ? Decisions resulting from this mechanism shall be ?appealable? through an arbitral process to be agreed. --While our WG is in the process of vetting our preliminary report and recommendations, because it has operated transparently it is no secret that it has decided against creation of a new DRP for the sole and exclusive use of IGOs because there is no demonstrated need to do so. Further, as regards availability of arbitration for appeals from initial CRP decisions, while that matter is still being finalized by the WG, to the extent it is premised upon broad claims of IGO sovereign immunity such claims are not generally supported by existing legal views according to the report received from our retained expert on international law. Here are some other preliminary observations: ?The timing of this letter, and the specific DRP recommendations contained in the attached Proposal, are likely to complicate final agreement within the WG on our preliminary report and recommendations. IGOs, having chosen not to meaningfully participate in the WG, are now disrupting its final stage. ?It appears that the proposal we have just received has not been endorsed by the Board, but is simply the IGO small group?s ?consensus on a proposal for a number of general principles and suggestions that it hopes will be acceptable to the GAC and the GNSO?. Although these IGOs have not meaningfully participated in our WG, they are known to have monitored our work closely enough that they surely know that these proposals stand in stark opposition to the WG?s preliminary conclusions. Finally, in regard to this statement in the Board letter? The Board?s understanding is that those aspects of the proposal that concern curative rights protection may be referred by the GNSO Council to the GNSO?s Working Group that is conducting the ongoing Policy Development Process (PDP) on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms. We understand further that the Working Group is currently discussing preliminary recommendations that it intends to publish for public comment soon, in the form of an Initial Report. We therefore hope that the presentation of the attached proposal is timely, and will be fully considered by the Working Group regarding the specific topic of enabling adequate curative rights protections for IGO acronyms, and in conjunction with the GNSO Council?s management of the overall process for possible reconciliation of GNSO policy with GAC advice. We also acknowledge, in line with prior correspondence between the Board?s New gTLD Program Committee and the GNSO Council, that the Board will not take action with respect to GAC advice on curative rights protections for IGOs prior to the conclusion of the GNSO?s PDP. - I appreciate the Board?s assurance that it will take no action with respect to GAC advice on CRP for IGOs until the current PDP is concluded. I further note that ICANN staff has already transmitted the Board letter and attached IGO Proposal to all members of the CRP WG and, following consultation with my Co-Chair, it will likely be the main topic of discussion at the WG?s next meeting on October 13^th . I can assure you that the Proposal will be fully considered by the WG. However, given the fact that the Proposal is at nearly complete odds with the WG?s preliminary conclusions, and that the IGOs chose not to participate in the WG in any significant way and thereby take advantage of the opportunity to make their case to those community volunteers who have labored in good faith on this project for more than two years, it is most unlikely that the WG will now abandon its own conclusions and adopt those of the IGOs. The Board letter closes with the observation that it wants to ? reiterate our belief that the most appropriate approach for the Board in this matter is to help to facilitate a procedural way forward for the reconciliation of GAC advice and GNSO policy prior to the Board formally considering substantive policy recommendations?. With all respect, what has occurred seems a thoroughly inappropriate approach for reconciling GAC advice and GNSO policy. This Council has undertaken extraordinary steps to conduct outreach to the GAC and to strive to integrate it within the GNSO policy development process, and much of that progress is at risk of being undone by how this matter is ultimately decided. What is at stake in this matter goes far beyond the relatively rare instance in which a domain registrant infringes upon the name or acronym of an IGO and the IGO seeks relief through a CRP. The larger issue is whether, in a post-transition ICANN, the GAC and the UN agencies that comprise a large portion of IGOs, will participate meaningfully in GNSO policy activities, or will seek their policy aims by bypassing the ICANN community and engaging in direct, closed door discussions with the Board. Therefore, how the GNSO and the Board ultimately resolve this matter will have implications far beyond the narrow issue of available CRPs for IGOs. If IGOs are successful in attaining their policy aims through the course of action they have pursued it will send a most unfortunate message that will be detrimental to the functioning of an ICANN in which community members representing business, technology, and civil society are supposed to have the lead role in setting policy, and in which governments are supposed to have a secondary, advisory role. Sincerely, Philip S. Corwin *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* *Virtualaw LLC* *1155 F Street, NW* *Suite 1050* *Washington, DC 20004* *202-559-8597/Direct* *202-559-8750/Fax* *202-255-6172/Cell*** ** *Twitter: @VlawDC* */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/* *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Thursday, October 06, 2016 5:03 PM *To:* GNSO Council List *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Chris Disspain; bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au; Markus Kummer; Becky Burr; board-ops-team at icann.org *Subject:* [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group" Dear Councilors, Please find attached the ICANN Board?s reply to the GNSO Council?s letter of 31 May 2016 on the topic of protections for IGOs and the Red Cross. The letter also includes the final proposal on IGO acronyms protection that was worked on by the IGO ?small group? of IGO, Board and GAC representatives, facilitated by ICANN staff as appropriate. We will also transmit a copy of this to the co-chairs of the GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections PDP Working Group and the GAC. Best regards, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong at icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13157 - Release Date: 10/06/16 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 7 19:35:53 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 12:35:53 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law In-Reply-To: <28DC9417-597D-4C1D-8497-4517CF0E4A7D@godaddy.com> References: <28DC9417-597D-4C1D-8497-4517CF0E4A7D@godaddy.com> Message-ID: <5106f084-f1fa-9f72-e9d0-d28703346d3d@mail.utoronto.ca> we need to discuss this on our policy call -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 16:19:06 +0000 From: James M. Bladel To: GNSO Council List Councilors ? Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I?m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Overview - Whois Conflicts with Local Law Procedure - Final - 6 October 2016 [1].docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 161237 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Sat Oct 8 07:19:46 2016 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 13:19:46 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: <079482f6c8c44d22a1043a795ea84fd4@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, thanks for the question, the MENA dns industry study came within the MENA strategy group discussion including several members from the community. it covered the state of domain name in the region in particular for ccTLD but also linked that to issues like hosting industry and localization (language). the launch of several TLDs in arabic script didn't receive that much interest as expected and assumed. I see some values on those studies to get more facts and stats, while it is important to evaluate the methods used there. for the africa DNS study I think that is still ongoing and report will come probably in coming months. Best, Rafik 2016-10-01 22:22 GMT+09:00 Carlos Raul : > Thank you Ed! > > my first impression of the message is that apart from .mx, .co and .br, > the region is in the hands of public sector/academic sector ccTLDs, that do > not offer value added services and for some reason did not fill the > expectations of the promoters of the new gTLDs. > > I can?t follow the (hidden) assumption that the caretakers of non-tradable > goods (ccTLDs), should have jumped after globally tradable new gTLDs, of > which many have not even a latin meaning. Quite strange to have ICANN > paying to disect ccTLDs weaknesses, instead of why global Registries do not > open up shop and compete locally with adequate services for local > conditions. Maybe we forgot a few safeguards and/ or PICs. In any case the > study forgot them too. Smells of a comfy Duopoly situation that we have to > cover up with another study. > > But I will have to go over it again, at least for the purposes of the CCT > RT. > > Glad to continue to participate in the never ending discussion of > "underserved areas". I would like to ask and invite our friends from the > Middle East and Africa, what do they saw or expect from the other regional > studies that ICANN Foreign Ministry has done (middle East) or is in the > porcess of doing (Africa). > > Wish you all a nice weekend and good fast recovery to Ed. > > *Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez* > +506 8837 7176 > Skype carlos.raulg > _________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > *COSTA RICA* > > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Edward Morris wrote: > >> Hi everybody >> >> >> I wanted to draw this public comment opportunity to everyone's attention: >> >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lac-dns-marketplace-2016-09-22-en >> >> Renata, multiple Carlos' (all of whom I have copied on this email) and >> others have been asking about engagement in South and Central America. I'd >> suggest one way to approach things might be to put together a group >> response to this report. There appear to be a number of areas in the report >> that may be of interest yet it does not appear that some specific areas of >> concern to noncommercial interests are included. >> >> This isn't an area of expertise of mine but this does appear to be an >> important report we should comment on. My fear is that with a closing date >> of November 1st, right before our meeting in India, we may miss it. So >> consider this an alert to the PC leadership and other interested parties >> that perhaps we need to try to get something going on this sooner rather >> than later. >> >> Best, >> >> Ed Morris >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Oct 11 15:16:45 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:16:45 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 11 October 2016 | 1200 UTC In-Reply-To: <20161010155626.GA24471@tarvainen.info> References: <20161010155626.GA24471@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <36e5a550-43ed-64cd-b97f-d9ffab731e7f@mail.utoronto.ca> I am having persistent problems with the new adobe interface. audio does not work, it will not let me chat. Please can you get me tech help, nathalie tried to help me the other day, we thouight it was working but it is back to not working now. Stephanief On 2016-10-10 11:56, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear all, > > Next NCSG monthly policy call will be on Tuesday 11 October 2016, > tomorrow, at 1200 - 1400 UTC. > > Everybody is encouraged to attend. > > What is it about? Generally: > > - Discussing the GNSO council call agenda items. Councillors and NCSG > members involved in related working group will give more insight about > the motions. > > - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements, > open public comments and discussing how NCSG should act. > > - Other issues of interest to NCSG members. > > > *Why should you attend?* > > It is a good opportunity to catch up with the ongoing policies and > finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers it is > a good way to get a snapshot of activities within NCSG, GNSO and > ICANN, and to interact with GNSO councillors. > > *Below is a preliminary agenda. If you have suggestions for other > items you'd like to add, please send them to me.* > > > Preliminary agenda: > > I. Roll call > > II. 13 October 2016 GNSO Meeting Preparation - Agenda 13 October 2016: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+October+2016 > > GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership > about the GNSO call agenda items > > III. Quick Update on ICANN policies > > * Open public comments: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public > > IV. GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team report > > V. IAG report and WHOIS conflicts with local law > > VI. Hyderabad meeting preparation > > VII. AOB > > > Updates to the agenda will appear here: > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/11+October+2016+NCSG+Open+Policy+Meeting > > I'm looking forward to interacting with our members in the call. If > you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please > send email off-list to Maryam (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) and she will > assist you. > > > Best regards, > > Tapani Tarvainen > > NCSG Chair > > > =========================================================================== > > Participation details for the call: > > > Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ > > > Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1SV4ZvB > > > Passcodes/Pin codes: > Participant passcode: NCSG > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. > > Dial in numbers: > Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number > > > ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 > AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 > AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 > BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 > BRAZIL 0800-7610651 > CHILE 1230-020-2863 > CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 > CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 > COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 > CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 > DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 > ESTONIA 800-011-1093 > FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 > FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 > FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 > GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 > GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 > HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 > HUNGARY 06-800-12755 > INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 > INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 > INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 > INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 > IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 > ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 > ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 > JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 LATVIA 8000-3185 > LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 > MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 > MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 > NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 > NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 > NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 > PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 > PERU 0800-53713 > PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 > POLAND 00-800-1212572 > PORTUGAL 8008-14052 > RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 > SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 > SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 > SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 > SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 > SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 > SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 > SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 > SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 > TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 > THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 > UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 > UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 > URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 > USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 > VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 > > > Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Oct 11 15:22:12 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:22:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 11 October 2016 | 1200 UTC In-Reply-To: <36e5a550-43ed-64cd-b97f-d9ffab731e7f@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <20161010155626.GA24471@tarvainen.info> <36e5a550-43ed-64cd-b97f-d9ffab731e7f@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5af8be39-cd2f-8209-6d5d-def3e14ac88b@mail.utoronto.ca> 1. the adobe connection comes and goes....sometimes I can hear you, then it will stop for a couple of minutes. says connection lost, will attempt to reestablish. 2. you cannot hear me, and I cannot type in chat. Sometimes one message will show up, then disappear. 3. Same thing happens to raising my hand.....i can type away then nothing happens, but suddenly my hand will appear and then refuse to go down. I think that is the list.... Stephanie On 2016-10-11 08:16, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I am having persistent problems with the new adobe interface. audio > does not work, it will not let me chat. Please can you get me tech > help, nathalie tried to help me the other day, we thouight it was > working but it is back to not working now. > > Stephanief > > > On 2016-10-10 11:56, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Next NCSG monthly policy call will be on Tuesday 11 October 2016, >> tomorrow, at 1200 - 1400 UTC. >> >> Everybody is encouraged to attend. >> >> What is it about? Generally: >> >> - Discussing the GNSO council call agenda items. Councillors and NCSG >> members involved in related working group will give more insight about >> the motions. >> >> - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements, >> open public comments and discussing how NCSG should act. >> >> - Other issues of interest to NCSG members. >> >> >> *Why should you attend?* >> >> It is a good opportunity to catch up with the ongoing policies and >> finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers it is >> a good way to get a snapshot of activities within NCSG, GNSO and >> ICANN, and to interact with GNSO councillors. >> >> *Below is a preliminary agenda. If you have suggestions for other >> items you'd like to add, please send them to me.* >> >> >> Preliminary agenda: >> >> I. Roll call >> >> II. 13 October 2016 GNSO Meeting Preparation - Agenda 13 October 2016: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+October+2016 >> >> GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership >> about the GNSO call agenda items >> >> III. Quick Update on ICANN policies >> >> * Open public comments:https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public >> >> IV. GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team report >> >> V. IAG report and WHOIS conflicts with local law >> >> VI. Hyderabad meeting preparation >> >> VII. AOB >> >> >> Updates to the agenda will appear here: >> >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/11+October+2016+NCSG+Open+Policy+Meeting >> >> I'm looking forward to interacting with our members in the call. If >> you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please >> send email off-list to Maryam (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) and she will >> assist you. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> NCSG Chair >> >> >> =========================================================================== >> >> Participation details for the call: >> >> >> Adobe Connect:https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ >> >> >> Time Zones:http://bit.ly/1SV4ZvB >> >> >> Passcodes/Pin codes: >> Participant passcode: NCSG >> >> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. >> >> Dial in numbers: >> Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number >> >> >> ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >> AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >> BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 >> BRAZIL 0800-7610651 >> CHILE 1230-020-2863 >> CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 >> CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 >> COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 >> CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 >> DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >> ESTONIA 800-011-1093 >> FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 >> FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 >> FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 >> FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 >> GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 >> GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 >> HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 >> HUNGARY 06-800-12755 >> INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 >> INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 >> INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 >> INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 >> IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 >> ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 >> ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 >> JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799> JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191> LATVIA 8000-3185 >> LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 >> MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >> MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 >> NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 >> NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 >> NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >> PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 >> PERU 0800-53713 >> PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 >> POLAND 00-800-1212572 >> PORTUGAL 8008-14052 >> RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 >> SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 >> SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 >> SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 >> SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 >> SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 >> SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 >> SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >> SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 >> TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 >> THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 >> UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 >> UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 >> UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 >> UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 >> UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 >> URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 >> USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 >> VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 >> >> >> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi Tue Oct 11 15:32:28 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:32:28 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 11 October 2016 | 1200 UTC In-Reply-To: <36e5a550-43ed-64cd-b97f-d9ffab731e7f@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <20161010155626.GA24471@tarvainen.info>, <36e5a550-43ed-64cd-b97f-d9ffab731e7f@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <6781D65E-75D2-4F2B-A826-C8839494DE6D@icann.org> Hi Stephanie, Let me get tech support on it now. Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) T: +44 7737698036 S: maryam.bakoshi.icann On 11 Oct 2016, at 13:31, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: I am having persistent problems with the new adobe interface. audio does not work, it will not let me chat. Please can you get me tech help, nathalie tried to help me the other day, we thouight it was working but it is back to not working now. Stephanief On 2016-10-10 11:56, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: Dear all, Next NCSG monthly policy call will be on Tuesday 11 October 2016, tomorrow, at 1200 - 1400 UTC. Everybody is encouraged to attend. What is it about? Generally: - Discussing the GNSO council call agenda items. Councillors and NCSG members involved in related working group will give more insight about the motions. - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements, open public comments and discussing how NCSG should act. - Other issues of interest to NCSG members. *Why should you attend?* It is a good opportunity to catch up with the ongoing policies and finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers it is a good way to get a snapshot of activities within NCSG, GNSO and ICANN, and to interact with GNSO councillors. *Below is a preliminary agenda. If you have suggestions for other items you'd like to add, please send them to me.* Preliminary agenda: I. Roll call II. 13 October 2016 GNSO Meeting Preparation - Agenda 13 October 2016: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+October+2016[community.icann.org] GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership about the GNSO call agenda items III. Quick Update on ICANN policies * Open public comments: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public[icann.org] IV. GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team report V. IAG report and WHOIS conflicts with local law VI. Hyderabad meeting preparation VII. AOB Updates to the agenda will appear here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/11+October+2016+NCSG+Open+Policy+Meeting[community.icann.org] I'm looking forward to interacting with our members in the call. If you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please send email off-list to Maryam (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) and she will assist you. Best regards, Tapani Tarvainen NCSG Chair =========================================================================== Participation details for the call: Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1SV4ZvB[bit.ly] Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: NCSG For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Tue Oct 11 16:17:34 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:17:34 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 11 October 2016 | 1200 UTC In-Reply-To: <5af8be39-cd2f-8209-6d5d-def3e14ac88b@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <20161010155626.GA24471@tarvainen.info> <36e5a550-43ed-64cd-b97f-d9ffab731e7f@mail.utoronto.ca> <5af8be39-cd2f-8209-6d5d-def3e14ac88b@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <61badc0b-9cb3-31a0-c007-bfcb3f18d493@mail.utoronto.ca> Maryam can you please make a note in the transcript that members were having serious connectivity problems with the new interface for this call. This is the 4th call, I am not the only one, and tech is not getting back to me in response to tickets. Please at least let the record show this was not a normal call. On 2016-10-11 08:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > 1. the adobe connection comes and goes....sometimes I can hear you, > then it will stop for a couple of minutes. says connection lost, will > attempt to reestablish. > > 2. you cannot hear me, and I cannot type in chat. Sometimes one > message will show up, then disappear. > > 3. Same thing happens to raising my hand.....i can type away then > nothing happens, but suddenly my hand will appear and then refuse to > go down. > > I think that is the list.... > > Stephanie > > > On 2016-10-11 08:16, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> I am having persistent problems with the new adobe interface. audio >> does not work, it will not let me chat. Please can you get me tech >> help, nathalie tried to help me the other day, we thouight it was >> working but it is back to not working now. >> >> Stephanief >> >> >> On 2016-10-10 11:56, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Next NCSG monthly policy call will be on Tuesday 11 October 2016, >>> tomorrow, at 1200 - 1400 UTC. >>> >>> Everybody is encouraged to attend. >>> >>> What is it about? Generally: >>> >>> - Discussing the GNSO council call agenda items. Councillors and NCSG >>> members involved in related working group will give more insight about >>> the motions. >>> >>> - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements, >>> open public comments and discussing how NCSG should act. >>> >>> - Other issues of interest to NCSG members. >>> >>> >>> *Why should you attend?* >>> >>> It is a good opportunity to catch up with the ongoing policies and >>> finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers it is >>> a good way to get a snapshot of activities within NCSG, GNSO and >>> ICANN, and to interact with GNSO councillors. >>> >>> *Below is a preliminary agenda. If you have suggestions for other >>> items you'd like to add, please send them to me.* >>> >>> >>> Preliminary agenda: >>> >>> I. Roll call >>> >>> II. 13 October 2016 GNSO Meeting Preparation - Agenda 13 October 2016: >>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+October+2016 >>> >>> GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership >>> about the GNSO call agenda items >>> >>> III. Quick Update on ICANN policies >>> >>> * Open public comments:https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public >>> >>> IV. GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team report >>> >>> V. IAG report and WHOIS conflicts with local law >>> >>> VI. Hyderabad meeting preparation >>> >>> VII. AOB >>> >>> >>> Updates to the agenda will appear here: >>> >>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/11+October+2016+NCSG+Open+Policy+Meeting >>> >>> I'm looking forward to interacting with our members in the call. If >>> you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please >>> send email off-list to Maryam (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) and she will >>> assist you. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> >>> NCSG Chair >>> >>> >>> =========================================================================== >>> >>> Participation details for the call: >>> >>> >>> Adobe Connect:https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ >>> >>> >>> Time Zones:http://bit.ly/1SV4ZvB >>> >>> >>> Passcodes/Pin codes: >>> Participant passcode: NCSG >>> >>> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. >>> >>> Dial in numbers: >>> Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number >>> >>> >>> ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >>> AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 >>> AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >>> BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 >>> BRAZIL 0800-7610651 >>> CHILE 1230-020-2863 >>> CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 >>> CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 >>> COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 >>> CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 >>> DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >>> ESTONIA 800-011-1093 >>> FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 >>> FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 >>> FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 >>> FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 >>> GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 >>> GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 >>> HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 >>> HUNGARY 06-800-12755 >>> INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 >>> INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 >>> INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 >>> INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 >>> IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 >>> ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 >>> ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 >>> JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799>> JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191>> LATVIA 8000-3185 >>> LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 >>> MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >>> MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 >>> NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 >>> NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 >>> NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >>> PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 >>> PERU 0800-53713 >>> PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 >>> POLAND 00-800-1212572 >>> PORTUGAL 8008-14052 >>> RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 >>> SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 >>> SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 >>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 >>> SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 >>> SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 >>> SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 >>> SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >>> SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 >>> TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 >>> THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 >>> UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 >>> UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 >>> UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 >>> UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 >>> UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 >>> URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 >>> USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 >>> VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 >>> >>> >>> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi Tue Oct 11 16:21:51 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:21:51 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Open Policy Meeting | 11 October 2016 | 1200 UTC In-Reply-To: <61badc0b-9cb3-31a0-c007-bfcb3f18d493@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <20161010155626.GA24471@tarvainen.info> <36e5a550-43ed-64cd-b97f-d9ffab731e7f@mail.utoronto.ca> <5af8be39-cd2f-8209-6d5d-def3e14ac88b@mail.utoronto.ca>, <61badc0b-9cb3-31a0-c007-bfcb3f18d493@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <9EA7D99C-567E-45D1-AAFE-E7F7EA1C3AF3@icann.org> Thank you, Stephanie. I will do so. Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) T: +44 7737698036 S: maryam.bakoshi.icann On 11 Oct 2016, at 14:18, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: Maryam can you please make a note in the transcript that members were having serious connectivity problems with the new interface for this call. This is the 4th call, I am not the only one, and tech is not getting back to me in response to tickets. Please at least let the record show this was not a normal call. On 2016-10-11 08:22, Stephanie Perrin wrote: 1. the adobe connection comes and goes....sometimes I can hear you, then it will stop for a couple of minutes. says connection lost, will attempt to reestablish. 2. you cannot hear me, and I cannot type in chat. Sometimes one message will show up, then disappear. 3. Same thing happens to raising my hand.....i can type away then nothing happens, but suddenly my hand will appear and then refuse to go down. I think that is the list.... Stephanie On 2016-10-11 08:16, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I am having persistent problems with the new adobe interface. audio does not work, it will not let me chat. Please can you get me tech help, nathalie tried to help me the other day, we thouight it was working but it is back to not working now. Stephanief On 2016-10-10 11:56, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: Dear all, Next NCSG monthly policy call will be on Tuesday 11 October 2016, tomorrow, at 1200 - 1400 UTC. Everybody is encouraged to attend. What is it about? Generally: - Discussing the GNSO council call agenda items. Councillors and NCSG members involved in related working group will give more insight about the motions. - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements, open public comments and discussing how NCSG should act. - Other issues of interest to NCSG members. *Why should you attend?* It is a good opportunity to catch up with the ongoing policies and finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers it is a good way to get a snapshot of activities within NCSG, GNSO and ICANN, and to interact with GNSO councillors. *Below is a preliminary agenda. If you have suggestions for other items you'd like to add, please send them to me.* Preliminary agenda: I. Roll call II. 13 October 2016 GNSO Meeting Preparation - Agenda 13 October 2016: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+October+2016[community.icann.org] GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership about the GNSO call agenda items III. Quick Update on ICANN policies * Open public comments: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public[icann.org] IV. GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team report V. IAG report and WHOIS conflicts with local law VI. Hyderabad meeting preparation VII. AOB Updates to the agenda will appear here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/11+October+2016+NCSG+Open+Policy+Meeting[community.icann.org] I'm looking forward to interacting with our members in the call. If you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please send email off-list to Maryam (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) and she will assist you. Best regards, Tapani Tarvainen NCSG Chair =========================================================================== Participation details for the call: Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ Time Zones: http://bit.ly/1SV4ZvB[bit.ly] Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: NCSG For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg[mailman.ipjustice.org] _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg[mailman.ipjustice.org] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Tue Oct 11 23:17:32 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:17:32 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection Message-ID: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> Dear all, Following up the discussion during our policy call about GNSO VC selection, I got the following proposal from the CSG. It looks pretty good to me, although there're some details that need more work. Comments welcome. -- Tapani Tarvainen ----- Forwarded message from WUKnoben ----- Dear Tapani, following the exchange on a small team of NCSG and CSG members in Helsinki the CSG-ExComm discussed the processes and wants to communicate its views ? We agree that the selection process for board seat #14 is not as urgent as the council Vice Chair selection. Nevertheless it should be jointly discussed in Hyderabad and afterwards ? either in our small volunteer group or on the house level. ? Re the Vice Chair election we could make a distinction between the upcoming in Hyderabad and the process in general. o ICANN 57: Within the CSG, it turned out that for the next term 2016/17 there is unanimous support for Heather as Vice Chair again. We would highly appreciate the NCSG coming to the same conclusion. o General process in future: 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 (I.e., if Heather serves a second term, then next year this nomination opportunity would be accorded to NCSG). 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and approval by the first SG, probably through a "listening tour" process. [Assuming Heather serves a second term, we don't need to worry about this in detail right now.] 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, both SGs and the NCA are then eligible to nominate Vice Chair candidates. The process for a "contested election" would need to be determined, as would the effect on the future "presumptive rotation." We?re open for more detailed talks before and in Hyderabad and support any arrangements for this if the NCSG wishes so. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich on behalf of the CSG ----- End forwarded message ----- From dave Wed Oct 12 10:50:44 2016 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:50:44 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <14B34C35-6F5A-41E9-8701-E4918FC6EAA2@davecake.net> As our participant on the small volunteer group, this proposal is fairly close, and a bit more formalised, than WU and I discussed in Helsinki, and looks acceptable to me. I think there are some points for discussion here, but as far as it goes I?m happy with it. As far as next term goes, I know I?ll no longer be a councillor, but my opinion would be that a second term for Heather would be fine. She?s been pretty solid in her vice-chair role, and I don?t know if we have anyone on our side who is keen to take on the job, though we have some people who would be strong candidates if they were interested. David > On 12 Oct 2016, at 4:17 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Dear all, > > Following up the discussion during our policy call about GNSO VC > selection, I got the following proposal from the CSG. It looks pretty > good to me, although there're some details that need more work. > > Comments welcome. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > ----- Forwarded message from WUKnoben ----- > > Dear Tapani, > > following the exchange on a small team of NCSG and CSG members in Helsinki the > CSG-ExComm discussed the processes and wants to communicate its views > ? We agree that the selection process for board seat #14 is not as urgent > as the council Vice Chair selection. Nevertheless it should be jointly > discussed in Hyderabad and afterwards ? either in our small volunteer group or > on the house level. > ? Re the Vice Chair election we could make a distinction between the > upcoming in Hyderabad and the process in general. > o ICANN 57: Within the CSG, it turned out that for the next term 2016/17 > there is unanimous support for Heather as Vice Chair again. We would highly > appreciate the NCSG coming to the same conclusion. > o General process in future: > 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 (I.e., if Heather serves a second > term, then next year this nomination opportunity would be accorded to NCSG). > 6. The "non-incumbent" SG would nominate a candidate for review and approval > by the first SG, probably through a "listening tour" process. [Assuming > Heather serves a second term, we don't need to worry about this in detail > right now.] > 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, both SGs and the NCA are then eligible to > nominate Vice Chair candidates. > > The process for a "contested election" would need to be determined, as would > the effect on the future "presumptive rotation." > > We?re open for more detailed talks before and in Hyderabad and support any > arrangements for this if the NCSG wishes so. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > on behalf of the CSG > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Wed Oct 12 13:26:37 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:26:37 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: point 8 is a problem. that is where they nailed us last time. if they dont accept the first offered candidate, then the selecting SG should just select again. this is a bad deal, i recommend you do not accept. avrio On 11-Oct-16 22:17, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear all, > > Following up the discussion during our policy call about GNSO VC > selection, I got the following proposal from the CSG. It looks pretty > good to me, although there're some details that need more work. > > Comments welcome. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From aelsadr Wed Oct 12 12:50:19 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:50:19 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi, I agree with Avri. Also, this process doesn?t take into consideration what would happen if the GNSO Chair was from the NCPH. This should also be considered. Doesn?t make sense to me to have both a Chair and a Vice-Chair from the same SG. Thanks. Amr > On Oct 12, 2016, at 1:26 PM, avri doria wrote: > > > point 8 is a problem. > > that is where they nailed us last time. > > if they dont accept the first offered candidate, then the selecting SG > should just select again. > > this is a bad deal, i recommend you do not accept. > > > avrio > > > > On 11-Oct-16 22:17, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Following up the discussion during our policy call about GNSO VC >> selection, I got the following proposal from the CSG. It looks pretty >> good to me, although there're some details that need more work. >> >> Comments welcome. >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wjdrake Wed Oct 12 13:51:02 2016 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:51:02 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi Agree with Avri, let history be a guide here. Bill > On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:26, avri doria wrote: > > > point 8 is a problem. > > that is where they nailed us last time. > > if they dont accept the first offered candidate, then the selecting SG > should just select again. > > this is a bad deal, i recommend you do not accept. > > > avrio > > > > On 11-Oct-16 22:17, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Following up the discussion during our policy call about GNSO VC >> selection, I got the following proposal from the CSG. It looks pretty >> good to me, although there're some details that need more work. >> >> Comments welcome. >> > > > --- > 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: From ncsg Wed Oct 12 14:03:38 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:03:38 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20161012110338.GG9372@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Yes. There're other open issues, too, like what happens if for whatever reason the rotation is occasionally broken. E.g., both SGs might agree that the NCA is best VC on some occasion, or one SG might voluntarily give up their turn (maybe just for one year) for some reason - would they get it back later (3-year run)? So let's try to think of all possible problem scenarios, especially all seen in the past but also whatever new ones we can imagine, and see how we can improve on this. Tapani On Oct 12 12:50, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Avri. Also, this process doesn?t take into consideration what would happen if the GNSO Chair was from the NCPH. This should also be considered. Doesn?t make sense to me to have both a Chair and a Vice-Chair from the same SG. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > On Oct 12, 2016, at 1:26 PM, avri doria wrote: > > > > > > point 8 is a problem. > > > > that is where they nailed us last time. > > > > if they dont accept the first offered candidate, then the selecting SG > > should just select again. > > > > this is a bad deal, i recommend you do not accept. > > > > > > avrio > > > > > > > > On 11-Oct-16 22:17, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Following up the discussion during our policy call about GNSO VC > >> selection, I got the following proposal from the CSG. It looks pretty > >> good to me, although there're some details that need more work. > >> > >> Comments welcome. > >> From aelsadr Wed Oct 12 19:18:29 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:18:29 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team References: <4DBB1F9E-6141-49D0-BDBC-C6C46993C04A@netchoice.org> Message-ID: Hi, I?m forwarding the final report and recommendations of the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team (DT), which are attached to this email. This drafting team was created by a Council resolution during the Council meeting on June 30th in Helsinki (https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-30jun16-en.htm ), and was tasked with developing recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the ICANN bylaws, which were revised as a result of the recommendations coming out of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability (CCWG-ACCT). The DT came up with recommendations that should lead to amendments in the GNSO?s operating procedures. A summary of the recommendations can be found beginning on the first page of the DT?s final report, but a more detailed version of the recommendations can be reviewed in a separate document (also attached to this email), which tabulates the relevant new bylaws matching each one of them to new rights/obligations of the GNSO, the need for new operating procedures, as well as the DT recommendation relevant to each of the respective bylaws. The DT?s final report itself, apart from a summary of the recommendations, describes the consensus levels among the DT members for each of the recommendations, as well as a summary of the discussion that the DT members engaged in in order to come up with the recommendations. The NCSG had three members appointed to this DT; Farzaneh Badii, Matthew Shears and myself. We also had Edward Morris working with us on the DT having been appointed to it by the Non-Contracted Parties House (NCPH) NomCom Appointee (NCA). As far as I am concerned, it was a great team. We worked well together, and got the recommendations we wanted in having the GNSO Council making decisions on behalf of the GNSO as a decisional participant of the Empowered Community (EC). We also pretty much got all the voting thresholds we wanted on Council, and I would be happy to answers any questions on those, as I am sure Farzi, Matt and Ed would be as well. Most noteworthy among the recommendations is the fact that inspection rights will become available to individual GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, with no action being required by the GNSO Council at all. This is a huge win for us, and full credit needs to go to the NCSG members who worked on getting us these rights while working tirelessly on the CCWG-ACCT. There is already a placeholder motion that was submitted for the GNSO Council to adopt the report and recommendations of the DT, but I expect this motion to be deferred. The DT only sent its report to the Council today, and the Council?s next conference call will take place tomorrow. When the time comes, I advise our Councillors to vote in favor of adopting the DT?s report and recommendations. And like I said above, I?d be happy to answer any questions on this. Would be great to also hear from Farzi, Matt and Ed on this topic. Having been involved in the CCWG-ACCT, they?ve been working on this far longer than I have. Thanks. Amr > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Steve DelBianco > Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team > Date: October 12, 2016 at 3:56:23 PM GMT+3 > To: Julie Hedlund , Marika Konings > Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" > > [ICANN Staff ? please send this to GNSO Councilors] > > Dear GNSO Councilors, > > Please see the attached Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Report and implementation plan, plus the cover note below from Steve DelBianco, Drafting Team Chair. > > Kind regards, > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > Note from Steve DelBianco: > > Dear GNSO Councilors, > > As you may recall, the Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) was created to provide the GNSO Council with a draft implementation plan for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws. The Council requested that this DT submit the proposed implementation plan by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2[gnso.icann.org] for the full Council resolution). > > At the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September, I requested an additional two weeks to complete the report due to the complexity of the task as well as the short time frame. Thank you for allowing the DT the additional two weeks to complete this very important task. > > Please see the attached final report and implementation plan from the DT for GNSO Council consideration on at its meeting on 13 October. As noted previously, this implementation plan for the Council is not intended to include specific language for new or amended rules and procedures. Drafting of these new or amended processes will therefore likely begin only after approval of the implementation plan. The understanding is that the initial task of the DT was to identify and agree on how GNSO should handle new obligations and rights arising from the revised ICANN Bylaws. > > I will be available during the GNSO Council call on the 13th to address any questions you may have concerning this implementation plan. > > Best regards, > Steve DelBianco > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list > Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 12-Oct].docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 923451 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 12-Oct].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 284446 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bylaws ?& GNSO Procedures Map [FINAL 12-Oct].docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 92587 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bylaws ?& GNSO Procedures Map [FINAL 12-Oct].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 583632 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Thu Oct 13 12:57:07 2016 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:57:07 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team In-Reply-To: References: <4DBB1F9E-6141-49D0-BDBC-C6C46993C04A@netchoice.org> Message-ID: Hi again, Steve Metalitz of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) circulated a minority statement to the Bylaws DT list that he asked to be forwarded to the GNSO Council on behalf of the three Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) constituencies. I?ve attached it to this email. It concerns the DT?s majority view to grant Council the role of acting on behalf the GNSO as a decisional participant in the EC. Personally, I don?t find anything in the minority statement that adds to the arguments presented on behalf of the minority group within the DT that wasn?t already included in the DT?s final report. Speaking for myself, I believe the CSG constituencies have been rather unhelpful on this topic while working on the DT. Instead of focusing on the mandate of the DT, they took the opportunity to raise points that are likely more relevant to their ongoing desire to restructure the GNSO, and do away with the bicameral House structure it uses. I also believe the DT, over the past seven weeks, has wasted precious time negotiating edits to the report in order to prevent overrepresentation of the minority view compared to the overall DT consensus. This was, at times, frustrating, but I?m not unhappy with the final result. The DT?s report, recommendations and minority statement will be discussed during today?s Council call. There is a placeholder motion to adopt the DT?s work, but given the timing of the DT?s conclusion of its work, I believe this motion should and will be deferred. If you?d like to listen in on the Council call, you should be able to do so using a live audio stream here: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u. It begins in about an hour at UTC 12:00. Thanks. Amr -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Minority report for GNSO-DT (8222039).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56202 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > I?m forwarding the final report and recommendations of the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team (DT), which are attached to this email. This drafting team was created by a Council resolution during the Council meeting on June 30th in Helsinki (https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-30jun16-en.htm), and was tasked with developing recommendations to implement the GNSO?s new roles and obligations under the ICANN bylaws, which were revised as a result of the recommendations coming out of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability (CCWG-ACCT). The DT came up with recommendations that should lead to amendments in the GNSO?s operating procedures. > > A summary of the recommendations can be found beginning on the first page of the DT?s final report, but a more detailed version of the recommendations can be reviewed in a separate document (also attached to this email), which tabulates the relevant new bylaws matching each one of them to new rights/obligations of the GNSO, the need for new operating procedures, as well as the DT recommendation relevant to each of the respective bylaws. > > The DT?s final report itself, apart from a summary of the recommendations, describes the consensus levels among the DT members for each of the recommendations, as well as a summary of the discussion that the DT members engaged in in order to come up with the recommendations. > > The NCSG had three members appointed to this DT; Farzaneh Badii, Matthew Shears and myself. We also had Edward Morris working with us on the DT having been appointed to it by the Non-Contracted Parties House (NCPH) NomCom Appointee (NCA). As far as I am concerned, it was a great team. We worked well together, and got the recommendations we wanted in having the GNSO Council making decisions on behalf of the GNSO as a decisional participant of the Empowered Community (EC). We also pretty much got all the voting thresholds we wanted on Council, and I would be happy to answers any questions on those, as I am sure Farzi, Matt and Ed would be as well. > > Most noteworthy among the recommendations is the fact that inspection rights will become available to individual GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, with no action being required by the GNSO Council at all. This is a huge win for us, and full credit needs to go to the NCSG members who worked on getting us these rights while working tirelessly on the CCWG-ACCT. > > There is already a placeholder motion that was submitted for the GNSO Council to adopt the report and recommendations of the DT, but I expect this motion to be deferred. The DT only sent its report to the Council today, and the Council?s next conference call will take place tomorrow. When the time comes, I advise our Councillors to vote in favor of adopting the DT?s report and recommendations. And like I said above, I?d be happy to answer any questions on this. > > Would be great to also hear from Farzi, Matt and Ed on this topic. Having been involved in the CCWG-ACCT, they?ve been working on this far longer than I have. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Steve DelBianco >> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team >> Date: October 12, 2016 at 3:56:23 PM GMT+3 >> To: Julie Hedlund , Marika Konings >> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" >> >> [ICANN Staff ? please send this to GNSO Councilors] >> >> Dear GNSO Councilors, >> >> Please see the attached Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Report and implementation plan, plus the cover note below from Steve DelBianco, Drafting Team Chair. >> >> Kind regards, >> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> >> Note from Steve DelBianco: >> >> Dear GNSO Councilors, >> >> As you may recall, the Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) was created to provide the GNSO Council with a draft implementation plan for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws. The Council requested that this DT submit the proposed implementation plan by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2[gnso.icann.org] for the full Council resolution). >> >> At the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September, I requested an additional two weeks to complete the report due to the complexity of the task as well as the short time frame. Thank you for allowing the DT the additional two weeks to complete this very important task. >> >> Please see the attached final report and implementation plan from the DT for GNSO Council consideration on at its meeting on 13 October. As noted previously, this implementation plan for the Council is not intended to include specific language for new or amended rules and procedures. Drafting of these new or amended processes will therefore likely begin only after approval of the implementation plan. The understanding is that the initial task of the DT was to identify and agree on how GNSO should handle new obligations and rights arising from the revised ICANN Bylaws. >> >> I will be available during the GNSO Council call on the 13th to address any questions you may have concerning this implementation plan. >> >> Best regards, >> Steve DelBianco >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list >> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wjdrake Thu Oct 13 14:11:41 2016 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:11:41 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Restructuring? In-Reply-To: References: <4DBB1F9E-6141-49D0-BDBC-C6C46993C04A@netchoice.org> Message-ID: <6DABA7AC-F65E-414C-AEBF-D3BA122E1700@gmail.com> Hi > On Oct 13, 2016, at 11:57, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > the CSG constituencies have been rather unhelpful on this topic while working on the DT. Instead of focusing on the mandate of the DT, they took the opportunity to raise points that are likely more relevant to their ongoing desire to restructure the GNSO, and do away with the bicameral House structure it uses. Thanks Amr this is helpful as always. The minority statement aside (imagine you?re right there), I?m curious, having not spoken with CSG about this since in over a year due to NomCom cloistering: what exactly is their current thinking about restructuring the GNSO, what would they want it to look like without the houses? And gave we expressed a view on this that I?ve missed? Thanks Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg Thu Oct 13 21:50:25 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:50:25 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Hyderabad schedule - urgent Message-ID: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> Trying to finalize Hyderabad schedule is ... well. Hard. And there's not much time left, only hours... ok until early tomorrow it seems. In particular I'm trying to find a slot for Policy Committee meeting where at least most PC members could participate. So, quick responses please: Which High Interest Topics or WG meetings or something else you *must* be in (that is, more important than PC meeting)? Opinions on the length of the PC meeting would also be welcome - can we make do with 90 minutes? -- Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg Thu Oct 13 22:07:35 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:07:35 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Hyderabad schedule - urgent In-Reply-To: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> References: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20161013190735.GD28915@tarvainen.info> An extra question: do you arrive in time to make it for a Thursday afternoon meeting? Tapani On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:50:25PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > Trying to finalize Hyderabad schedule is ... well. Hard. > And there's not much time left, only hours... ok until > early tomorrow it seems. > > In particular I'm trying to find a slot for Policy Committee > meeting where at least most PC members could participate. > > So, quick responses please: > > Which High Interest Topics or WG meetings or something else > you *must* be in (that is, more important than PC meeting)? > > Opinions on the length of the PC meeting would also be welcome - > can we make do with 90 minutes? -- Tapani Tarvainen From stephanie.perrin Thu Oct 13 22:17:07 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:17:07 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Hyderabad schedule - urgent In-Reply-To: <20161013190735.GD28915@tarvainen.info> References: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> <20161013190735.GD28915@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <8427b3c8-fcae-550d-5806-7f3f77327d41@mail.utoronto.ca> I get there on the morning of the first. Tired. Where is the schedule to which you refer? I cannot see much on what is posted on the website. Steph On 2016-10-13 15:07, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > An extra question: do you arrive in time to make it > for a Thursday afternoon meeting? > > Tapani > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:50:25PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > >> Trying to finalize Hyderabad schedule is ... well. Hard. >> And there's not much time left, only hours... ok until >> early tomorrow it seems. >> >> In particular I'm trying to find a slot for Policy Committee >> meeting where at least most PC members could participate. >> >> So, quick responses please: >> >> Which High Interest Topics or WG meetings or something else >> you *must* be in (that is, more important than PC meeting)? >> >> Opinions on the length of the PC meeting would also be welcome - >> can we make do with 90 minutes? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears Fri Oct 14 00:08:19 2016 From: mshears (matthew shears) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:08:19 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Hyderabad schedule - urgent In-Reply-To: <8427b3c8-fcae-550d-5806-7f3f77327d41@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> <20161013190735.GD28915@tarvainen.info> <8427b3c8-fcae-550d-5806-7f3f77327d41@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <89cd9464-8373-14b7-5b2d-4f2dd8dbcc68@cdt.org> I am there sometime on the 1st. On the agenda - WS2 and GNSO bylaws and GNSO futures. Matthew On 13/10/2016 20:17, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I get there on the morning of the first. Tired. > > Where is the schedule to which you refer? I cannot see much on what > is posted on the website. > > Steph > > > On 2016-10-13 15:07, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> An extra question: do you arrive in time to make it >> for a Thursday afternoon meeting? >> >> Tapani >> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 09:50:25PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: >> >>> Trying to finalize Hyderabad schedule is ... well. Hard. >>> And there's not much time left, only hours... ok until >>> early tomorrow it seems. >>> >>> In particular I'm trying to find a slot for Policy Committee >>> meeting where at least most PC members could participate. >>> >>> So, quick responses please: >>> >>> Which High Interest Topics or WG meetings or something else >>> you *must* be in (that is, more important than PC meeting)? >>> >>> Opinions on the length of the PC meeting would also be welcome - >>> can we make do with 90 minutes? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From kathy Fri Oct 14 00:22:47 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:22:47 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Hyderabad schedule - urgent In-Reply-To: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> References: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <0d7a09ea-d80d-7fe7-bb09-b2e70a77d353@kathykleiman.com> Hi Tapani, tx for asking for our input. - I arrive late 11/2 - As co-chair of the RPM WG, I have been asked to be at the High-Interest Topic Session of Reviewing the 2012 New gTLD Program (we have been told it may take place at Saturday, 10/5, 11am or 3pm local time for one hour). - I have also promised to attend the high-interest panel about Shadow Regulation and Manila Principles projects (on the secretly-negotiating agreements, of the type we have been talking about with Donuts). Mitch Stoltz of EFF is speaking. - The Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group - whenever it is taking place. Sorry I don't have a draft schedule, so I can't even tell you the times they are thinking of for the last two sessions. Tx for spending insane amounts of time to plan our meetings in India!!!! Best, Kathy On 10/13/2016 2:50 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Trying to finalize Hyderabad schedule is ... well. Hard. > And there's not much time left, only hours... ok until > early tomorrow it seems. > > In particular I'm trying to find a slot for Policy Committee > meeting where at least most PC members could participate. > > So, quick responses please: > > Which High Interest Topics or WG meetings or something else > you *must* be in (that is, more important than PC meeting)? > > Opinions on the length of the PC meeting would also be welcome - > can we make do with 90 minutes? > From Stefania.Milan Fri Oct 14 01:44:35 2016 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:44:35 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Hyderabad schedule - urgent In-Reply-To: <0d7a09ea-d80d-7fe7-bb09-b2e70a77d353@kathykleiman.com> References: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info>, <0d7a09ea-d80d-7fe7-bb09-b2e70a77d353@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <629EE7A5-CB60-42C8-8E77-25CADE7E9C2C@EUI.eu> i should arrive late on the 3rd Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 13, 2016, at 23:23, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Hi Tapani, tx for asking for our input. > > - I arrive late 11/2 > > - As co-chair of the RPM WG, I have been asked to be at the High-Interest Topic Session of Reviewing the 2012 New gTLD Program (we have been told it may take place at Saturday, 10/5, 11am or 3pm local time for one hour). > > - I have also promised to attend the high-interest panel about Shadow Regulation and Manila Principles projects (on the secretly-negotiating agreements, of the type we have been talking about with Donuts). Mitch Stoltz of EFF is speaking. > > - The Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group - whenever it is taking place. > > Sorry I don't have a draft schedule, so I can't even tell you the times they are thinking of for the last two sessions. > > Tx for spending insane amounts of time to plan our meetings in India!!!! > > Best, Kathy > > >> On 10/13/2016 2:50 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Trying to finalize Hyderabad schedule is ... well. Hard. >> And there's not much time left, only hours... ok until >> early tomorrow it seems. >> >> In particular I'm trying to find a slot for Policy Committee >> meeting where at least most PC members could participate. >> >> So, quick responses please: >> >> Which High Interest Topics or WG meetings or something else >> you *must* be in (that is, more important than PC meeting)? >> >> Opinions on the length of the PC meeting would also be welcome - >> can we make do with 90 minutes? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rafik.dammak Fri Oct 14 07:40:34 2016 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:40:34 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Hyderabad schedule - urgent In-Reply-To: <0d7a09ea-d80d-7fe7-bb09-b2e70a77d353@kathykleiman.com> References: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> <0d7a09ea-d80d-7fe7-bb09-b2e70a77d353@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi, I arrive late in 3rd November so I will miss any session planned in Thursday. the DNS and content regulation session is scheduled in Sunday and so won't be in clash with nay NCSG session. RPM WG and new gTLD WG sessions are planned for Thursday. Best, Rafik 2016-10-14 6:22 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman : > Hi Tapani, tx for asking for our input. > > - I arrive late 11/2 > > - As co-chair of the RPM WG, I have been asked to be at the High-Interest > Topic Session of Reviewing the 2012 New gTLD Program (we have been told it > may take place at Saturday, 10/5, 11am or 3pm local time for one hour). > > - I have also promised to attend the high-interest panel about Shadow > Regulation and Manila Principles projects (on the secretly-negotiating > agreements, of the type we have been talking about with Donuts). Mitch > Stoltz of EFF is speaking. > > - The Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group - whenever it is taking > place. > > Sorry I don't have a draft schedule, so I can't even tell you the times > they are thinking of for the last two sessions. > > Tx for spending insane amounts of time to plan our meetings in India!!!! > > Best, Kathy > > > On 10/13/2016 2:50 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> Trying to finalize Hyderabad schedule is ... well. Hard. >> And there's not much time left, only hours... ok until >> early tomorrow it seems. >> >> In particular I'm trying to find a slot for Policy Committee >> meeting where at least most PC members could participate. >> >> So, quick responses please: >> >> Which High Interest Topics or WG meetings or something else >> you *must* be in (that is, more important than PC meeting)? >> >> Opinions on the length of the PC meeting would also be welcome - >> can we make do with 90 minutes? >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Fri Oct 14 11:28:09 2016 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:28:09 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Hyderabad schedule - urgent In-Reply-To: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> References: <20161013185025.GB28915@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: I should be in Hyderabad Wednesday afternoon, and already on India time. Thursday is fine by me. David > On 14 Oct 2016, at 2:50 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Trying to finalize Hyderabad schedule is ... well. Hard. > And there's not much time left, only hours... ok until > early tomorrow it seems. > > In particular I'm trying to find a slot for Policy Committee > meeting where at least most PC members could participate. > > So, quick responses please: > > Which High Interest Topics or WG meetings or something else > you *must* be in (that is, more important than PC meeting)? > > Opinions on the length of the PC meeting would also be welcome - > can we make do with 90 minutes? > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Sat Oct 15 04:25:27 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Fwd: [GAC] For GAC: Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <7719681E-10CB-436A-AC98-8547825C1569@donuts.co> References: <7719681E-10CB-436A-AC98-8547825C1569@donuts.co> Message-ID: fyi -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Fwd: [GAC] For GAC: Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse Available for Public Comment Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:34:03 -0700 From: Mason Cole To: GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org) Councilors ? I was copied on the attached email from Mark Carvell, the GAC representative from the UK. I?m forwarding to you as a heads up on an issue the GAC will likely seek to put on the agenda for the council?s joint meeting with the GAC in Hyderabad. Please let me know if you?d like me to return any information or concerns to Mark. I?m happy to do so. Mason > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Mark Carvell > > *Subject: **Re: [GAC] For GAC: Draft Report of the Independent Review > of the Trademark Clearinghouse Available for Public Comment* > *Date: *October 7, 2016 at 12:29:02 PM PDT > *To: *"gac at icann.org " > > *Cc: *Mason Cole >, > "Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch > " > >, Tom Dale > > > Dear GAC colleagues > > As /aide memoire /I'm resending my e-mail of 14 August below which set > out proposed action by the GAC on the draft report of the review of > the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH) which has been undertaken in > response to a GAC proposal before the launch of the current new gTLD > application round in view of the criticality of the TMCH as a rights > protection mechanism (RPM). > > Responses received from stakeholders to the consultation on the draft > report of the TMCH review are accessible at > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/tmch-review-2016-07-25-en > > The GAC has a session in Hyderabad on the TMCH review scheduled for 6 > November and it is possible that one of the authors of the report will > be able to attend. I encourage colleagues therefore in the remaining > time available before travelling to Hyderabad to familiarise > themselves with this RPM, to review the responses to the draft review > report and if necessary to seek comments and advice from intellectual > property policy experts in your administrations. > > Kind regards > > Mark > > Mark Carvell > > Representative of the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories on > the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN > > /GAC Vice-Chair candidate for 2017 / > > Global Internet Governance Policy > Department for Culture, Media and Sport > mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk > tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 > > On 14 August 2016 at 17:11, Mark Carvell > wrote: > > Dear GAC colleagues > > One of the key parts of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook as it was > being written in 2009-11 that came under scrutiny by the GAC in > its "scorecard" progressive review of the proposals was that > relating to intellectual rights protection. This was in order to > mitigate what was perceived to be a substantial *risk of > escalation of the cybersquatting problem* *of bad faith > registration of trade mark names in order to extort money from > brand-owners *if there were to be a significant expansion in the > number of top level domains. Cybersquatting costs business over a > billion dollars annually. > > The level of public policy concern relating to how the rights > protection mechanisms (RPMs) were being developed to address this > risk, is indicated in the detailed exchanges on rights protection > at the time of the inter-sessional GAC meeting with the Board in > Brussels on 28 February-1 March 2011 - see for example: > https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/ICANN+Board-GAC+Consultation+Brussels+28+Feb-1+Mar+2011?preview=/27131966/27198027/GACID_20110309-GAC_replies_to_ICANN_rights_protection_questions.pdf > > > > There is also the statement of comments on the guidebook that > issued on 25 May: > https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf > which > in how it addresses issues such as community-based applications is > a very interesting document from the archives, when read in the > light of the experience of the new gTLDs round. > > The key safeguard mechanism that emerged from these discussions is > the "Trademark Clearinghouse" which is essentially a database of > registered marks to which registrars need to refer when receiving > registration enquiries and requests. This has been operational > since the roll out of the new gTLD programme started in late 2013; > the size of the database is described on pp5-6 of the draft review > report. > > The message to corporate brand-owners was that they needed to > develop strategies to prepare for this rapidly growing TLD > landscape and use the clearing house as the one-stop-solution for > protecting their brand in the era of the massively expanded new > gTLD system. > > For its part the GAC after some of its recommendations and > proposals had not been fully accepted, ultimately recommended in > the 25 May 2011 statement that a comprehensive independent review > of the TMCH be conducted that would be triggered at the one year > point after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round. We are > now at that point. > > As the topic lead of the RPMs at the time of the inter-sessional > meeting with the Board, the GAC leadership *has asked me to > coordinate the GAC's interaction and response* to the review > report. I now propose to do this with a view to presenting a *GAC > statement of position at our next meeting in Hyderabad.* By the > time of that meeting in November, we and the GNSO will have had > the opportunity to review the stakeholder responses to the current > public consultation which concludes on 3 September and it is > likely that the planned revised report taking into account the > responses will have issued. > > The ICANN announcement summarises very succinctly the main > conclusions of the draft report - including relating to few > specific critical questions raised back in 2011 about TMCH not > dealing with non-exact matches of trademarks (which had been > rejected by the Board) and not handling notifications after 60 > days limit - but not exclusively so as this should be a > comprehensive evaluation of the TMCH's effectiveness including how > unforeseen problems have been dealt with. > > For further information and key links, Tom Dale has provided the > attached GAC Secretariat briefing note. > > _My proposed way forward for the GAC in preparing its response to > the Independent Review of TMCH Services:_ > > 1. Colleagues*familiarise themselves with the draft report* and > its preliminary conclusions in *preparation for consideration of > the stakeholder consultation responses in September*. We should > bear in mind what the GAC required of this comprehensive review in > 2011. In particular we should question whether all the relevant > issues relating to mitigating the cybersquatting risk have been > covered in the draft report and whether all the emerging issues > from the experience since the roll-out of new gTLDs commenced. > have been taken into account. > > Timeline: *send me your initial responses to the draft report by 9 > September* prior to my launch the main GAC exercise which is to > *review the stakeholder responses *(with the help of ICANN staff) > *in the second half of September and first week of October. * > *//* > /How can you contribute? / > > Few of us on the GAC are IPR experts. Back in 2011 several GAC > members (including the UK) actively consulted their intellectual > property policy expert leads in the respective ministries and > agencies, for direction as to the position that the GAC should > take on enhancing rights protection while also balancing the > opportunity for new stakeholders in the domain name system. So I > recommend at this time of the TCMH services review, that > colleagues likewise consider *engaging their intellectual property > policy colleagues* - especially those familiar with the > cybersquatting risk and complaints and so who would be in contact > with brand-owners in particular - in order to develop your inputs > into the GAC deliberations on the TMCH, well in advance of the > Hyderabad. > > 2. At the Hyderabad meeting, I propose I chair a *substantive > discussion with the aim of formulating a GAC statement of position > *on the TMCH services and the revised review report. and as > appropriate *recommend adjustment*s both for the current round and > the subsequent mechanisms should there be a community decision to > extend further the domain name system with more gTLDs.. > > 3. The TMCH services review will quite possibly be an issue for > discussion with the GNSO in Hyderabad (I'm copying in our liaison > Mason Cole so that he is aware). One further option for colleagues > to consider is the potential value of inviting the review authors > (Jiariu Liu of the Stamford Law School, Greg Rafert of Analysis > Group, and Katja Seim of the Warton School Pennsylvania > University) to present their findings to the GAC and take > questions in open session. *Let me know what you think of that > option in due course.* > * > * > I'm away on summer leave for the rest of August but will be happy > to take questions and comments on the above proposed way forward > on the Trademark Clearinghouse Services review, when I return to > the office on 2 September. ** > > Kind regards > > Mark > > Mark Carvell > ?United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory > Committee of ICANN? > > Global Internet Governance Policy > Department for Culture, Media and Sport > mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk > tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 > > On 26 July 2016 at 06:44, Tom Dale > wrote: > > Dear GAC > > Please see the news alert from ICANN, below, advising that the > draft report of the Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse has > been released for public comment. The deadline for comment is > 3 September 2016. > > This review is based on a GAC recommendation of May 2011 for a > comprehensive post-launch independent review of the > Clearinghouse to be conducted one year after the launch of the > 75th new gTLD in the round. > > Further briefing will be provided in the near future. > > Regards > > > Tom Dale > ACIG GAC Secretariat > > > From: ICANN News Alert > > Reply-To: "no-reply at external.icann.org > " > > > Date: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 at 2:16 AM > To: Thomas Dale > > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report of the Independent > Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse Available for Public Comment > > ICANN > > > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-25-en > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark > Clearinghouse Available for Public Comment > > 25 July 2016 > > 25 July 2016 ? ICANN today announced the publication of the > Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark > Clearinghouse. Specific considerations related to the matching > criteria, Trademark Claims service and Sunrise period are > assessed in the review, conducted by Analysis Group. > > Read the report > > [PDF, 1.15 MB]. > > The report is available for public comment through 3 September > 2016. Feedback will be incorporated into a revised report. > > Comment on the Draft Report of the Independent Review of the > Trademark Clearinghouse > . > > > Key Findings: > > *Expanding Matching Criteria to include non-exact matches may > be of limited benefit:* The dispute rate of completed > registrations that are variations of trademark strings is very > low. > > *Extending the Trademark Claims Service may have diminishing > value:* Registrations of names matching trademarks decline > after the required 90-day Claims service period ends. > > *Few trademark holders utilize the Sunrise period:* Most users > of the Trademark Clearinghouse submit proof of use to gain > access to the Sunrise period. However, across eligible > trademark holders, fewer than 20 percent have used the Sunrise > period to date. > > > Additional Information > > An independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse was > recommended > > [PDF, 110 KB] by the GAC in May 2011 to be completed after the > launch of the New gTLD Program. The review is informed by an > analysis of Trademark Clearinghouse and third-party data > sources, including data collected from stakeholders via > interviews and surveys. > > > /About ICANN/ > > /ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and > unified global Internet. To reach another person on the > Internet, you have to type an address into your computer - a > name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers > know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and > support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was > formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation > and a community with participants from all over the world. > ICANN and its community help keep the Internet secure, stable > and interoperable. It also promotes competition and develops > policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and > facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For > more information please visit: www.icann.org > ./ > > > > This message was sent to tom at acig.com.au > from: > > ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org > | ICANN | 12025 > Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > > > Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! > > > Manage Your Subscription > > > _______________________________________________ > gac mailing list > gac at gac.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac > > > > *Mason Cole * VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. * *????**??**??**??**??* ** *??* ** *??* * mason at donuts.email Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sun Oct 16 07:48:35 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 06:48:35 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4caee35e-768c-7547-2920-c370207d4f52@apc.org> hi, so we were not able in the end to send a message confirming the policy decision the PC had taken previously on completing all work before another round. Was there some division on the subject? avri -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:59:09 +0000 From: Steve Chan To: GNSO Council List Dear Councilors, Pursuant to the GNSO Council call on 13 October, staff is circulating the latest draft of the Council response to the ICANN Board regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures timeline and work plan. I do not recall a deadline being specified, but staff would like to suggest that all comments be received by 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 18 October, in order to allow for any edits to be made or voting to take place if that becomes necessary - the intent is to ensure timely transmission of the letter to the ICANN Board prior to ICANN57. Best, Steve On 10/10/16, 6:56 PM, "Steve Chan" wrote: Dear Councilors, In support of the Motion put forth by Carlos below, please find the draft GNSO Council response to the ICANN Board as prepared by Carlos, Phil, James, Keith, and Stefania. The letter is intended to synthesize the responses received from the community while also noting where common views were identified. This drafting group and staff welcome your comments and suggested edits. Best, Steve On 10/3/16, 6:41 PM, "owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." wrote: Dear Glen, Dear Councillors I submit this motion to approve during our next call on 13 Oct a response to Chairman Crocker?s letter from August 5th 2016, and ask for secondment: Motion on the GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Made by: Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez Seconded by: WHEREAS, On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from Dr. Stephen Crocker seeking an understanding of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group?s (WG) requirements and timing related to advancing a new application process. On 16 August 2016, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the letter and informed the ICANN Board that initial discussions within the GNSO Council and more broadly, within the GNSO community and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, were anticipated. On 12 September 2016, the GNSO Council sent a letter to all of the GNSO?s Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG seeking input to help formulate the Council?s response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council received an important number of responses and divergent positions from many different individuals as well a constituencies within the GNSO community, as well as from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG. RESOLVED, The GNSO Council has synthesized the positions received and prepared a response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council looks forward to ongoing discussions with the broader community, particularly at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India. The GNSO Council expects to continue to consult with the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to determine if there are any significant changes to its schedule or scope of work as defined in its charter. Respectfully Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) Forwarded message: > From: Steve Chan > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez > Cc: Phil Corwin , Drazek, Keith > , James M. Bladel , > Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu , Emily Barabas > , Julie Hedlund , > Paul McGrady > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:34:18 +0000 > > All, > > Carlos, thank you for your comments. Seeing no volunteers to hold the > pen, staff is happy to prepare an initial draft for your > consideration, especially given the contracted timelines until the > next Council meeting. > > With a vote expected to consider and approve this letter at the 13 > October 2016 GNSO Council meeting, staff has prepared a draft motion, > also for your consideration. Unfortunately, the document and motion > deadline is today ? any volunteers to put forth this motion (with > any necessary edits of course)? > > We will try to provide the draft letter as soon as possible, as > ideally, it should be available with the motion, > > Best, > > Steve > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez > Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM > To: Steve Chan > Cc: Phil Corwin , "Drazek, Keith" > , "James M. Bladel" , > "Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu" , Emily Barabas > , Julie Hedlund , > Paul McGrady > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > > Thank you vey much Steve for the excellent overview of the comments to > Chairman?s Crocker letter to date. From my personal point of view, I > belong to the group of the subsequent procedures PDP, that wonders > what the (short term vs. long term) context of the question is. And > just because of that, I?m a strong supporter of a very conservative > stance. > > My initial suggestion for a clear formulation of a response at the > Council level, is to structure around the main (contentious) > issues/areas, including its pro and con arguments, instead of listing > the source of all the different positions. From that perspective I see > 4 main areas/chapters for a structure of the response: > > 1. All the pending studies and PDPs that are analyzing the impact or > the 2012 round and will produce related recommendations: RPM, > Subsequent procedures and CCT-RT. (In general it worked well, but it > needs more refinement) > > 2. The question if the 2007 ?policy? is strong enough for subsequent > procedures without any mayor changes. > > 2.a including the policy equal treatment of all applications (without > any categorization), as compared to restrictions over certain groups > of possible new TLDs (Geographic names, Communities, etc.) > > 3. if the AGB is strong enough as a ?predictable application > process? for subsequent procedures, and if not, which type of > revisions it needs > > 3.a including the question of global fairness (or underserved areas) > > 4. if the ?implementation/delegation? of new gTLDs of the last round > was good enough, or there are few lessons that should be carefully > analyzed and improvements introduced before new delegations > > After reading the summary document I see how a general consensus gets > more and more difficult, as we go down the list here proposed. Then it > should be pretty obvious that the Boards main question should be > answered with a pretty clear ?NO shortcuts?. > > But I also want to hear what the other members of the team think. > > Carlos Ra?l > > El 30 sept 2016, a las 16:20, Steve Chan > escribi?: > > Sept 2016.docx> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Council Response_Work Plan and Timeline for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG_With Comments_10Oct2016_Clean[2].docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 42945 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ncsg Wed Oct 19 13:50:39 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:50:39 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20161019105039.d3yswaucv7xyl3ki@tarvainen.info> Let's try to move this on by drafting a counterproposal. Here's a first attempt. 1-7 are unchanged from WU's text. Item 9 is a new idea, not sure if it'd work - opinions? Note, this may be discussed tonight in NCPH leaders' call, so quick replies would be appreciated. 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 From egmorris1 Wed Oct 19 14:46:10 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:46:10 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <20161019105039.d3yswaucv7xyl3ki@tarvainen.info> References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> <20161019105039.d3yswaucv7xyl3ki@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <34E883E6-2F3B-470B-B67D-FE96ED81A0A7@toast.net> I think this is a fairly innovative approach that avoids a possible empty seat, creates incentives for both sides to compromise and respects the Bylaws provision that states the NCA is entitled to participate on an equal footing with other Councillors. It's a good use of him or her. Happy to consider other suggestions, though. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 19 Oct 2016, at 11:51, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Let's try to move this on by drafting a counterproposal. > Here's a first attempt. 1-7 are unchanged from WU's text. > > Item 9 is a new idea, not sure if it'd work - opinions? > > Note, this may be discussed tonight in NCPH leaders' call, > so quick replies would be appreciated. > > > > 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 From ncsg Wed Oct 19 17:32:08 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:32:08 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional Message-ID: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> Dear all, Planning for tje next intersessional is already under way, or rather just about to start for real. So far the only thing agreed on is that there should be one. Even the time is still in the air, most likely again around end of January but it could conceivably also be between Copenhagen and Johannesburg in April-May timeframe. At least for now my feeling is that January would be better, primarily because the time between Hyderabad and Copenhagen is longer. Location is also up for discussion - should we go somewhere else than LA this time? Reykjavik? The Gambia maybe? And of course agenda: what do we want to do there? There's a planning call on Friday, any comments before that would be much appreciated. -- Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg Wed Oct 19 19:43:19 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:43:19 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <34E883E6-2F3B-470B-B67D-FE96ED81A0A7@toast.net> References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> <20161019105039.d3yswaucv7xyl3ki@tarvainen.info> <34E883E6-2F3B-470B-B67D-FE96ED81A0A7@toast.net> Message-ID: <20161019164319.7socce23ghzv4xxg@tarvainen.info> Thank you Ed. Any other comments? Is the NCA idea too radical? Alternatives? Anything else? Should we, e.g., suggest that in step 8 multiple candidates should be offered at once and simply voted on? CSG wants our proposal and comments soon - this should be agreed on before Hyderabad. We should also discuss the board member selection, but that is less urgent. Tapani On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:46:10PM +0100, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > I think this is a fairly innovative approach that avoids a possible empty seat, creates incentives for both sides to compromise and respects the Bylaws provision that states the NCA is entitled to participate on an equal footing with other Councillors. It's a good use of him or her. > > Happy to consider other suggestions, though. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 19 Oct 2016, at 11:51, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > > > Let's try to move this on by drafting a counterproposal. > > Here's a first attempt. 1-7 are unchanged from WU's text. > > > > Item 9 is a new idea, not sure if it'd work - opinions? > > > > Note, this may be discussed tonight in NCPH leaders' call, > > so quick replies would be appreciated. > > > > > > > > 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 > -- Tapani Tarvainen From avri Thu Oct 20 08:13:38 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:13:38 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional In-Reply-To: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> References: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: On 19-Oct-16 16:32, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Reykjavik? yes. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From ncsg Thu Oct 20 10:01:05 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:01:05 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) Message-ID: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> While pondering what we want to ask the board, below's what the board wants to ask us. And the deadline for our questons is today. Tapani ----- Forwarded message from Vinciane Koenigsfeld ----- Dear Tapani, We are looking forward to seeing you in Hyderabad! As you know, over the years, the Board has heard from many Groups on the need to make the Constituency Day interaction between the Board and Constituency/Stakeholder Groups at ICANN Public Meetings more effective for both the Groups and the Board. To do this, Board Operations collects, ahead of the Meeting, the questions that each Group would like to bring to the Board. We would appreciate receiving the questions/topics that your Group might want to discuss with the Board during the meeting currently scheduled on Sunday 6 November. The deadline for submission of these topics is Wednesday 26 October. We are as well taking this opportunity to share with you the Board's questions for your group, for discussion during this meeting. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO THE NCSG : 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? Best Regards, The Board Ops team ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg Thu Oct 20 16:46:48 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:46:48 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <20161019105039.d3yswaucv7xyl3ki@tarvainen.info> References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> <20161019105039.d3yswaucv7xyl3ki@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20161020134648.qhlhlt5t3ie36q22@tarvainen.info> Not much reaction to this. Time is getting short, so unless someone objects today, I will send it to CSG as is and wait for their response. Tapani On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:50:39PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > Let's try to move this on by drafting a counterproposal. > Here's a first attempt. 1-7 are unchanged from WU's text. > > Item 9 is a new idea, not sure if it'd work - opinions? > > Note, this may be discussed tonight in NCPH leaders' call, > so quick replies would be appreciated. > > > > 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 From kathy Fri Oct 21 01:17:40 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 18:17:40 -0400 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: <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> Hi Tapani, Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one that come from Mitch Stoltz and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free speech and innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the first time, he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India! Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow regulation." Shadow regulation is the "secretive web of backroom agreements between companies that seek to control our behavior online." (See Fair Processes, Better Outcomes, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better-outcomes) We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community. Earlier this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down not just content, /but entire domain names/, of copyright owners /accused/ by the MPAA of violating their copyrights. Although the concept, MPAA as a "trusted notifier" was taken from the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it was taken without any of its fairness, balance, protections and appeals. Basically, it's another "accuse you lose" scenario (for anyone who remembers the first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we fought for huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a "Best Practice." :-( Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the following question set: ==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's statement of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the MPAA-Donuts agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System? Likely response: I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this question. As you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on the Board to enforce copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See ICANN Correspondence). Steve Crocker has been writing back forcefully to say this is not within ICANN's scope and purview. I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN Board to push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the horrors of the Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of the Board who have not yet heard about it. Best and tx, Kathy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 Fri Oct 21 02:45:01 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:45:01 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) Message-ID: <80fc71874ff6449f94c351d61bb68755@toast.net> Thanks Kathy. As some may recall, at our last PC meeting we set up a small group (consisting of Kathy, Stefania, Anna and myself, with an intention to expand membership once we did some initial organisation and exploration) to begin to examine private agreements like the MPAA-Donuts agreement that threaten in so many ways to usurp the bottom up multistakeholder process (BUMP). It would be nice to have the time to examine things in a more leisurely fashion, to developed a more reasoned approach and comprehensive strategy for this issue, before acting and in time we will. Things are moving too fast, though, for us to act in complete leisure. Kathy's proposal has merit and my full support. ?A quick look at the agenda for ICANN 57 shows the scheduling of some rather unusual meetings: Saturday 12:15-13:45 Healthy Domains Initiative Committee Meeting Saturday 13:45-15:00 Healthy Domains Initiative Update ?Sunday 15:15-16:15 Domain Name Association Marketing Committee Meeting Tuesday 12:15-13:30 Domain Name Associaton Reg-Ops Committee Meeting All but one of these meetings are closed to the public. Healthy Domains is an initiative of the Domain Name Association, a private industry trade association. At a time when recognised ICANN groups are having trouble getting Meeting time and space what is a private trade association doing meeting in ICANN space at ICANN's expense during ICANN events pushing private objectives? A marketing committee meeting of a private association on ICANN's tab? I hope our Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs and representatives can make inquiries to discover: 1) under whose authority these meetings were booked, 2) whether, unlikely, the DNA charged for use of ICANN's space and, if not, 3) how NCSG's private associations may take advantage of ICANN's hospitality and convention space at future meetings. The DNA has shown great smarts in how they have pushed Healthy Domains. Many in this community, including some Board members, are under the impression that Healthy Domains are a result of the bottom up multi-stakeholder process. Not. Of course, if the organisation promoting Healthy Domains is getting time to push their private agenda in ICANN meetings using ICANN resources the confusion is a bit more explicable. We're going to have to fight this on a number of fronts. Things are going to get more challenging when Allen Grogan leaves ICANN at the end of the year. Allen has been a leader amongst the ICANN staff in resisting attempts to get ICANN involved in content control. All of this is why Kathy's question is so timely. Agreements like the MPAA-Donuts accord are not yet commonplace, are not yet best practices. We need to sound the alarm now, we need to make the Board aware of the danger these types of agreements pose and arm them with the knowledge that these private agreements are just plain bad for ICANN and noncommercial registrants before they become commonplace. The question Kathy has proposed is well structured, timely and will allow us to let the Board know that there is another perspective out there other than the ones Donuts and the Domain Name Association are pushing as industry "best practices". A perspective that includes the recognition of fair use and due process, two elements lacking in the MPAA-Donuts agreement and in much of what the Domain Names Association is promoting. I hope we can include Kathy's proposed question in the group of questions we will be asking Board members at ICANN 57. Kind Regards, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Kleiman" Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:17 PM To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Cc: mitch at eff.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) Hi Tapani, Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one that come from Mitch Stoltz and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free speech and innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the first time, he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India! Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow regulation." Shadow regulation is the "secretive web of backroom agreements between companies that seek to control our behavior online." (See Fair Processes, Better Outcomes, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better-outcomes) We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community. Earlier this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down not just content, but entire domain names, of copyright owners accused by the MPAA of violating their copyrights. Although the concept, MPAA as a "trusted notifier" was taken from the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it was taken without any of its fairness, balance, protections and appeals. Basically, it's another "accuse you lose" scenario (for anyone who remembers the first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we fought for huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a "Best Practice." :-( Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the following question set: ==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's statement of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the MPAA-Donuts agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System? Likely response: I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this question. As you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on the Board to enforce copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See ICANN Correspondence). Steve Crocker has been writing back forcefully to say this is not within ICANN's scope and purview. I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN Board to push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the horrors of the Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of the Board who have not yet heard about it. Best and tx, Kathy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Oct 21 03:23:40 2016 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:23:40 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: <80fc71874ff6449f94c351d61bb68755@toast.net> References: <80fc71874ff6449f94c351d61bb68755@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi, with regard to the sessions, I may have an answer. during the planning phase and when I get the draft schedule from GNSO staff, I saw several sessions requested by non-S/C groups. for the case of DNA like also for the Brand TLD group, their requests came from the Registries SG. All meeting requests for GNSO groups go to GNSO staff and it is the council leadership who manage them. with regard to the small group, any update? on other hand, I guess this proposal is for topic/question from NCSG to the board? if yes, it will be more appropriate to discuss it in the current thread in NCSG list since we are asking people there for input and proposing topics. the board is asking us to respond to those questions and we would need to think about some response: 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? Best, Rafik 2016-10-21 8:45 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > Thanks Kathy. > > As some may recall, at our last PC meeting we set up a small group > (consisting of Kathy, Stefania, Anna and myself, with an intention to > expand membership once we did some initial organisation and exploration) to > begin to examine private agreements like the MPAA-Donuts agreement that > threaten in so many ways to usurp the bottom up multistakeholder process > (BUMP). It would be nice to have the time to examine things in a > more leisurely fashion, to developed a more reasoned approach and > comprehensive strategy for this issue, before acting and in time we will. > Things are moving too fast, though, for us to act in complete leisure. > Kathy's proposal has merit and my full support. > > ?A quick look at the agenda for ICANN 57 shows the scheduling of some > rather unusual meetings: > > Saturday 12:15-13:45 Healthy Domains Initiative Committee Meeting > Saturday 13:45-15:00 Healthy Domains Initiative Update > ?Sunday 15:15-16:15 Domain Name Association Marketing Committee Meeting > Tuesday 12:15-13:30 Domain Name Associaton Reg-Ops Committee Meeting > > All but one of these meetings are closed to the public. > > Healthy Domains is an initiative of the Domain Name Association, a private > industry trade association. At a time when recognised ICANN groups are > having trouble getting Meeting time and space what is a private trade > association doing meeting in ICANN space at ICANN's expense during ICANN > events pushing private objectives? A marketing committee meeting of a > private association on ICANN's tab? I hope our Stakeholder Group > and Constituency Chairs and representatives can make inquiries to discover: > 1) under whose authority these meetings were booked, 2) whether, > unlikely, the DNA charged for use of ICANN's space and, if not, 3) how > NCSG's private associations may take advantage of ICANN's hospitality and > convention space at future meetings. > > The DNA has shown great smarts in how they have pushed Healthy Domains. > Many in this community, including some Board members, are under > the impression that Healthy Domains are a result of the bottom up > multi-stakeholder process. Not. Of course, if the organisation promoting > Healthy Domains is getting time to push their private agenda in ICANN > meetings using ICANN resources the confusion is a bit more > explicable. We're going to have to fight this on a number of fronts. Things > are going to get more challenging when Allen Grogan leaves ICANN at the end > of the year. Allen has been a leader amongst the ICANN staff in resisting > attempts to get ICANN involved in content control. > > All of this is why Kathy's question is so timely. Agreements like the > MPAA-Donuts accord are not yet commonplace, are not yet best practices. We > need to sound the alarm now, we need to make the Board aware of the > danger these types of agreements pose and arm them with the knowledge > that these private agreements are just plain bad for ICANN and > noncommercial registrants before they become commonplace. > > The question Kathy has proposed is well structured, timely and will allow > us to let the Board know that there is another perspective out there other > than the ones Donuts and the Domain Name Association are pushing as > industry "best practices". A perspective that includes the recognition of > fair use and due process, two elements lacking in the MPAA-Donuts agreement > and in much of what the Domain Names Association is promoting. I hope we > can include Kathy's proposed question in the group of questions we will be > asking Board members at ICANN 57. > > Kind Regards, > > Ed Morris > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Kathy Kleiman" > *Sent*: Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:17 PM > *To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > *Cc*: mitch at eff.org > *Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics > (Constituency Day) > > Hi Tapani, > Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another > important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one that > come from Mitch Stoltz and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at the > Electronic Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free speech and > innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the first time, > he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India! > > Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow regulation." Shadow > regulation is the "secretive web of backroom agreements between companies > that seek to control our behavior online." (See Fair Processes, Better > Outcomes, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better- > outcomes) > > We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community. Earlier > this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down not just > content, *but entire domain names*, of copyright owners *accused* by the > MPAA of violating their copyrights. Although the concept, MPAA as a > "trusted notifier" was taken from the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, > it was taken without any of its fairness, balance, protections and appeals. > Basically, it's another "accuse you lose" scenario (for anyone who > remembers the first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we fought > for huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a "Best > Practice." :-( > > Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the > following question set: > ==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's statement of > Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. > Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the MPAA-Donuts > agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System? > > Likely response: > I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this question. As > you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on the Board to enforce > copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See ICANN Correspondence). Steve > Crocker has been writing back forcefully to say this is not within ICANN's > scope and purview. > > I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN Board to > push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the horrors of the > Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of the Board who have not > yet heard about it. > > Best and tx, > Kathy > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Fri Oct 21 09:15:48 2016 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:15:48 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <20161019105039.d3yswaucv7xyl3ki@tarvainen.info> References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> <20161019105039.d3yswaucv7xyl3ki@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <31EED8CC-F2DB-43D6-BAB0-EFF7D3211A7F@davecake.net> > On 19 Oct 2016, at 6:50 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Let's try to move this on by drafting a counterproposal. > Here's a first attempt. 1-7 are unchanged from WU's text. > > Item 9 is a new idea, not sure if it'd work - opinions? Item 9 probably goes beyond what is practical for this round. To make that binding I think we would actually need to put it into the GNSO Working Procedures, and if its not binding there is probably no point. But we do need a clear understanding of ?what happens if seeking consensus fails?, and that this is an outcome that is likely not favoured by either side strongly it gives incentive for consensus. Item 10 is very sensible to me. It fits in with the GNSO procedures, and gives incentive for the house to co-operate, as it means both sides get something out of it by mutual consent. . Item 11 seems sensible and obvious to me. There should be no disincentive for either SG to nominate the NCA as a compromise. Regards David > > Note, this may be discussed tonight in NCPH leaders' call, > so quick replies would be appreciated. > > > > 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 From dave Fri Oct 21 09:22:13 2016 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:22:13 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <20161019164319.7socce23ghzv4xxg@tarvainen.info> References: <20161011201732.GA7133@tarvainen.info> <20161019105039.d3yswaucv7xyl3ki@tarvainen.info> <34E883E6-2F3B-470B-B67D-FE96ED81A0A7@toast.net> <20161019164319.7socce23ghzv4xxg@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: > On 20 Oct 2016, at 12:43 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Thank you Ed. > > Any other comments? > > Is the NCA idea too radical? Alternatives? That its probably going to be disliked is actually a point in its failure. We have incentive to seek consensus. > > Anything else? > > Should we, e.g., suggest that in step 8 multiple candidates > should be offered at once and simply voted on? Not unless we also fix our voting system. > > CSG wants our proposal and comments soon - this should be > agreed on before Hyderabad. > > We should also discuss the board member selection, but that > is less urgent. We should. I really think we need a broad open discussion before we rush to voting for the board member. it is pretty clear that the two opposed SGs both talking in isolation model is broken, we need to at least openly talk about candidates acceptable to both SGs. David > > Tapani > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:46:10PM +0100, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net ) wrote: > >> I think this is a fairly innovative approach that avoids a possible empty seat, creates incentives for both sides to compromise and respects the Bylaws provision that states the NCA is entitled to participate on an equal footing with other Councillors. It's a good use of him or her. >> >> Happy to consider other suggestions, though. >> >> Ed >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 19 Oct 2016, at 11:51, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> >>> Let's try to move this on by drafting a counterproposal. >>> Here's a first attempt. 1-7 are unchanged from WU's text. >>> >>> Item 9 is a new idea, not sure if it'd work - opinions? >>> >>> Note, this may be discussed tonight in NCPH leaders' call, >>> so quick replies would be appreciated. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >> > > -- > 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: From ncsg Fri Oct 21 12:07:26 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:07:26 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <31EED8CC-F2DB-43D6-BAB0-EFF7D3211A7F@davecake.net> Message-ID: <20161021090726.GB12949@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> On Oct 21 14:15, David Cake (dave at davecake.net) wrote: > Item 9 probably goes beyond what is practical for this round. Perhaps. Might work as a way to move forward though, getting CSG to think about alternatives there. > To make that binding I think we would actually need to put it into > the GNSO Working Procedures, and if its not binding there is > probably no point. True though I guess none of this would be formally binding anyway. > But we do need a clear understanding of ?what happens if seeking > consensus fails?, and that this is an outcome that is likely not > favoured by either side strongly it gives incentive for consensus. Yes. >From your second message: > That its probably going to be disliked is actually a point in > its failure. We have incentive to seek consensus. Did you mean in its favour? The idea was specifically to provide an incentive to seek consensus, by providing an at least somewhat annoying default outcome. So should we suggest it to the CSG to see what they think (which presumably would lead to further discussion, I doubt they'd instantly accept it anyway), or would you have some alternative you'd like to suggest? > Item 10 is very sensible to me. It fits in with the GNSO > procedures, and gives incentive for the house to co-operate, as it > means both sides get something out of it by mutual consent. . > Item 11 seems sensible and obvious to me. There should be no > disincentive for either SG to nominate the NCA as a compromise. Yes, I think they are rather non-controversial. Any other comments? Anyone? > > 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 From dave Fri Oct 21 12:32:12 2016 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:32:12 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <20161021090726.GB12949@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <20161021090726.GB12949@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <725DFC5B-228B-46B1-A963-A05D069BB845@davecake.net> > On 21 Oct 2016, at 5:07 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > From your second message: > >> That its probably going to be disliked is actually a point in >> its failure. We have incentive to seek consensus. > > Did you mean in its favour? Yes. Damn you typps and autocorrect. > The idea was specifically to provide an incentive to seek consensus, > by providing an at least somewhat annoying default outcome. Yes, Good plan. > > So should we suggest it to the CSG to see what they think (which > presumably would lead to further discussion, I doubt they'd > instantly accept it anyway), or would you have some alternative > you'd like to suggest? No I?m happy for us to take that to the CSG. David From ncsg Fri Oct 21 13:16:57 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:16:57 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Vice Chair selection In-Reply-To: <725DFC5B-228B-46B1-A963-A05D069BB845@davecake.net> References: <20161021090726.GB12949@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <725DFC5B-228B-46B1-A963-A05D069BB845@davecake.net> Message-ID: <20161021101657.GE12949@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> On Oct 21 17:32, David Cake (dave at davecake.net) wrote: > I?m happy for us to take that to the CSG. Good. So I've you and Ed supporting and no objections. Unless someone objects within two hours or so I'll send it to the CSG. -- Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg Fri Oct 21 15:47:14 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:47:14 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional In-Reply-To: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> References: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> Not many comments on this one. Reykjavik did got support, also several offlist, so I'll bring it up, and for time early February sounds best (several people have conflicts at end of January). I've received no comments on the agenda. Planning call starting in 15 minutes, so still time for quick comments... Tapani On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:32:08PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > Dear all, > > Planning for tje next intersessional is already under way, or rather > just about to start for real. So far the only thing agreed on is that > there should be one. > > Even the time is still in the air, most likely again around end of > January but it could conceivably also be between Copenhagen and > Johannesburg in April-May timeframe. At least for now my feeling > is that January would be better, primarily because the time > between Hyderabad and Copenhagen is longer. > > Location is also up for discussion - should we go somewhere > else than LA this time? Reykjavik? The Gambia maybe? > > And of course agenda: what do we want to do there? > > There's a planning call on Friday, any comments before that > would be much appreciated. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Tapani Tarvainen From Stefania.Milan Fri Oct 21 15:50:27 2016 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:50:27 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional In-Reply-To: <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> References: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info>, <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi Tapani Have been traveling for the last few days so late in replying. Reykjavik sounds great. Would be happy to volunteer to help organizing. St. Inviato da iPhone > Il giorno 21 ott 2016, alle ore 14:47, Tapani Tarvainen ha scritto: > > Not many comments on this one. > > Reykjavik did got support, also several offlist, so I'll > bring it up, and for time early February sounds best > (several people have conflicts at end of January). > > I've received no comments on the agenda. > > Planning call starting in 15 minutes, so still time for > quick comments... > > Tapani > >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:32:08PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Planning for tje next intersessional is already under way, or rather >> just about to start for real. So far the only thing agreed on is that >> there should be one. >> >> Even the time is still in the air, most likely again around end of >> January but it could conceivably also be between Copenhagen and >> Johannesburg in April-May timeframe. At least for now my feeling >> is that January would be better, primarily because the time >> between Hyderabad and Copenhagen is longer. >> >> Location is also up for discussion - should we go somewhere >> else than LA this time? Reykjavik? The Gambia maybe? >> >> And of course agenda: what do we want to do there? >> >> There's a planning call on Friday, any comments before that >> would be much appreciated. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- > 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 ncsg Fri Oct 21 17:17:49 2016 From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:17:49 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional In-Reply-To: <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> References: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20161021141749.job2zzjeyd6uvt7e@tarvainen.info> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:47:14PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > Planning call starting in 15 minutes Brief report: * preferred time around 2nd week of February, maybe 6-7th (others were suggested, including back-to-back with Copenhagen or Johannesburg, as well as April-May timeframe, but none of those got much support) * several suggestions for location but *not* LA, Reykjavik actually got a fair amount of support; others were mentioned, notably Washington DC and Boston, and "somewhere that's not USA or Europe" (no good concrete suggestions there, Singapore was mentioned but got no support, Istanbul is out because of political situation in Turkey) * planning team to have 1-2 people per group (feel free to volunteer...) * deadline for fixing the time and location: 21 November * try to decide on agenda as early as possible (...) -- Tapani Tarvainen From Stefania.Milan Fri Oct 21 17:43:08 2016 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:43:08 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional In-Reply-To: <20161021141749.job2zzjeyd6uvt7e@tarvainen.info> References: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info>, <20161021141749.job2zzjeyd6uvt7e@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Tapani, me happy to volunteer for the organization 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 per conto di Tapani Tarvainen Inviato: venerd? 21 ottobre 2016 16.17.49 A: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:47:14PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > Planning call starting in 15 minutes Brief report: * preferred time around 2nd week of February, maybe 6-7th (others were suggested, including back-to-back with Copenhagen or Johannesburg, as well as April-May timeframe, but none of those got much support) * several suggestions for location but *not* LA, Reykjavik actually got a fair amount of support; others were mentioned, notably Washington DC and Boston, and "somewhere that's not USA or Europe" (no good concrete suggestions there, Singapore was mentioned but got no support, Istanbul is out because of political situation in Turkey) * planning team to have 1-2 people per group (feel free to volunteer...) * deadline for fixing the time and location: 21 November * try to decide on agenda as early as possible (...) -- 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 stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 21 20:35:04 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:35:04 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional In-Reply-To: <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> References: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Sorry, I am stuck in a two day meeting. Stephanie perrin On 2016-10-21 08:47, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Not many comments on this one. > > Reykjavik did got support, also several offlist, so I'll > bring it up, and for time early February sounds best > (several people have conflicts at end of January). > > I've received no comments on the agenda. > > Planning call starting in 15 minutes, so still time for > quick comments... > > Tapani > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:32:08PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Planning for tje next intersessional is already under way, or rather >> just about to start for real. So far the only thing agreed on is that >> there should be one. >> >> Even the time is still in the air, most likely again around end of >> January but it could conceivably also be between Copenhagen and >> Johannesburg in April-May timeframe. At least for now my feeling >> is that January would be better, primarily because the time >> between Hyderabad and Copenhagen is longer. >> >> Location is also up for discussion - should we go somewhere >> else than LA this time? Reykjavik? The Gambia maybe? >> >> And of course agenda: what do we want to do there? >> >> There's a planning call on Friday, any comments before that >> would be much appreciated. >> >> -- >> 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: From kathy Fri Oct 21 20:46:07 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:46:07 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional In-Reply-To: References: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi Tapani, I could attend a meeting in early February and Reykjavik is an easy trip. +1 here. Best, Kathy On 10/21/2016 1:35 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Sorry, I am stuck in a two day meeting. > > Stephanie perrin > > > On 2016-10-21 08:47, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Not many comments on this one. >> >> Reykjavik did got support, also several offlist, so I'll >> bring it up, and for time early February sounds best >> (several people have conflicts at end of January). >> >> I've received no comments on the agenda. >> >> Planning call starting in 15 minutes, so still time for >> quick comments... >> >> Tapani >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:32:08PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Planning for tje next intersessional is already under way, or rather >>> just about to start for real. So far the only thing agreed on is that >>> there should be one. >>> >>> Even the time is still in the air, most likely again around end of >>> January but it could conceivably also be between Copenhagen and >>> Johannesburg in April-May timeframe. At least for now my feeling >>> is that January would be better, primarily because the time >>> between Hyderabad and Copenhagen is longer. >>> >>> Location is also up for discussion - should we go somewhere >>> else than LA this time? Reykjavik? The Gambia maybe? >>> >>> And of course agenda: what do we want to do there? >>> >>> There's a planning call on Friday, any comments before that >>> would be much appreciated. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 21 21:08:17 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:08:17 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional In-Reply-To: References: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <08f4c18e-fadb-32be-ad18-d6f3f7cf9a8b@mail.utoronto.ca> ditto, although nailing down dates v soon would be good. Scheduling escape from snow.....please lets agree dates soon. SP On 2016-10-21 13:46, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Hi Tapani, > > I could attend a meeting in early February and Reykjavik is an easy > trip. +1 here. > > Best, Kathy > > > On 10/21/2016 1:35 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Sorry, I am stuck in a two day meeting. >> >> Stephanie perrin >> >> >> On 2016-10-21 08:47, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> Not many comments on this one. >>> >>> Reykjavik did got support, also several offlist, so I'll >>> bring it up, and for time early February sounds best >>> (several people have conflicts at end of January). >>> >>> I've received no comments on the agenda. >>> >>> Planning call starting in 15 minutes, so still time for >>> quick comments... >>> >>> Tapani >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:32:08PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Planning for tje next intersessional is already under way, or rather >>>> just about to start for real. So far the only thing agreed on is that >>>> there should be one. >>>> >>>> Even the time is still in the air, most likely again around end of >>>> January but it could conceivably also be between Copenhagen and >>>> Johannesburg in April-May timeframe. At least for now my feeling >>>> is that January would be better, primarily because the time >>>> between Hyderabad and Copenhagen is longer. >>>> >>>> Location is also up for discussion - should we go somewhere >>>> else than LA this time? Reykjavik? The Gambia maybe? >>>> >>>> And of course agenda: what do we want to do there? >>>> >>>> There's a planning call on Friday, any comments before that >>>> would be much appreciated. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sat Oct 22 05:43:05 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 22:43:05 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] answers to GNSO questions for meeting with Board Message-ID: I draw your attention to the discussion of the GNSO council's upcoming meeting with the Board. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=62399849 I wonder what our answer to question 2 is? 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? Input would be very useful, not that James is likely to be as frank as I might be... Stephanie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears Sat Oct 22 14:43:40 2016 From: mshears (matthew shears) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:43:40 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Intersessional In-Reply-To: References: <20161019143208.jnptzvwbj36ohnlf@tarvainen.info> <20161021124714.o33owghfwk2q4x6f@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <380159b2-3daa-26eb-188f-2270ea8ca16a@cdt.org> + 1 for Reykjavik - will be cold and snowy On 21/10/2016 18:46, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Hi Tapani, > > I could attend a meeting in early February and Reykjavik is an easy > trip. +1 here. > > Best, Kathy > > > On 10/21/2016 1:35 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Sorry, I am stuck in a two day meeting. >> >> Stephanie perrin >> >> >> On 2016-10-21 08:47, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> Not many comments on this one. >>> >>> Reykjavik did got support, also several offlist, so I'll >>> bring it up, and for time early February sounds best >>> (several people have conflicts at end of January). >>> >>> I've received no comments on the agenda. >>> >>> Planning call starting in 15 minutes, so still time for >>> quick comments... >>> >>> Tapani >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:32:08PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Planning for tje next intersessional is already under way, or rather >>>> just about to start for real. So far the only thing agreed on is that >>>> there should be one. >>>> >>>> Even the time is still in the air, most likely again around end of >>>> January but it could conceivably also be between Copenhagen and >>>> Johannesburg in April-May timeframe. At least for now my feeling >>>> is that January would be better, primarily because the time >>>> between Hyderabad and Copenhagen is longer. >>>> >>>> Location is also up for discussion - should we go somewhere >>>> else than LA this time? Reykjavik? The Gambia maybe? >>>> >>>> And of course agenda: what do we want to do there? >>>> >>>> There's a planning call on Friday, any comments before that >>>> would be much appreciated. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- -------------- 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: From wendy Sun Oct 23 18:10:16 2016 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:10:16 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> Thanks for raising this, Kathy and Mitch. It is hugely important that these takedowns not become part of ICANN's common framework or "best practices" for registries or registrars. --Wendy On October 20, 2016 3:17:40 PM PDT, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >Hi Tapani, >Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another >important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one >that >come from Mitch Stoltz and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at >the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free speech > >and innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the first > >time, he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India! > >Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow regulation." >Shadow regulation is the "secretive web of backroom agreements between >companies that seek to control our behavior online." (See Fair >Processes, Better Outcomes, >https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better-outcomes) > >We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community. >Earlier this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down not >just content, /but entire domain names/, of copyright owners /accused/ >by the MPAA of violating their copyrights. Although the concept, MPAA >as >a "trusted notifier" was taken from the US Digital Millennium Copyright > >Act, it was taken without any of its fairness, balance, protections and > >appeals. Basically, it's another "accuse you lose" scenario (for anyone > >who remembers the first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we >fought for huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a >"Best Practice." :-( > >Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the >following question set: > ==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's statement >of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, >https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. > >Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the >MPAA-Donuts >agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System? > >Likely response: >I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this question. >As you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on the Board to >enforce copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See ICANN >Correspondence). Steve Crocker has been writing back forcefully to say > >this is not within ICANN's scope and purview. > >I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN Board to >push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the horrors of the >Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of the Board who have >not yet heard about it. > >Best and tx, >Kathy > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >PC-NCSG mailing list >PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- wendy at seltzer.org mobile +1.617.863.0613 From avri Sun Oct 23 19:33:35 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:33:35 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Hi, I agree that we do not wish to see these become best practices, but I do not not see any reason why they should, or could, be prohibited. What I think is most important is that any registrant know before engaging a sld in one of these names, that this is the condition they will be governed by. avri (note SOI, I do have a small research contract I do for Donuts, but it has nothing to do with this policy of theirs and I have no binding to support their policy causes, I have never discussed this issue with Donuts.) On 23-Oct-16 11:10, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Thanks for raising this, Kathy and Mitch. It is hugely important that > these takedowns not become part of ICANN's common framework or "best > practices" for registries or registrars. > > --Wendy > > On October 20, 2016 3:17:40 PM PDT, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: >> Hi Tapani, >> Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another >> important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one >> that >> come from Mitch Stoltz and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at >> the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free speech >> >> and innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the first >> >> time, he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India! >> >> Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow regulation." >> Shadow regulation is the "secretive web of backroom agreements between >> companies that seek to control our behavior online." (See Fair >> Processes, Better Outcomes, >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better-outcomes) >> >> We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community. >> Earlier this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down not >> just content, /but entire domain names/, of copyright owners /accused/ >> by the MPAA of violating their copyrights. Although the concept, MPAA >> as >> a "trusted notifier" was taken from the US Digital Millennium Copyright >> >> Act, it was taken without any of its fairness, balance, protections and >> >> appeals. Basically, it's another "accuse you lose" scenario (for anyone >> >> who remembers the first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we >> fought for huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a >> "Best Practice." :-( >> >> Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the >> following question set: >> ==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's statement >> of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, >> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. >> >> Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the >> MPAA-Donuts >> agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System? >> >> Likely response: >> I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this question. >> As you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on the Board to >> enforce copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See ICANN >> Correspondence). Steve Crocker has been writing back forcefully to say >> >> this is not within ICANN's scope and purview. >> >> I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN Board to >> push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the horrors of the >> Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of the Board who have >> not yet heard about it. >> >> Best and tx, >> Kathy >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 kathy Sun Oct 23 20:05:35 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:05:35 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Avri, When content is taken down without due process, without legal grounds and with private rules created without openness, transparency, inclusion and balance -- that's censorship. I would hate to see the Internet move in that direction. Best, Kathy On 10/23/2016 12:33 PM, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree that we do not wish to see these become best practices, but I do > not not see any reason why they should, or could, be prohibited. > > What I think is most important is that any registrant know before > engaging a sld in one of these names, that this is the condition they > will be governed by. > > avri > > (note SOI, I do have a small research contract I do for Donuts, but it > has nothing to do with this policy of theirs and I have no binding to > support their policy causes, I have never discussed this issue with Donuts.) > > On 23-Oct-16 11:10, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >> Thanks for raising this, Kathy and Mitch. It is hugely important that >> these takedowns not become part of ICANN's common framework or "best >> practices" for registries or registrars. >> >> --Wendy >> >> On October 20, 2016 3:17:40 PM PDT, Kathy Kleiman >> wrote: >>> Hi Tapani, >>> Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another >>> important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one >>> that >>> come from Mitch Stoltz and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at >>> the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free speech >>> >>> and innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the first >>> >>> time, he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India! >>> >>> Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow regulation." >>> Shadow regulation is the "secretive web of backroom agreements between >>> companies that seek to control our behavior online." (See Fair >>> Processes, Better Outcomes, >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better-outcomes) >>> >>> We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community. >>> Earlier this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down not >>> just content, /but entire domain names/, of copyright owners /accused/ >>> by the MPAA of violating their copyrights. Although the concept, MPAA >>> as >>> a "trusted notifier" was taken from the US Digital Millennium Copyright >>> >>> Act, it was taken without any of its fairness, balance, protections and >>> >>> appeals. Basically, it's another "accuse you lose" scenario (for anyone >>> >>> who remembers the first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we >>> fought for huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a >>> "Best Practice." :-( >>> >>> Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the >>> following question set: >>> ==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's statement >>> of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, >>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. >>> >>> Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the >>> MPAA-Donuts >>> agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System? >>> >>> Likely response: >>> I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this question. >>> As you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on the Board to >>> enforce copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See ICANN >>> Correspondence). Steve Crocker has been writing back forcefully to say >>> >>> this is not within ICANN's scope and purview. >>> >>> I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN Board to >>> push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the horrors of the >>> Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of the Board who have >>> not yet heard about it. >>> >>> Best and tx, >>> Kathy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From avri Sun Oct 23 22:40:22 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:40:22 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <71584f29-f2ce-9129-08a0-5ecaf20ad110@apc.org> Kathy, Not if it is pre-agreed in a contract and fully consented to in advance. With there being a wide choice of domain names, people have a choice. But I agree it is not what I prefer on the internet, and should not, as Wendy says become best practice. And also it is critical that the full level of this agreement be understood and consented to. That seems to be where efforts should lie. But I see no basis for its prohibition by ICANN. Avri On 23-Oct-16 13:05, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Avri, > > When content is taken down without due process, without legal grounds > and with private rules created without openness, transparency, > inclusion and balance -- that's censorship. I would hate to see the > Internet move in that direction. > > Best, Kathy > > > On 10/23/2016 12:33 PM, avri doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I agree that we do not wish to see these become best practices, but I do >> not not see any reason why they should, or could, be prohibited. >> >> What I think is most important is that any registrant know before >> engaging a sld in one of these names, that this is the condition they >> will be governed by. >> >> avri >> >> (note SOI, I do have a small research contract I do for Donuts, but it >> has nothing to do with this policy of theirs and I have no binding to >> support their policy causes, I have never discussed this issue with >> Donuts.) >> >> On 23-Oct-16 11:10, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >>> Thanks for raising this, Kathy and Mitch. It is hugely important that >>> these takedowns not become part of ICANN's common framework or "best >>> practices" for registries or registrars. >>> >>> --Wendy >>> >>> On October 20, 2016 3:17:40 PM PDT, Kathy Kleiman >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Tapani, >>>> Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another >>>> important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one >>>> that >>>> come from Mitch Stoltz and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at >>>> the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free >>>> speech >>>> >>>> and innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the >>>> first >>>> >>>> time, he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India! >>>> >>>> Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow regulation." >>>> Shadow regulation is the "secretive web of backroom agreements between >>>> companies that seek to control our behavior online." (See Fair >>>> Processes, Better Outcomes, >>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better-outcomes) >>>> >>>> We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community. >>>> Earlier this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down not >>>> just content, /but entire domain names/, of copyright owners /accused/ >>>> by the MPAA of violating their copyrights. Although the concept, MPAA >>>> as >>>> a "trusted notifier" was taken from the US Digital Millennium >>>> Copyright >>>> >>>> Act, it was taken without any of its fairness, balance, protections >>>> and >>>> >>>> appeals. Basically, it's another "accuse you lose" scenario (for >>>> anyone >>>> >>>> who remembers the first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we >>>> fought for huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a >>>> "Best Practice." :-( >>>> >>>> Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the >>>> following question set: >>>> ==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's statement >>>> of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, >>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. >>>> >>>> >>>> Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the >>>> MPAA-Donuts >>>> agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System? >>>> >>>> Likely response: >>>> I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this question. >>>> As you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on the Board to >>>> enforce copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See ICANN >>>> Correspondence). Steve Crocker has been writing back forcefully to >>>> say >>>> >>>> this is not within ICANN's scope and purview. >>>> >>>> I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN Board to >>>> push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the horrors of the >>>> Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of the Board who have >>>> not yet heard about it. >>>> >>>> Best and tx, >>>> Kathy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From egmorris1 Mon Oct 24 00:15:59 2016 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:15:59 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Hi Avri, I agree that we do not wish to see these become best practices, Agreed. but I do not not see any reason why they should...be prohibited. I do. If agreements such as the Donuts - MPAA agreement expand and become the industry norm efforts of the bottom up multi-stakeholder process (BUMP) to create an open and free internet will be nullified. What good is it to prevent ICANN from engaging in content regulation if censorship of the most pernicious and secretive kind is imposed at the next level? In her wonderful book Consent of the Networked Rebecca McKinnon wrote of the power of social media companies to use terms of service agreements to control content through privatised "justice" systems. ( https://consentofthenetworked.com ). As Sarah Clayton and I wrote back in 2012, "As profit-driven corporations, social media companies have not proven to be particularly adept at the administration of online justice. Too often, companies have operated in their own best interests in preference to considering obligations towards their users ( In ?Governing Innovation and Expression: https://utushop.utu.fi/p/565-governing-innovation-and-expression/). Thus, it is interesting to note EFF's take on the Donuts - MPAA deal ( ( https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/mpaa-may-donuts-they-shouldnt-be-copyright-police ), one of these backdoor agreements Kathy writes of. Although Donuts gives some vague nod to some sort of perfunctory system of due process, EFF writes that in adjudicating matters "Donut's may have new business reasons for bowing to MPAA's demands, such as encouraging the major studios that make up MPAA to buy lucrative domains in the .movie space". Privatised justice often isn't when economic interests are in play, like they are here. I'd encourage everyone to read he EFF link I've provided. It's short but comprehensive. And a bit scary. No matter what we do at ICANN if these agreements become the norm, the rights of registrants and users will be decided not by the bottom up multi-stakeholder process but rather by private agreements where due process, fair dealing and use, and free expression will be afterthoughts - if that. , or could, be prohibited. That's the hard part. It could be prohibited by contract should the ICANN community wish. Given the makeup of the community, I'm not sure that is realistic. At the best, perhaps we could get certain guarantees of due process for registrants built into contracts. Right now, though, I believe our efforts should be directed at naming and shaming and shedding light on what is going on. I thank EFF for taking the lead in this matter. We need to support them and out those registers and registrars that support subverting ICANN processes and the BUMP through private agreement. Let's encourage our colleagues housed in the Contracted Parties House to make these agreements bad practice, rater than good practice. That should be our initial strategic goal. What I think is most important is that any registrant know before engaging a sld in one of these names, that this is the condition they will be governed by. That same argument was used here in the United Kingdom as the private Cleanfeed system was implemented to censor the British internet. Cleanfeed is an internet filtering system, a secretive privatised censor operating in the background here in the U.K. At first, the scope of Cleanfeed was child pornography; it has since expanded to include other material, including material that has allegedly violated I.P. laws. When it was implemented U.K. residents were told that Cleanfeed was voluntary, private sector run, and at first BT was the only company involved. Soon the other three major ISPs implemented the system and it has now spread to include virtually all UK ISPs, Andrews and Arnold ( http://www.aa.net.uk/broadband-home1.html ) being amongst the last holdouts. I agree, Avri, that is important that the Registrant be made aware of conditions that govern their access to the internet. Yet, that is not enough. We are giving monopoly powers to Registries to run their domains, monopoly control over some forms of expression. Disclosure is not sufficient where there may be no viable choice for the Registrant, particularly if there is no legitimate system in place to safeguard the right of the Registrant prior to take down. In the meantime here's an article that highlights the public policy philosopher of Chris Dodd and the MPAA, Donuts new 'trusted notifier': https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/01/24/the-senates-dodd-problem/ . (note SOI, I do have a small research contract I do for Donuts, but it has nothing to do with this policy of theirs and I have no binding to support their policy causes, I have never discussed this issue with Donuts.) Thanks for letting us know, Avri. It saddens me a bit because, as you know, Donuts are not healthy for anyone or anything including, judging from their more recent actions, the domain name system. Best, Ed On 23-Oct-16 11:10, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Thanks for raising this, Kathy and Mitch. It is hugely important that > these takedowns not become part of ICANN's common framework or "best > practices" for registries or registrars. > > --Wendy > > On October 20, 2016 3:17:40 PM PDT, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: >> Hi Tapani, >> Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another >> important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one >> that >> come from Mitch Stoltz and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at >> the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free speech >> >> and innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the first >> >> time, he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India! >> >> Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow regulation." >> Shadow regulation is the "secretive web of backroom agreements between >> companies that seek to control our behavior online." (See Fair >> Processes, Better Outcomes, >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better-outcomes) >> >> We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community. >> Earlier this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down not >> just content, /but entire domain names/, of copyright owners /accused/ >> by the MPAA of violating their copyrights. Although the concept, MPAA >> as >> a "trusted notifier" was taken from the US Digital Millennium Copyright >> >> Act, it was taken without any of its fairness, balance, protections and >> >> appeals. Basically, it's another "accuse you lose" scenario (for anyone >> >> who remembers the first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we >> fought for huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a >> "Best Practice." :-( >> >> Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the >> following question set: >> ==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's statement >> of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, >> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. >> >> Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the >> MPAA-Donuts >> agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System? >> >> Likely response: >> I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this question. >> As you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on the Board to >> enforce copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See ICANN >> Correspondence). Steve Crocker has been writing back forcefully to say >> >> this is not within ICANN's scope and purview. >> >> I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN Board to >> push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the horrors of the >> Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of the Board who have >> not yet heard about it. >> >> Best and tx, >> Kathy >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Mon Oct 24 00:47:12 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:47:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> Message-ID: On 23-Oct-16 17:15, Edward Morris wrote: > ,/or could, be prohibited/. > > That's the hard part. > > It could be prohibited by contract should the ICANN community wish. > Given the makeup of the community, I'm not sure that is realistic. At > the best, perhaps we could get certain guarantees of due process for > registrants built into contracts. Well, all you need to do is build consensus in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG that these should not be allowed. In that process, I would be a neutral co-chair. Of course that would mean sending in comments when we get to that part (WT2 I believe) and participating in the subgroup. Making it retroactive would require further effort. I tend to be less concerned than McKinnon or the EFF as long as there is wide choice of provider. In the case of [mon, Duo]opoly, e.g. if .com and .biz was all we had, then I would feel similarly. BTW I read the service agrements, I think everyone should and I see no reason to assume people do not need to. But I would go beyond that. ICANN has required that certain conditions be made clear and that users be notified of certain condition in, so to speak, large type and frequently. avri PS. and thee is nothing better than a Crispy Creme. Just have to make sure that the diet is varied and donuts are not the only thing there is to consume. > Thanks for letting us know, Avri. It is in my SOI, but I figured I would mention it since we frequently have problems in NCSG of people not telling who their contracts are with. And since I was making a comment on something that regards them, wanted to make sure it was clearly known. > > It saddens me a bit because Got to make a living. But it is one reason I frequently bring up te issue of members who have contracts with commercial outfits. Don't want it to spring up as a surprise someday when someone want to nail me for something or other. cheers avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From lists Mon Oct 24 13:36:51 2016 From: lists (Niels ten Oever) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 06:36:51 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG In-Reply-To: <1139963482.1255012.1474270326172.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> References: <839920819.580280.1472553831033.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <86e62d67-0e93-b21b-7b32-ea914219ae2d@digitaldissidents.org> <1582250163.681231.1473145629109.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <1443001709.1229582.1474263395294.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <1139963482.1255012.1474270326172.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <2b42d919-294b-3f5d-cec1-3638cbc6a747@digitaldissidents.org> Dear all, Is it true that this has not been picked up by the Policy Committee and this has not been submitted? I think that would be a real pity of all the work people have put into this, and I think it's worth to still process it. If not, I would like to understand why. Best, Niels On 09/19/2016 03:32 AM, Vidushi Marda wrote: > Dear All, > > Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent > Procedures WG: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#. > All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy > committee can pick this up now. > > Best wishes, > > Vidushi > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *vidushi at cis-india.org > *To: *vidushi at CIS-INDIA.ORG > *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Sent: *Monday, September 19, 2016 11:06:35 AM > *Subject: *Re: [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment > to gTLD subsequent procedure WG > > Dear All, > > Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent > Procedures WG: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#. > All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy > committee can pick this up now. > > Best wishes, > > Vidushi > > ----- On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Vidushi Marda > wrote: > > Dear All, > > I think the idea of deadlines for comments work well. Thanks for the > suggestion Farzi. > > Can we make the last day for comments/feedback on the doc this > Friday the 9th? That way we should be able to send in the doc by > next week after incorporating them. > > Best, > > Vidushi > > ----- On Sep 5, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Michael Oghia > wrote: > > +1 Farzi > > -Michael > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 5:18 PM, farzaneh badii > > wrote: > > Thank you Vidushi and Niels, > I think your document will benefit from more referencing to > the actual policies you are talking about. Also as Tatiana > pointed out you need to resolve the comments first. I > suggest set a deadline for people to comment, then resolve > those comments and then send it out to policy committee. > This is what we did in the past and worked out well. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > On 4 September 2016 at 14:33, Tatiana Tropina > > wrote: > > Hi Niels and all, > some of the comments in the google doc (e.g. Avri's > comments) require further work and/or clarification, > don't think the document can be sent to the PC as it is. > Thanks! > Tatiana > > On 4 September 2016 at 14:30, Niels ten Oever > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > This document has now been reviewed and commented on > by several people, > perhaps the policy committee can pick this up? > > Best, > > Niels > > On 08/30/2016 07:43 PM, Vidushi Marda wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Please find the first draft comment to the gTLD > Subsequent Procedure WG at this link: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit?usp=sharing > > > > While the request was extremely detailed with six > subjects and specific questions under each, due to > paucity of time, this draft only discusses over > arching human rights concerns. > > > > I look forward to your feedback and comments. > > > > Best, > > > > Vidushi > > > > ----- On Aug 26, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman > kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM > wrote: > > > >> Hi Niels, > >> > >> I think this idea is a very good one. I have been > worried that we did > >> not submit a comment to the New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working > >> Group, especially on Community Groups. A few > weeks ago, Avri was kind > >> enough to answer my questions about this, and > encourage our NCSG > >> participation. I think it is the perfect time to > submit a comment -- > >> even a little late! > >> > >> But quick note, at least in the US, next week is > big end of summer > >> vacation week and traditionally very quiet. > Perhaps allowing a week for > >> comment would enable more people to participate. > >> > >> Best and tx to you, Vidushi and the CCWP HR, > >> > >> Kathy > >> > >> > >> On 8/26/2016 7:50 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> I hope this e-mail finds you all well. We just > had a very productive > >>> call of the CCWP HR in which we discussed > several issues in which the > >>> gTLD Subsequenty Procedures WG impacts human > rights (community priority > >>> procedure, how 'community' is defined, lack of > gTLD applications from > >>> the global south, etc). > >>> > >>> I am aware that the first official input/comment > period of this WG is > >>> over, but I think if we would send something in > it might still be > >>> considered, especially since the NCSG did not > send comment yet. > >>> > >>> Vidushi has graciously offered to do the > drafting, also based on the > >>> report she initially drafted and which was > accepted as CCWP HR document [0]. > >>> > >>> So this is an early warning that you'll receive > a draft comment on > >>> Tuesday, if we want to it to be considered I > think we would need to > >>> submit it rather switfly, that's why I am > sending this pre-warning so > >>> you know you can excpect it. Stay tuned :) > >>> > >>> All the best, > >>> > >>> Niels > >>> > >>> [0] > >>> > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/4.CCWP-HR%20Jurisdiction.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1467180138000&api=v2 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > > > > -- > Farzaneh > > > -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 From t.tropina Mon Oct 24 13:57:14 2016 From: t.tropina (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:57:14 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG In-Reply-To: <2b42d919-294b-3f5d-cec1-3638cbc6a747@digitaldissidents.org> References: <839920819.580280.1472553831033.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <86e62d67-0e93-b21b-7b32-ea914219ae2d@digitaldissidents.org> <1582250163.681231.1473145629109.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <1443001709.1229582.1474263395294.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <1139963482.1255012.1474270326172.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <2b42d919-294b-3f5d-cec1-3638cbc6a747@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <413cb961-2cb6-bb0d-2135-6e6def6388fa@mpicc.de> Niels, This email only for you and PC list. I understand your frustration, but I advise you to check the "final" google doc that you send before blaming the PC to find the answers to your questions. The document still has unresolved comments, like those from Milton starting with "I don't get this" and they are neither cleaned nor deleted, thus I gather they are not addressed. Therefore, since we are not those who draft the comments, we can do very little if the document is not finalised. We as a PC are not supposed to clean the documents with unresolved issues when the document were not initiated by us, I assume. I hope this answers you question "why". Warm regards Tanya On 24/10/16 12:36, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Dear all, > > Is it true that this has not been picked up by the Policy Committee and > this has not been submitted? > > I think that would be a real pity of all the work people have put into > this, and I think it's worth to still process it. If not, I would like > to understand why. > > Best, > > Niels > > On 09/19/2016 03:32 AM, Vidushi Marda wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent >> Procedures WG: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#. >> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy >> committee can pick this up now. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Vidushi >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: *vidushi at cis-india.org >> *To: *vidushi at CIS-INDIA.ORG >> *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> *Sent: *Monday, September 19, 2016 11:06:35 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment >> to gTLD subsequent procedure WG >> >> Dear All, >> >> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent >> Procedures WG: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#. >> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy >> committee can pick this up now. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Vidushi >> >> ----- On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Vidushi Marda >> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I think the idea of deadlines for comments work well. Thanks for the >> suggestion Farzi. >> >> Can we make the last day for comments/feedback on the doc this >> Friday the 9th? That way we should be able to send in the doc by >> next week after incorporating them. >> >> Best, >> >> Vidushi >> >> ----- On Sep 5, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Michael Oghia >> wrote: >> >> +1 Farzi >> >> -Michael >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 5:18 PM, farzaneh badii >> > wrote: >> >> Thank you Vidushi and Niels, >> I think your document will benefit from more referencing to >> the actual policies you are talking about. Also as Tatiana >> pointed out you need to resolve the comments first. I >> suggest set a deadline for people to comment, then resolve >> those comments and then send it out to policy committee. >> This is what we did in the past and worked out well. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On 4 September 2016 at 14:33, Tatiana Tropina >> > > wrote: >> >> Hi Niels and all, >> some of the comments in the google doc (e.g. Avri's >> comments) require further work and/or clarification, >> don't think the document can be sent to the PC as it is. >> Thanks! >> Tatiana >> >> On 4 September 2016 at 14:30, Niels ten Oever >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> This document has now been reviewed and commented on >> by several people, >> perhaps the policy committee can pick this up? >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> On 08/30/2016 07:43 PM, Vidushi Marda wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Please find the first draft comment to the gTLD >> Subsequent Procedure WG at this link: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit?usp=sharing >> > >> > While the request was extremely detailed with six >> subjects and specific questions under each, due to >> paucity of time, this draft only discusses over >> arching human rights concerns. >> > >> > I look forward to your feedback and comments. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Vidushi >> > >> > ----- On Aug 26, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Niels, >> >> >> >> I think this idea is a very good one. I have been >> worried that we did >> >> not submit a comment to the New gTLD Subsequent >> Procedures Working >> >> Group, especially on Community Groups. A few >> weeks ago, Avri was kind >> >> enough to answer my questions about this, and >> encourage our NCSG >> >> participation. I think it is the perfect time to >> submit a comment -- >> >> even a little late! >> >> >> >> But quick note, at least in the US, next week is >> big end of summer >> >> vacation week and traditionally very quiet. >> Perhaps allowing a week for >> >> comment would enable more people to participate. >> >> >> >> Best and tx to you, Vidushi and the CCWP HR, >> >> >> >> Kathy >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8/26/2016 7:50 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >> >>> >> >>> I hope this e-mail finds you all well. We just >> had a very productive >> >>> call of the CCWP HR in which we discussed >> several issues in which the >> >>> gTLD Subsequenty Procedures WG impacts human >> rights (community priority >> >>> procedure, how 'community' is defined, lack of >> gTLD applications from >> >>> the global south, etc). >> >>> >> >>> I am aware that the first official input/comment >> period of this WG is >> >>> over, but I think if we would send something in >> it might still be >> >>> considered, especially since the NCSG did not >> send comment yet. >> >>> >> >>> Vidushi has graciously offered to do the >> drafting, also based on the >> >>> report she initially drafted and which was >> accepted as CCWP HR document [0]. >> >>> >> >>> So this is an early warning that you'll receive >> a draft comment on >> >>> Tuesday, if we want to it to be considered I >> think we would need to >> >>> submit it rather switfly, that's why I am >> sending this pre-warning so >> >>> you know you can excpect it. Stay tuned :) >> >>> >> >>> All the best, >> >>> >> >>> Niels >> >>> >> >>> [0] >> >>> >> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/4.CCWP-HR%20Jurisdiction.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1467180138000&api=v2 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> >> From avri Mon Oct 24 14:27:13 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:27:13 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG In-Reply-To: <2b42d919-294b-3f5d-cec1-3638cbc6a747@digitaldissidents.org> References: <839920819.580280.1472553831033.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <86e62d67-0e93-b21b-7b32-ea914219ae2d@digitaldissidents.org> <1582250163.681231.1473145629109.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <1443001709.1229582.1474263395294.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <1139963482.1255012.1474270326172.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> <2b42d919-294b-3f5d-cec1-3638cbc6a747@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <8b59f0a7-1870-d596-d228-a0c240a8f004@apc.org> Hi, As I pointed out several times, while useful comments, this did not reply to the Community Comment 1 (CC1) request, but is rather more pertinent to the work currently being done in the Work Tracks, for which we have not yet held a comment period. I.e if does not answer the questions asked. The work is not lost, but I do not think the WG would do more that thank the group for it and set it aside until until we asked for comment on the work tracks. On the other hand, using it as guiding material for people working in the 4 work tracks might be quite useful. But do we have people participating in all the groups? That is why I have not been pushing people to deliver it. I have given up on getting answers to the questions we asked in this CC1 review from NCSG. avri On 24-Oct-16 06:36, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Dear all, > > Is it true that this has not been picked up by the Policy Committee and > this has not been submitted? > > I think that would be a real pity of all the work people have put into > this, and I think it's worth to still process it. If not, I would like > to understand why. > > Best, > > Niels > > On 09/19/2016 03:32 AM, Vidushi Marda wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent >> Procedures WG: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#. >> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy >> committee can pick this up now. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Vidushi >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: *vidushi at cis-india.org >> *To: *vidushi at CIS-INDIA.ORG >> *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> *Sent: *Monday, September 19, 2016 11:06:35 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment >> to gTLD subsequent procedure WG >> >> Dear All, >> >> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent >> Procedures WG: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#. >> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy >> committee can pick this up now. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Vidushi >> >> ----- On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Vidushi Marda >> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I think the idea of deadlines for comments work well. Thanks for the >> suggestion Farzi. >> >> Can we make the last day for comments/feedback on the doc this >> Friday the 9th? That way we should be able to send in the doc by >> next week after incorporating them. >> >> Best, >> >> Vidushi >> >> ----- On Sep 5, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Michael Oghia >> wrote: >> >> +1 Farzi >> >> -Michael >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 5:18 PM, farzaneh badii >> > wrote: >> >> Thank you Vidushi and Niels, >> I think your document will benefit from more referencing to >> the actual policies you are talking about. Also as Tatiana >> pointed out you need to resolve the comments first. I >> suggest set a deadline for people to comment, then resolve >> those comments and then send it out to policy committee. >> This is what we did in the past and worked out well. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On 4 September 2016 at 14:33, Tatiana Tropina >> > > wrote: >> >> Hi Niels and all, >> some of the comments in the google doc (e.g. Avri's >> comments) require further work and/or clarification, >> don't think the document can be sent to the PC as it is. >> Thanks! >> Tatiana >> >> On 4 September 2016 at 14:30, Niels ten Oever >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> This document has now been reviewed and commented on >> by several people, >> perhaps the policy committee can pick this up? >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> On 08/30/2016 07:43 PM, Vidushi Marda wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Please find the first draft comment to the gTLD >> Subsequent Procedure WG at this link: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit?usp=sharing >> > >> > While the request was extremely detailed with six >> subjects and specific questions under each, due to >> paucity of time, this draft only discusses over >> arching human rights concerns. >> > >> > I look forward to your feedback and comments. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Vidushi >> > >> > ----- On Aug 26, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Niels, >> >> >> >> I think this idea is a very good one. I have been >> worried that we did >> >> not submit a comment to the New gTLD Subsequent >> Procedures Working >> >> Group, especially on Community Groups. A few >> weeks ago, Avri was kind >> >> enough to answer my questions about this, and >> encourage our NCSG >> >> participation. I think it is the perfect time to >> submit a comment -- >> >> even a little late! >> >> >> >> But quick note, at least in the US, next week is >> big end of summer >> >> vacation week and traditionally very quiet. >> Perhaps allowing a week for >> >> comment would enable more people to participate. >> >> >> >> Best and tx to you, Vidushi and the CCWP HR, >> >> >> >> Kathy >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8/26/2016 7:50 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >> >>> >> >>> I hope this e-mail finds you all well. We just >> had a very productive >> >>> call of the CCWP HR in which we discussed >> several issues in which the >> >>> gTLD Subsequenty Procedures WG impacts human >> rights (community priority >> >>> procedure, how 'community' is defined, lack of >> gTLD applications from >> >>> the global south, etc). >> >>> >> >>> I am aware that the first official input/comment >> period of this WG is >> >>> over, but I think if we would send something in >> it might still be >> >>> considered, especially since the NCSG did not >> send comment yet. >> >>> >> >>> Vidushi has graciously offered to do the >> drafting, also based on the >> >>> report she initially drafted and which was >> accepted as CCWP HR document [0]. >> >>> >> >>> So this is an early warning that you'll receive >> a draft comment on >> >>> Tuesday, if we want to it to be considered I >> think we would need to >> >>> submit it rather switfly, that's why I am >> sending this pre-warning so >> >>> you know you can excpect it. Stay tuned :) >> >>> >> >>> All the best, >> >>> >> >>> Niels >> >>> >> >>> [0] >> >>> >> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/4.CCWP-HR%20Jurisdiction.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1467180138000&api=v2 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> >> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri Mon Oct 24 14:33:19 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:33:19 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <599db9f1-3322-dddf-2594-e0308989270e@apc.org> Hi, One other thing I thought of in regard to this voluntary RPM. The policy approved for the last round said that we recommend that there be no required RPMs, but that there ought to be voluntary adoption of RPMs by registries. NCUC at the time fought hard to keep required RPMs out of the policy. Unfortunately shortly after the policy was approved, everybody, including the NCSG then help the Board and ISPs work to over rule that policy to install required RPMs - the ones you all work on in the various RPM working groups. I find it ironic that after buying in to all the required RPMs (except maybe TMCH + 50) we now have problems with a voluntary one. In any case, I expect this is a topic on which the NCSG is split. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri Mon Oct 24 21:49:02 2016 From: avri (avri doria) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:49:02 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: <599db9f1-3322-dddf-2594-e0308989270e@apc.org> References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> <599db9f1-3322-dddf-2594-e0308989270e@apc.org> Message-ID: In the below I meant IPC and not ISP. Apologies for crossing my acronyms avri On 24-Oct-16 07:33, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > One other thing I thought of in regard to this voluntary RPM. > > The policy approved for the last round said that we recommend that there > be no required RPMs, but that there ought to be voluntary adoption of > RPMs by registries. NCUC at the time fought hard to keep required RPMs > out of the policy. Unfortunately shortly after the policy was approved, > everybody, including the NCSG then help the Board and ISPs work to over > rule that policy to install required RPMs - the ones you all work on in > the various RPM working groups. > > I find it ironic that after buying in to all the required RPMs (except > maybe TMCH + 50) we now have problems with a voluntary one. > > In any case, I expect this is a topic on which the NCSG is split. > > avri > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From kathy Tue Oct 25 01:07:37 2016 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day) In-Reply-To: <71584f29-f2ce-9129-08a0-5ecaf20ad110@apc.org> References: <20161020070105.GC5938@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <6f718d59-3dee-08ae-b77c-e4ed9e28c8d6@kathykleiman.com> <805150e9-86b3-b2d7-fe82-0695346ac3d0@seltzer.com> <71584f29-f2ce-9129-08a0-5ecaf20ad110@apc.org> Message-ID: <9bad47a3-0a76-21b9-1072-fab14eeb23c7@kathykleiman.com> Avri, If we did not know the history of this type of Donuts-MPAA Agreement, but we do. It's SOPA via the backdoor. Literally, we (in the US) fought SOPA and defeated the MPAA and RIAA from getting provisions that would have led to the misuse of the DNS and the takedown of the wide variety of speech and content for which a domain name is used -- including webpages, listservs, emails, more. So when MPAA and RIAA went back to Congress, lawmakers and senior staff told them to make "private agreements." These private agreements are now being negotiated a) without multi-stakeholder groups being present, b) without due process being considered, and c) without fairness or balance. EFF, as Ed pointed out, has launched a campaign against Shadow Regulation such as this -- https://www.eff.org/issues/shadow-regulation If the purpose of this SG is to be concerned about noncommercial speech online -- a purpose we have just discussed at length -- then we have to be very, very concerned about anything that would take that speech down without due process, without appeal, without fairness and balance. I think we have a strong obligation to speak out... Best, Kathy On 10/23/2016 3:40 PM, avri doria wrote: > Kathy, > > Not if it is pre-agreed in a contract and fully consented to in advance. > > With there being a wide choice of domain names, people have a choice. > > But I agree it is not what I prefer on the internet, and should not, as > Wendy says become best practice. And also it is critical that the full > level of this agreement be understood and consented to. That seems to be > where efforts should lie. > > But I see no basis for its prohibition by ICANN. > > Avri > > > > On 23-Oct-16 13:05, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> Avri, >> >> When content is taken down without due process, without legal grounds >> and with private rules created without openness, transparency, >> inclusion and balance -- that's censorship. I would hate to see the >> Internet move in that direction. >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> >> On 10/23/2016 12:33 PM, avri doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree that we do not wish to see these become best practices, but I do >>> not not see any reason why they should, or could, be prohibited. >>> >>> What I think is most important is that any registrant know before >>> engaging a sld in one of these names, that this is the condition they >>> will be governed by. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> (note SOI, I do have a small research contract I do for Donuts, but it >>> has nothing to do with this policy of theirs and I have no binding to >>> support their policy causes, I have never discussed this issue with >>> Donuts.) >>> >>> On 23-Oct-16 11:10, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >>>> Thanks for raising this, Kathy and Mitch. It is hugely important that >>>> these takedowns not become part of ICANN's common framework or "best >>>> practices" for registries or registrars. >>>> >>>> --Wendy >>>> >>>> On October 20, 2016 3:17:40 PM PDT, Kathy Kleiman >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Tapani, >>>>> Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another >>>>> important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one >>>>> that >>>>> come from Mitch Stoltz and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at >>>>> the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free >>>>> speech >>>>> >>>>> and innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the >>>>> first >>>>> >>>>> time, he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India! >>>>> >>>>> Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow regulation." >>>>> Shadow regulation is the "secretive web of backroom agreements between >>>>> companies that seek to control our behavior online." (See Fair >>>>> Processes, Better Outcomes, >>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better-outcomes) >>>>> >>>>> We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community. >>>>> Earlier this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down not >>>>> just content, /but entire domain names/, of copyright owners /accused/ >>>>> by the MPAA of violating their copyrights. Although the concept, MPAA >>>>> as >>>>> a "trusted notifier" was taken from the US Digital Millennium >>>>> Copyright >>>>> >>>>> Act, it was taken without any of its fairness, balance, protections >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> appeals. Basically, it's another "accuse you lose" scenario (for >>>>> anyone >>>>> >>>>> who remembers the first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we >>>>> fought for huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a >>>>> "Best Practice." :-( >>>>> >>>>> Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the >>>>> following question set: >>>>> ==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's statement >>>>> of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, >>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the >>>>> MPAA-Donuts >>>>> agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System? >>>>> >>>>> Likely response: >>>>> I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this question. >>>>> As you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on the Board to >>>>> enforce copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See ICANN >>>>> Correspondence). Steve Crocker has been writing back forcefully to >>>>> say >>>>> >>>>> this is not within ICANN's scope and purview. >>>>> >>>>> I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN Board to >>>>> push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the horrors of the >>>>> Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of the Board who have >>>>> not yet heard about it. >>>>> >>>>> Best and tx, >>>>> Kathy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From maryam.bakoshi Thu Oct 27 18:12:28 2016 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:12:28 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details for remote participation for the closed NCSG Meetings ICANN57 In-Reply-To: References: <83BB36A2-F79C-414E-9A3F-02AFD5C4AE20@icann.org> Message-ID: <55DB31E9-5CAC-4D4A-B9D7-7E147B230C20@icann.org> Dear all, Please find Remote Participation Information for public, open meetings here: https://community.icann.org/x/P4LDAw[community.icann.org] There will be a NCSG public meeting Sunday 6 November 2016 from 15:15 ? 18:30 local time (09:45 ? 13:00 UTC) ? Please find below the dial in details for the closed NCSG meetings during ICANN57 in Hyderabad. Please distribute this information on a private list. * Sunday 6 November 2016 ?: Non Contracted Party House meeting Room: G.03/04 08:30 ? 09:30 local time Password NCSG CSG AC room: https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-g3-c/ * Tuesday 8 November 2016 ?: NCSG EXCOM Room: G 01/02 12:15 ? 13:45 local time Password NCSG AC room: https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-g1-c/ * Tuesday 8 November 2016 ?: NCSG leadership Board meeting Room: MR 1.04 15:15 ? 16:45 local time Password NCSG BOARD AC room: https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-mr104-c/ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. SOAC Support (GNSO) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Oct 27 18:31:07 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:31:07 -0400 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: References: Message-ID: <8c3a412e-e350-36cf-809f-05c47b43b905@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 To: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Motion - CWG-IG withdrawal as a chartering organization (1).docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 113953 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu Oct 27 18:34:32 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:34:32 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: [Correspondence] Collision of topics between ATRT3 and CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 topics In-Reply-To: <4B13628A-0D2C-4566-943E-DC1CE82E8369@godaddy.com> References: <4B13628A-0D2C-4566-943E-DC1CE82E8369@godaddy.com> Message-ID: Also an item we need to discuss. Seems an appropriate punt on the part of the board, but we should be ready for the discussion in Hyderabad that he mentions. I for one am not. Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: [Correspondence] Collision of topics between ATRT3 and CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 topics Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:51:28 +0000 From: James M. Bladel To: GNSO Council List Councilors ? For your review, please see this exchange of letters between Steve Crocker and CCWG Chairs on the topic of ATRT3 Thanks? J. *From: *Wendy Profit *Date: *Monday, October 24, 2016 at 17:05 ** *Subject: *[Correspondence] Collision of topics between ATRT3 and CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 topics Dear Thomas, Le?n and Mathieu, (cc: SO/AC Leaders and ICANN Board) Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker in response to your 08 August 2016 letter Re: CCWG Recommendation to the ICANN Board regarding ATRT3 with respect to collision of topics between ATRT3 and CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 topics. Kind regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Specialist -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2016-10-24 Steve Crocker to CCWG ATRT3 Co-Chairs.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 449577 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2016-08-08 CCWG-LetterOnCollisionsOfWS2andATRT3-Final2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 120365 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Oct 28 02:28:44 2016 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:28:44 +0900 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: <8c3a412e-e350-36cf-809f-05c47b43b905@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <8c3a412e-e350-36cf-809f-05c47b43b905@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: 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 > > To: 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Fri Oct 28 05:43:13 2016 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:43:13 -0400 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: References: <8c3a412e-e350-36cf-809f-05c47b43b905@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <122093f9-24a2-727f-6edb-b7a7a7f26581@mail.utoronto.ca> Ok, I will ask for a deferral while we discuss the matter. I dont remember discussing this, and I have not missed a meeting... How would you suggest we amend the charter? What changes do we want, it would be really nice to have a draft.....hence the proposal to ask for a deferral while we draft. cheers Steph On 2016-10-27 19:28, Rafik Dammak 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 > >: > > 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 > > To: 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Oct 28 05:56:00 2016 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:56:00 +0900 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: <122093f9-24a2-727f-6edb-b7a7a7f26581@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <8c3a412e-e350-36cf-809f-05c47b43b905@mail.utoronto.ca> <122093f9-24a2-727f-6edb-b7a7a7f26581@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, it is a short notice for CCW-IG to discuss about charter amendments and this is just before Hyderabad meeting. I have to check with other co-chairs first. I would think those who submitted the motion to list the concerns and give more specifics so we can respond to them accordingly. Best, Rafik 2016-10-28 11:43 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > Ok, I will ask for a deferral while we discuss the matter. I dont > remember discussing this, and I have not missed a meeting... > > How would you suggest we amend the charter? What changes do we want, it > would be really nice to have a draft.....hence the proposal to ask for a > deferral while we draft. > > cheers Steph > > On 2016-10-27 19:28, Rafik Dammak 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 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 >> >> To: 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 >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: