From mpsilvavalent Tue Apr 18 16:39:50 2017 From: mpsilvavalent (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:39:50 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] AC recording GNSO Webinar on ICANN's Draft FY18 Operating Plan & Budget - Tuesday 4 April 2017 - 21:00 UTC References: Message-ID: > > For those of you who couldn?t make the GNSO Webinar on ICANN's Draft FY18 Operating Plan & Budget held earlier, please find the AC recording and below and the slide deck attached. > > AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5lc7uinxzp/ > > The mp3 and transcript will be posted shortly on the GNSO Master calendar. > > _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN58_GNSO FINAL-4-4-17.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1757630 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Apr 2 18:04:00 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 11:04:00 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Agreed Action Item from SSC Representative Selection Call Message-ID: Hi, On the call last Wednesday to select our representatives for the SSC, I thought an agreed action item was that a message would be sent to the main NCSG mailing list clarifying how we have been making our appointments to the SSC, and squashing the unfair rumour that has been percolating that there had been been a 'secret list' of some kind. I have not seen this email just yet, but I hope it will be circulated soon, and will also outline the process we will follow this Friday to select our final representative for the SSC. Thanks, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Mon Apr 3 01:14:04 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 00:14:04 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Agreed Action Item from SSC Representative Selection Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all As I noted in my e-mail last week announcing the selection of Renata and Poncelet, the process to select the third member for the SSC continues this week. To respond to Ayden's concerns below I must reemphasize the following: We are meeting as a subgroup of the NCSG PC this week to continue our deliberations. It is our goal to announce our decision on the third slot of the SSC by CoB Friday. There is no secret list or whatever - the group comprises, as indicated before, the following PC members: Ayden, Juan Manuel, Marilia, Martin, Stefania, Stephanie and myself. We will be following the same process as we did for Renata and Poncelet: a discussion of the merits of the candidates according to the information we have and the criteria that have been developed. We are doing our very best to make sure that this selection process delivers the best possible members for the community. I hope that you trust that we will do so. Thanks again for your support in this process. Matthew (Note - I am transitioning to a new e-mail address: matthew at intpolicy.com) On 02/04/2017 17:04, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > On the call last Wednesday to select our representatives for the > SSC, I thought an agreed action item was that a message would be sent > to the main NCSG mailing list clarifying how we have been making our > appointments to the SSC, and squashing the unfair rumour that has been > percolating that there had been been a 'secret list' of some kind. I > have not seen this email just yet, but I hope it will be circulated > soon, and will also outline the process we will follow this Friday to > select our final representative for the SSC. > > Thanks, > > Ayden > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc ------------ 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Apr 3 18:55:58 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 11:55:58 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Agreed Action Item from SSC Representative Selection Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I thought, since there are all kinds of allegations swirling around that there are "secret lists" and Tapani has recused himself from the process, that when I brought up this matter during our meeting last week, there was agreement there would be a report back to the entire discuss list explaining how this process was being run, and dismissing the allegations of secret lists (copy my email to Tapani if you wish, he has not replied to me yet). We are making a mountain out of a molehill here with this debate over which of the two remaining candidates we select, in my view. As Stefi said, this is not the election for POTUS. However, I think it is important that subcommittees of the GNSO are not popularity contests, they are staffed according to merit. I look forward to seeing a clear process outlined. If there is not going to be one, we might as well just vote on list and get it over with. Last time the call was almost two hours, not 1.5. Most of us are very busy. Stephanie Perrin On 2017-04-02 18:14, matthew shears wrote: > > Hi all > > As I noted in my e-mail last week announcing the selection of Renata > and Poncelet, the process to select the third member for the SSC > continues this week. > > To respond to Ayden's concerns below I must reemphasize the following: > > We are meeting as a subgroup of the NCSG PC this week to continue our > deliberations. It is our goal to announce our decision on the third > slot of the SSC by CoB Friday. > > There is no secret list or whatever - the group comprises, as > indicated before, the following PC members: Ayden, Juan Manuel, > Marilia, Martin, Stefania, Stephanie and myself. > > We will be following the same process as we did for Renata and > Poncelet: a discussion of the merits of the candidates according to > the information we have and the criteria that have been developed. > > We are doing our very best to make sure that this selection process > delivers the best possible members for the community. I hope that you > trust that we will do so. > > Thanks again for your support in this process. > > Matthew > > (Note - I am transitioning to a new e-mail address: matthew at intpolicy.com) > > > > > On 02/04/2017 17:04, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On the call last Wednesday to select our representatives for the >> SSC, I thought an agreed action item was that a message would be sent >> to the main NCSG mailing list clarifying how we have been making our >> appointments to the SSC, and squashing the unfair rumour that has >> been percolating that there had been been a 'secret list' of some >> kind. I have not seen this email just yet, but I hope it will be >> circulated soon, and will also outline the process we will follow >> this Friday to select our final representative for the SSC. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> Virus-free. www.avg.com >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Apr 5 00:49:02 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:49:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Note the deadline folks, I had requested a policy meeting this week in order to hit the deadline for motions and to avoid Easter/Passover holidays. Any chance of that still? cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:27:00 +0000 From: Nathalie Peregrine To: council at gnso.icann.org CC: gnso-secs at icann.org Dear Councilors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance *(i.e. MONDAY, 10 April 2017 at 23:59 UTC)* of the GNSO Council Meeting on 20 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/wsbRAw Thank you very much. Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Apr 5 00:50:38 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:50:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Fwd: GNSO Adoption of motion - Confirmation that modification to procedure that implements the Whois conflicts with privacy law policy recommendation is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d8bcd8b-f6be-b930-2ceb-c7648f046901@mail.utoronto.ca> Another item... Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Fwd: GNSO Adoption of motion - Confirmation that modification to procedure that implements the Whois conflicts with privacy law policy recommendation is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendation Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:01:44 +0000 From: James M. Bladel To: GNSO Council List Councilors - During our meeting in Copenhagen, we adopted the motion described below, and asked GDD Staff to provide a timeline for implementation. Please see the attached response from Akram on this point. Thank you -- J. ------------------ James Bladel GNSO Chair From: Trang Nguyen Date: March 31, 2017 at 18:42:52 To: James M. Bladel CC: Marika Konings Subject: GNSO Adoption of motion - Confirmation that modification to procedure that implements the Whois conflicts with privacy law policy recommendation is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendation > Dear James, > > Please see attached a letter from Akram responding to the request in > the above mentioned GNSO motion. > > Best, > > Trang > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Atallah to Bladel[1].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 414769 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 01:02:34 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 07:02:34 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stephanie. The deadline for motions is next monday, how can we have a policy call this week before the gnso council call agenda is published ?or do you mean having a call next week instead? Do you have a motion that you want to submit? Best, Rafik On Apr 5, 2017 6:49 AM, "Stephanie Perrin" < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: Note the deadline folks, I had requested a policy meeting this week in order to hit the deadline for motions and to avoid Easter/Passover holidays. Any chance of that still? cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:27:00 +0000 From: Nathalie Peregrine To: council at gnso.icann.org CC: gnso-secs at icann.org Dear Councilors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance *(i.e. MONDAY, 10 April 2017 at 23:59 UTC)* of the GNSO Council Meeting on 20 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/wsbRAw Thank you very much. Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Apr 5 01:17:03 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:17:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well that is why I asked in advance, so we could get it done this week. Thursday and Friday are holy days for some....and we usually have this call at the end of the week lately. We could indeed do Tuesday. You may recall I suggested some time ago that we should develop an award for staff who went above and beyond the call of duty. Make it a cross community nomination thing, just like for the Ethos award, and name it after Glen (get her back to present the award). I actually sent a proposal to David Olive prior to the ICeland meeting, but he says he never got it, I resent at Copenhagen and he really liked it, plenty of others really liked it including Chuck Gomes, who said it would be a great proposal for the GNSO to bring forward. So I would like to discuss it with our gang and propose it for discussion at the next council meeting. Probably does requires a motion, I am not sure and now that Amr is gone not sure who to ask ....but I would like agreement from the group before I propose it. cheers Steph PS Glen loves the idea.... On 2017-04-04 18:02, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie. > > The deadline for motions is next monday, how can we have a policy call > this week before the gnso council call agenda is published ?or do you > mean having a call next week instead? > Do you have a motion that you want to submit? > > Best, > > Rafik > > On Apr 5, 2017 6:49 AM, "Stephanie Perrin" > > wrote: > > Note the deadline folks, I had requested a policy meeting this > week in order to hit the deadline for motions and to avoid > Easter/Passover holidays. Any chance of that still? > > cheers Stephanie > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 10 April > 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 April 2017 at > 21:00 UTC > Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:27:00 +0000 > From: Nathalie Peregrine > > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > CC: gnso-secs at icann.org > > > > > Dear Councilors, > > Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later > than (NLT) 10 days in advance *(i.e. MONDAY, 10 April 2017 at > 23:59 UTC)* of the GNSO Council Meeting on 20 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC. > > Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then > be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/wsbRAw > > > Thank you very much. > > Kind regards, > > Nathalie > > -- > > Nathalie Peregrine > > Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > > > Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and visiting the GNSO > Newcomer pages > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 10:44:55 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 16:44:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [important] NCSG draft response to transparency report Message-ID: Hi all, please review the draft comment shared by Matt in NCSG list. we have a short time to review and endorse the response. so better that PC members go through it these days while Matt work on any comments received from NCSG members and resolving them. the deadline for PC submission is the Monday 10th April. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: matthew shears Date: 2017-04-05 2:47 GMT+09:00 Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Monthly ICANN Open Public Comments Reminder To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu Hi all Have taken a first go at comments on this excellent report. Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXp Tkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing DId not quite get to the Hotline - apologies. Also raised some questions for your thoughts. Please have at it! Matthew (matthew at intpolicy.com) On 03/04/2017 14:01, Stephanie Perrin wrote: Thanks Michael and Matt, happy to comment on a google doc once it is ready. Reading the report now.... Cheers Stephanie On 2017-04-03 08:43, Michael Karanicolas wrote: Hi Stephanie, Actually, Matthew Shears has taken over the lead on drafting the NCSG response to the transparency report (we thought it better that he do it - given that I was one of the group's Rapporteurs). Maybe he can offer an update? The deadline for submissions is in a week. Best, Michael On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: Thanks Indeed Mamadou, I think that Michael Karanicolas was doing a draft on the transparency report but beyond that I am not sure who is working on first drafts (I just know it is not me!!) Please folks, we need some volunteers here. Stephanie Perrin On 2017-03-31 08:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Thanks for sharing, Mamadou. I hope the NCSG will be able to respond to most of these consultations. If we have any members from Ethiopia or Eritrea (or who can read the Ethiopic script), we could work together on a response to the below-mentioned Proposal for Ethiopic Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Monthly ICANN Open Public Comments Reminder Local Time: 31 March 2017 1:20 PM UTC Time: 31 March 2017 12:20 From: alfamamadou at HOTMAIL.COM To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Reference Japanese Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the Second Level Open : 27 Jan 2017 23:59 UTC close : 31 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency Open : 21 Feb 2017 23:59 UTC Close : 10 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Implementation Guidelines Open : 3 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC Close : 17 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow Interim Paper Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Names of Countries and Territories as Top Level Domains Open : 24 Feb 2017 23:59 UTC Close : 21 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow Enhancing Accountability Guidelines for Good Faith Open : 7 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC Close : 24 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs Open : 7 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC Close : 27 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow ICANN's Draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget, and Five-Year Operating Plan Update 8 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC 28 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Open : 22 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC Close : 1 May 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study Open : 11 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC Close : 5 May 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow Proposal for Ethiopic Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR) ? Open : 23 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC Close : 5 May 2017 23:59 UTC Log in to follow Virus-free. www.avg.com -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Wed Apr 5 17:38:59 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:38:59 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC Update Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Just a brief on the process so far. Today's meeting after voting based on survey, a clear decision came out, top three will be automatically selected, they are all women, and we have our own Stephanie Perrin in that list. Susan Kawaguchi recused herself, and she has been replaced by another lady from the BC. Our highest scoring candidate for second level going into the options being considered based on Q5 (top 4 to 7) which deal with experience is Stefania Milan who is in the Top seven, our other NCSG candidates could not be in the top 7 after weighted average considered from all questions which neither me or Renata can influence alone, even if the third slot was filled from NCSG. Below is a break down of proceedings Welcome - As a reminder, the SSC operates by full consensus. As the full group is not in attendance on today's call, any outcomes of this call must be confirmed with the full group. - For this nomination, staff has requested that this group considers those candidates who have requested GNSO endorsement. Therefore, only those seeking GNSO endorsement are listed in the survey. The SSC may choose to consider those candidates who requested endorsement from other SOs and ACs. - The GNSO Council has asked SSC to provide recommendations in time for the 20 April meeting. The document deadline for the Council Meeting is 10 April. Once the GNSO Council receives list of endorsed candidates, they must consider the nominations and can choose to adopt them. The adopted list of candidates then goes to the SOs and ACs for consideration. The 25 April deadline is for candidates to be nominated from the different SOs and ACs. - If it is not possible to make these deadlines, the group may want to provide a rationale for requesting additional time. - The top three candidates automatically get a seat on the Review Team. The group may want to provide a ranking for candidates 4 through 7. - While the top three candidates are guaranteed slots, the others may also be considered, weighing for diversity and other considerations. 2. Review Survey Results - Survey results are based on scores to the following questions: -- Question 3: Based on the candidate's materials or your own personal experience, does the candidate appear to qualify as a GNSO endorsed candidate? -- Question 4: Does the candidate's application clearly demonstrate that the candidate has the necessary expertise and competence to do the work? -- Question 5: Based on your assessment of the responsibilities, skills, expertise and desired attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers, please rank these candidates in order of preference (1 being most preferred candidate, 14 being the least preferred candidate) 3. Confirm Next Steps & next meeting (if needed) - Suggestion: Put aside the top 3, as these are the clear top choices. Continue the conversation on ranking candidates 4 through 7 on this call, share on the mailing list to continue the conversation. If no consensus on the mailing list is reached, leverage the next scheduled meeting to work towards consensus. - Candidates 1-3: Susan Kawaguchi, Erika Mann, Stephanie Perrin - Candidates 4-7: 4) Volker Greimann, 5) Marc Anderson, 6) Stefania Milan, 7) Timothy Chen - Staff will send out notes, recordings, and summary email about the outcome of this call. - A call is tentatively scheduled for tomorrow. We will go ahead with this call unless there is clear agreement that there is no need to go ahead with this call. Staff will circulate a Doodle poll and will make a determination about whether to have a call by 13:00 UTC tomorrow. An additional call is scheduled for Monday in case further discussion is needed. - Staff will work on a draft motion in parallel. Will look forward to your suggestions as we move ahead with the next selections process. Renata was not at the call today but her inputs on 4 to 7 selection process will definitely come in. I have attached the breakdown of all weighted score so you all see how things transpired. Kind Regards Poncelet -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Summary scoring RDS RT - 5 April 2017.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 9991 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Apr 5 17:59:32 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:59:32 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC Update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the update Poncelet, very useful for time planning! Thanks to you and Renata for jumping in so quickly and representing us well on this committee! Best, Stephanie Perrin On 2017-04-05 10:38, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Just a brief on the process so far. Today's meeting after voting > based on survey, a clear decision came out, top three will be > automatically selected, they are all women, and we have our own > Stephanie Perrin in that list. Susan Kawaguchi recused herself, and > she has been replaced by another lady from the BC. Our highest scoring > candidate for second level going into the options being considered > based on Q5 (top 4 to 7) which deal with experience is Stefania Milan > who is in the Top seven, our other NCSG candidates could not be in the > top 7 after weighted average considered from all questions which > neither me or Renata can influence alone, even if the third slot was > filled from NCSG. > > Below is a break down of proceedings > > Welcome > > - As a reminder, the SSC operates by full consensus. > As the full group is not in attendance on today's call, > any outcomes of this call must be confirmed with the full group. > > - For this nomination, staff has requested that this group > considers those candidates who have requested GNSO > endorsement. Therefore, only those seeking GNSO > endorsement are listed in the survey. The SSC may choose to > consider those candidates who requested endorsement from > other SOs and ACs. > > - The GNSO Council has asked SSC to provide > recommendations in time for the 20 April meeting. The > document deadline for the Council Meeting is 10 April. > Once the GNSO Council receives list of endorsed candidates, they must > consider the nominations and can choose to adopt them. The adopted > list of candidates then goes to the SOs and ACs for > consideration. The 25 April deadline is for candidates to > be nominated from the different SOs and ACs. > > - If it is not possible to make these deadlines, the > group may want to provide a rationale for requesting additional time. > > - The top three candidates automatically get a seat on > the Review Team. The group may want to provide a ranking > for candidates 4 through 7. > > - While the top three candidates are guaranteed slots, > the others may also be considered, weighing for diversity and other > considerations. > > 2. Review Survey Results > > - Survey results are based on scores to the following questions: > > -- Question 3: Based on the candidate's materials or your > own personal experience, does the candidate appear to > qualify as a GNSO endorsed candidate? > > -- Question 4: Does the candidate's application > clearly demonstrate that the candidate has the necessary > expertise and competence to do the work? > > -- Question 5: Based on your assessment of the > responsibilities, skills, expertise and desired > attributes as outlined in the call for volunteers, please > rank these candidates in order of preference (1 being > most preferred candidate, 14 being the least preferred candidate) > > > > 3. Confirm Next Steps & next meeting (if needed) > > - Suggestion: Put aside the top 3, as these are the clear > top choices. Continue the conversation on ranking > candidates 4 through 7 on this call, share on the > mailing list to continue the conversation. If no consensus > on the mailing list is reached, leverage the next > scheduled meeting to work towards consensus. > > - Candidates 1-3: Susan Kawaguchi, Erika Mann, Stephanie Perrin > > - Candidates 4-7: 4) Volker > Greimann, 5) Marc Anderson, 6) Stefania Milan, 7) Timothy Chen > > - Staff will send out notes, recordings, and summary email > about the outcome of this call. > > - A call is tentatively scheduled for tomorrow. > We will go ahead with this call unless there is clear > agreement that there is no need to go ahead with this > call. Staff will circulate a Doodle poll and will make a > determination about whether to have a call by 13:00 UTC > tomorrow. An additional call is scheduled for Monday in > case further discussion is needed. > > - Staff will work on a draft motion in parallel. > > > > Will look forward to your suggestions as we move ahead with the next > selections process. Renata was not at the call today but her inputs > on 4 to 7 selection process will definitely come in. I have attached > the breakdown of all weighted score so you all see how things transpired. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > /www.ymca.gm > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > /www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > * > * > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Apr 5 21:06:53 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 14:06:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent Advice Required Message-ID: Dear all, I have received a CV from Ed Morris in support of his candidature for the SSC. However, it has come accompanied by both a non-disclosure clause and a clause that I must delete the file after reviewing it. I am not sure who else has received these documents, as there are no email addresses other than mine in the recipient list. Under these circumstances I am unsure as to whether or not I can forward the file to the relevant assessors for their consideration ahead of our SSC call tomorrow. I am also unsure as to whether or not a document can be received under these terms given ICANN and the NCSG?s transparency requirements. I am not a lawyer, therefore I am considering sending these emails to ICANN?s General Counsel to receive his opinion on whether or not we can accept the document under the requested terms. That said, I welcome your thoughts on how I should proceed. Thank you! Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Apr 5 21:36:43 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:36:43 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent Advice Required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have worked in this area only in government. My advice is to forward immediately to the Ombudsman, who will seek legal advice. I think it is a serious risk to keep it, and have deleted it. stephanie On 2017-04-05 14:06, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > I have received a CV from Ed Morris in support of his candidature for > the SSC. > > However, it has come accompanied by both a non-disclosure clause and a > clause that I must delete the file after reviewing it. I am not sure > who else has received these documents, as there are no email addresses > other than mine in the recipient list. > > Under these circumstances I am unsure as to whether or not I can > forward the file to the relevant assessors for their consideration > ahead of our SSC call tomorrow. I am also unsure as to whether or not > a document can be received under these terms given ICANN and the > NCSG?s transparency requirements. > > I am not a lawyer, therefore I am considering sending these emails to > ICANN?s General Counsel to receive his opinion on whether or not we > can accept the document under the requested terms. That said, I > welcome your thoughts on how I should proceed. Thank you! > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Wed Apr 5 21:53:48 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent Advice Required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden and all, The CV with nondisclosure agreement was sent to all PC members currently active on the selecting team. It is public record that I 1) am a victim of domestic violence and, 2) have restraining orders against several individuals as result. Law enforcement has advised me to keep all personally identifying information offline. I was asked to send a CV in support of my application to continue to serve on the SSC. I found the request distasteful, to say the least. Going back to the days of my mentor, Jon Postel, we judge people here on the basis of work, not on paper. Nevertheless, over the objection of my attorney and my girlfriend, I took the risk of trusting members of this PC and provided the requested PC but with a nondisclosure clause to protect myself, my girlfriend and her young daughter from potential harm. It is not uncommon for nondisclosure clauses to accompany release of personally identifying information. I am unwilling to further subject myself and my family to harm by agreeing to processes that could result in harm to us. Apparently victims of violence are not fully able to participate in the NCSG without endangering their lives. I have compiled with the PC request to the best of my ability. I would suggest that those members of this Committee unwilling to agree not to distribute or post online my cv recuse themselves from further deliberation on this matter. There is no restriction on discussing anything I have submitted, only on the redistribution or posting online of my cv - in other words, a restriction on using the cv for reason other than that intended. If that is not acceptable it is a sad day for victims of violence, but even a sader day for the NCSG. Edward Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Ayden F?rdeline" Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 7:08 PM To: "ncsg-pc" Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent Advice Required Dear all, I have received a CV from Ed Morris in support of his candidature for the SSC. However, it has come accompanied by both a non-disclosure clause and a clause that I must delete the file after reviewing it. I am not sure who else has received these documents, as there are no email addresses other than mine in the recipient list. Under these circumstances I am unsure as to whether or not I can forward the file to the relevant assessors for their consideration ahead of our SSC call tomorrow. I am also unsure as to whether or not a document can be received under these terms given ICANN and the NCSG?s transparency requirements. I am not a lawyer, therefore I am considering sending these emails to ICANN?s General Counsel to receive his opinion on whether or not we can accept the document under the requested terms. That said, I welcome your thoughts on how I should proceed. Thank you! Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 00:58:48 2017 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:58:48 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent Advice Required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies, I am equally perplexed. best On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > I have received a CV from Ed Morris in support of his candidature for the > SSC. > > However, it has come accompanied by both a non-disclosure clause and a > clause that I must delete the file after reviewing it. I am not sure who > else has received these documents, as there are no email addresses other > than mine in the recipient list. > > Under these circumstances I am unsure as to whether or not I can forward > the file to the relevant assessors for their consideration ahead of our SSC > call tomorrow. I am also unsure as to whether or not a document can be > received under these terms given ICANN and the NCSG?s transparency > requirements. > > I am not a lawyer, therefore I am considering sending these emails to > ICANN?s General Counsel to receive his opinion on whether or not we can > accept the document under the requested terms. That said, I welcome your > thoughts on how I should proceed. Thank you! > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Thu Apr 6 08:29:25 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:29:25 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT Message-ID: <20170406052925.rmv7e455gd6e452k@tarvainen.info> Dear PC members, While membership issues belong to the EC (I've already raised this there), this particular situation potentially affects the PC directly, so I'm bringing this to your attention as well. The facts are clear enough: as of the beginning of this month Matthew hasn't been a member of NCSG nor representative of one. He has applied for an individual membership, however, and the EC will consider it in its meeting tomorrow. I would like to hear what PC thinks about this, in particular Matt's role as NCUC representative in the PC as well as its Vice Chair. Tapani ----- Forwarded message ----- Dear Tapani, Although I wish to remain anonymous, I did wish to forward you the email response below. It appears that Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT. I have checked the membership roster of the NCUC. Mr. Shears is not listed as an individual member. I'm confused as to how Mr. Shears continues to function in the leadership role, or any role, in the NCSG if he is not a representative of CDT or in any other way a member of the SG. If you accept anonymous information as to the validity of membership please accept this as such and investigate. Perhaps there is a simple explanation. ---------------------------------------- From: "Matthew Shears" Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 9:11 AM Subject: Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT Re: SSC Note If you wish to reach Matthew please contact him at: matthew at intpolicy.com Please change the e-mail address in your contact details accordingly. Thanks. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Thu Apr 6 09:46:50 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:46:50 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT In-Reply-To: <20170406052925.rmv7e455gd6e452k@tarvainen.info> References: <20170406052925.rmv7e455gd6e452k@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20170406064650.wrhji3xymyv53iho@tarvainen.info> Dear all, I should add that Matt had notified me of the situation with CDT earlier, I just hadn't thought about the potential implications. My apologies for not notifying you sooner. Tapani On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:29:25AM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > Dear PC members, > > While membership issues belong to the EC (I've already raised this > there), this particular situation potentially affects the PC directly, > so I'm bringing this to your attention as well. > > The facts are clear enough: as of the beginning of this month Matthew > hasn't been a member of NCSG nor representative of one. > > He has applied for an individual membership, however, and the EC will > consider it in its meeting tomorrow. > > I would like to hear what PC thinks about this, in particular Matt's > role as NCUC representative in the PC as well as its Vice Chair. > > Tapani > > ----- Forwarded message ----- > > Dear Tapani, > > Although I wish to remain anonymous, I did wish to forward you the email > response below. > > It appears that Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT. > > I have checked the membership roster of the NCUC. Mr. Shears is not listed > as an individual member. > > I'm confused as to how Mr. Shears continues to function in the leadership > role, or any role, in the NCSG if he is not a representative of CDT or in > any other way a member of the SG. > > If you accept anonymous information as to the validity of membership > please accept this as such and investigate. Perhaps there is a simple > explanation. > > > ---------------------------------------- > From: "Matthew Shears" > Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 9:11 AM > Subject: Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT Re: SSC Note > If you wish to reach Matthew please contact him at: matthew at intpolicy.com > Please change the e-mail address in your contact details accordingly. > Thanks. > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From stefania.milan at eui.eu Thu Apr 6 10:05:22 2017 From: stefania.milan at eui.eu (Stefania Milan) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:05:22 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT In-Reply-To: <20170406052925.rmv7e455gd6e452k@tarvainen.info> References: <20170406052925.rmv7e455gd6e452k@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <6891D69D-2F67-45A0-9841-71B0255B7052@eui.eu> Dear PC, I have personally no problems with Matt's membership and role. I was aware of the situation but respect his work and have total faith in his integrity. Let's not be anal about this. We have better fights to fight, and I am a bit disturbed by the fact some of our members have the time and willingness to question this transitory situation. My two cents, st. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 6, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > beginning The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From egmorris1 at toast.net Thu Apr 6 10:17:56 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 03:17:56 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT In-Reply-To: <20170406052925.rmv7e455gd6e452k@tarvainen.info> References: <20170406052925.rmv7e455gd6e452k@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi Tapani, Thanks for this. I received messages like the one you mentioned, made some inquiries, others did as well, I'm glad we know what's going on. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So we have a selection process for the SSC: - Where the Chair of the NCSG has recused himself due to serious allegations that, if true, are a clear violation of a whole bunch of rules and principles in ICANN and the NCSG, - Requirements and procedures are done on the fly, made by a member or two, not approved by any vote or consensus, and applied inconsistently, - I see one PC member recuse himself, un-recuse himself, and recuse himself again with no explanation, - I do my best to address concerns, provide information without endangering my family but it doesn't matter; we have "experts" who don't know what they are talking about freaking out, - And now we know that the guy running this process isn't even a member of the NCSG? Something most of us didn't know? Regarding the SSC, I have lots to say but this isn't the time. What I will say is I am the best candidate for the position, have done the work others refused to do, earned it, but even if selected by this incredibly sad process I would not accept. There are limits. I prefer selection processes run by legitimate members of my Stakeholder Group, or where we know a nonmember is an approved participant, that whole transparency thing, with the full participation of the Chair of my Stakeholder Group. Call me crazy. As to Matt's status: that's his call or that of the NCUC EC. Not ours. Let me make it clear I have no problem with Matt's intent. I know he means well. That said, I think that's the call of Matt and the NCUC EC and not the NCSG PC. I'm not sure that nonmembers can't be appointed to the NCSG PC by the NCUC EC, I'm not sure they can. Can he be on a members discussion list? Who knows? All I can say is that if I cease NCSG membership for one millisecond (or more) I would step down from all my positions. Run again if I wanted to, but any change of status: I'd go back to the selecters. I wouldn't leave the NCSG and remain on Council, for example. But that's me. Others might feel differently and this topic doesn't interest me enough to spend an hour reading our Charter and Bylaws to see what the rules are. I'm sure someone will. This whole process is a mess and should be started over with clear requirements and standards approved by the PC before any candidates even announce. If that happens here give me a holler and we'll see what happens. Otherwise, I found $100,000 in unfunded items that I want to fund and give to a lucky PDP for external studies and assistance. I'm going back to work - not really interested in the circus anymore, never have been. Good luck to those who enjoy the show and being part of it. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Tapani Tarvainen" Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 6:29 AM To: "NCSG-PC" Subject: [NCSG-PC] Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT Dear PC members, While membership issues belong to the EC (I've already raised this there), this particular situation potentially affects the PC directly, so I'm bringing this to your attention as well. The facts are clear enough: as of the beginning of this month Matthew hasn't been a member of NCSG nor representative of one. He has applied for an individual membership, however, and the EC will consider it in its meeting tomorrow. I would like to hear what PC thinks about this, in particular Matt's role as NCUC representative in the PC as well as its Vice Chair. Tapani ----- Forwarded message ----- Dear Tapani, Although I wish to remain anonymous, I did wish to forward you the email response below. It appears that Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT. I have checked the membership roster of the NCUC. Mr. Shears is not listed as an individual member. I'm confused as to how Mr. Shears continues to function in the leadership role, or any role, in the NCSG if he is not a representative of CDT or in any other way a member of the SG. If you accept anonymous information as to the validity of membership please accept this as such and investigate. Perhaps there is a simple explanation. ---------------------------------------- From: "Matthew Shears" Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 9:11 AM Subject: Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT Re: SSC Note If you wish to reach Matthew please contact him at: matthew at intpolicy.com Please change the e-mail address in your contact details accordingly. Thanks. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Tapani Tarvainen _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Thu Apr 6 10:25:45 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:25:45 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC Message-ID: Hi NCSG PC It is with regret that I must step back from my role in the current selection process for the SSC and recommend that the selection process for the third member be restarted. As NCSG PC VC I have tried to manage the process so that we could have a positive outcome for our community.However, since the selection of Renata and Poncelet last week, the state of play surrounding the process and intrigue/lobbying surrounding the selection of the third member has become such that I am no longer able to fulfil my responsibilities or assume such an outcome. Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the effort undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I have worked with in this process has been denigrated.The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant lobbying and influencing, etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and reinforce the difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under. As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I recommend that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC member.I do not believe the process should go forward as is; it should be restarted with much clearer parameters and procedural rules and policies. I must commend the hard work and efforts of my fellow PC members Ayden, Juan, Marilia, Martin, Stefania and Stephanie.I should note that I shared these concerns with my fellow PC members yesterday. I must also state that my recommendation to restart the process should not in any way imperil or undermine the membership of Renata and Poncelet to the SSC.We as a group achieved rough consensus on their selection and that decision should stand.Their work is already being recognized and appreciated. Finally, effective immediately I am resigning my position on the NCSG PC. Thanks. -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Thu Apr 6 12:36:24 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 05:36:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Matt, Your integrity was never in doubt. This has been a learning experience, a sad one, for most of us. By learning I hope I mean that: let's learn from our mistakes and perhaps get a process in place like the one I just helped write for the GNSO for NCSG appointments. Full of rules that cover things like confidentiality, rules for diversity and so on. Perhaps a NCSG SSC - happy to apply my experiences with the GNSO model here to help develop one for ourselves. By the way, to cover some of the mud thrown at me in recent weeks: no, I don't have a criminal record and I'm not a drug smuggler. And I'm amazed a fellow NCSG member has nothing better to do than count the number of suitcases I bring to an ICANN meeting. So be it. I tend to forget things so it might be useful to know someone does that. Anyone serious knows that both Rafik and I could do this job and could do it well. Our community needs peace right now. There is an old tradition in my culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed man. I think it's a tradition made up by the newlywed women. :) In any event, if Rafik is still willing to volunteer for the position we should celebrate his nuptials by letting him do it. And then let's get some sort of selection policy in place for the NCSG. What we have now clearly is not up to snuff. Happy to help out if folks are ready to work on one. Peace - thanks Matt for all of your work, and good luck Rafik, most of all with your new wife, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Matthew Shears" Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 9:34 AM To: "ncsg-pc" Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE Hi NCSG PC It is with regret that I must step back from my role in the current selection process for the SSC and recommend that the selection process for the third member be restarted. As NCSG PC VC I have tried to manage the process so that we could have a positive outcome for our community. However, since the selection of Renata and Poncelet last week, the state of play surrounding the process and intrigue/lobbying surrounding the selection of the third member has become such that I am no longer able to fulfil my responsibilities or assume such an outcome. Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the effort undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I have worked with in this process has been denigrated. The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant lobbying and influencing, etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and reinforce the difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under. As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I recommend that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC member. I do not believe the process should go forward as is; it should be restarted with much clearer parameters and procedural rules and policies. I must commend the hard work and efforts of my fellow PC members Ayden, Juan, Marilia, Martin, Stefania and Stephanie. I should note that I shared these concerns with my fellow PC members yesterday. I must also state that my recommendation to restart the process should not in any way imperil or undermine the membership of Renata and Poncelet to the SSC. We as a group achieved rough consensus on their selection and that decision should stand. Their work is already being recognized and appreciated. Finally, effective immediately I am resigning my position on the NCSG PC. Thanks. -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Thu Apr 6 13:02:35 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:02:35 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Dear all, As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. So let's do that. As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future more gracefully. Tapani On Apr 06 05:36, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > Matt, > > Your integrity was never in doubt. > > This has been a learning experience, a sad one, for most of us. By > learning I hope I mean that: let's learn from our mistakes and perhaps get > a process in place like the one I just helped write for the GNSO for NCSG > appointments. Full of rules that cover things like confidentiality, rules > for diversity and so on. Perhaps a NCSG SSC - happy to apply my experiences > with the GNSO model here to help develop one for ourselves. > > By the way, to cover some of the mud thrown at me in recent weeks: no, I > don't have a criminal record and I'm not a drug smuggler. And I'm amazed a > fellow NCSG member has nothing better to do than count the number of > suitcases I bring to an ICANN meeting. So be it. I tend to forget things so > it might be useful to know someone does that. > > Anyone serious knows that both Rafik and I could do this job and could do > it well. Our community needs peace right now. There is an old tradition in > my culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed > man. I think it's a tradition made up by the newlywed women. :) In any > event, if Rafik is still willing to volunteer for the position we should > celebrate his nuptials by letting him do it. > > And then let's get some sort of selection policy in place for the NCSG. > What we have now clearly is not up to snuff. Happy to help out if folks are > ready to work on one. > > Peace - thanks Matt for all of your work, and good luck Rafik, most of all > with your new wife, > > Ed > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > From: "Matthew Shears" > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 9:34 AM > To: "ncsg-pc" > Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC > > > > Normal 0 false false false EN-GB > X-NONE X-NONE > > > > > > > > Hi NCSG PC > > It is with regret that I must step back from my role in the current > selection process for the SSC and recommend that the selection process for > the third member be restarted. > > As NCSG PC VC I have tried to manage the process so that we could have a > positive outcome for our community. However, since the selection of Renata > and Poncelet last week, the state of play surrounding the process and > intrigue/lobbying surrounding the selection of the third member has become > such that I am no longer able to fulfil my responsibilities or assume such > an outcome. > > Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the > legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the effort > undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I have worked with > in this process has been denigrated. The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant > lobbying and influencing, etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and > reinforce the difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under. > > As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I recommend > that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC member. I do not believe > the process should go forward as is; it should be restarted with much > clearer parameters and procedural rules and policies. > > I must commend the hard work and efforts of my fellow PC members Ayden, > Juan, Marilia, Martin, Stefania and Stephanie. I should note that I > shared these concerns with my fellow PC members yesterday. > > I must also state that my recommendation to restart the process should not > in any way imperil or undermine the membership of Renata and Poncelet to > the SSC. We as a group achieved rough consensus on their selection and > that decision should stand. Their work is already being recognized and > appreciated. > > Finally, effective immediately I am resigning my position on the NCSG PC. > > > Thanks. > > > > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears > From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Apr 6 13:17:43 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:17:43 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: I do not have an objection to Rafik serving on the SSC, just as I did not have an objection to Ed serving. I had not assessed either candidate and was reserving judgement until our scheduled call for this evening, when I was going to compare CVs against the publicly-developed scoring rubric. However, if I am interpreting correctly the previous emails which have been sent to this list today, some of us have just been accused of being biased and partial towards a certain candidate, and ?this whole process is a mess and should be started over with clear requirements and standards approved by the PC.? Then an hour later, we should abandon process altogether, ?There is an old tradition in my culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed man.? So which is it? Should we be starting over, putting out a new call for candidates with a clearly defined process for how applications will be evaluated ? or is there actually a tacit acknowledgement that the process we were following was appropriate, but there was a fear the ?wrong? person was going to be chosen? I hate to dwell on this, as I?d like us to move on as well, but I think this is important. If Rafik is appointed because Ed has withdrawn, I do not want his appointment to be seen by any as illegitimate. Ayden F?rdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC Local Time: 6 April 2017 11:02 AM UTC Time: 6 April 2017 10:02 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Dear all, As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. So let's do that. As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future more gracefully. Tapani On Apr 06 05:36, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > Matt, > > Your integrity was never in doubt. > > This has been a learning experience, a sad one, for most of us. By > learning I hope I mean that: let's learn from our mistakes and perhaps get > a process in place like the one I just helped write for the GNSO for NCSG > appointments. Full of rules that cover things like confidentiality, rules > for diversity and so on. Perhaps a NCSG SSC - happy to apply my experiences > with the GNSO model here to help develop one for ourselves. > > By the way, to cover some of the mud thrown at me in recent weeks: no, I > don't have a criminal record and I'm not a drug smuggler. And I'm amazed a > fellow NCSG member has nothing better to do than count the number of > suitcases I bring to an ICANN meeting. So be it. I tend to forget things so > it might be useful to know someone does that. > > Anyone serious knows that both Rafik and I could do this job and could do > it well. Our community needs peace right now. There is an old tradition in > my culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed > man. I think it's a tradition made up by the newlywed women. :) In any > event, if Rafik is still willing to volunteer for the position we should > celebrate his nuptials by letting him do it. > > And then let's get some sort of selection policy in place for the NCSG. > What we have now clearly is not up to snuff. Happy to help out if folks are > ready to work on one. > > Peace - thanks Matt for all of your work, and good luck Rafik, most of all > with your new wife, > > Ed > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > From: "Matthew Shears" > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 9:34 AM > To: "ncsg-pc" > Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC > > > > Normal 0 false false false EN-GB > X-NONE X-NONE > > > > > > > > Hi NCSG PC > > It is with regret that I must step back from my role in the current > selection process for the SSC and recommend that the selection process for > the third member be restarted. > > As NCSG PC VC I have tried to manage the process so that we could have a > positive outcome for our community. However, since the selection of Renata > and Poncelet last week, the state of play surrounding the process and > intrigue/lobbying surrounding the selection of the third member has become > such that I am no longer able to fulfil my responsibilities or assume such > an outcome. > > Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the > legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the effort > undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I have worked with > in this process has been denigrated. The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant > lobbying and influencing, etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and > reinforce the difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under. > > As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I recommend > that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC member. I do not believe > the process should go forward as is; it should be restarted with much > clearer parameters and procedural rules and policies. > > I must commend the hard work and efforts of my fellow PC members Ayden, > Juan, Marilia, Martin, Stefania and Stephanie. I should note that I > shared these concerns with my fellow PC members yesterday. > > I must also state that my recommendation to restart the process should not > in any way imperil or undermine the membership of Renata and Poncelet to > the SSC. We as a group achieved rough consensus on their selection and > that decision should stand. Their work is already being recognized and > appreciated. > > Finally, effective immediately I am resigning my position on the NCSG PC. > > > Thanks. > > > > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears > _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 15:12:10 2017 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:12:10 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: I agree with Tapani, if Ed is not running Rafik is definitely the obvious choice, as I said many times, he is more than qualified for the job and has my full trust, as I know have others as well. We could run the process again, I am also up for that, but I think that if the pc agrees on this then we can move forward from the mud and maybe create a more clear process for the next ones. We still have other things to address! Matt, you have been doing an amazing job, I have only good things to say about that! I do take blame in any confusion the process might have brought. I think that as is usual in icann, appointing requires trust, and ultimately this is what we didn't discussed openly. Best, Martin On 6 Apr 2017 07:02, "Tapani Tarvainen" wrote: > Dear all, > > As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing > candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, > it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. > > So let's do that. > > As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would > suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and > if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. > > I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the > process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things > have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to > develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future > more gracefully. > > Tapani > > On Apr 06 05:36, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > > > Matt, > > > > Your integrity was never in doubt. > > > > This has been a learning experience, a sad one, for most of us. By > > learning I hope I mean that: let's learn from our mistakes and perhaps > get > > a process in place like the one I just helped write for the GNSO for NCSG > > appointments. Full of rules that cover things like confidentiality, rules > > for diversity and so on. Perhaps a NCSG SSC - happy to apply my > experiences > > with the GNSO model here to help develop one for ourselves. > > > > By the way, to cover some of the mud thrown at me in recent weeks: no, I > > don't have a criminal record and I'm not a drug smuggler. And I'm amazed > a > > fellow NCSG member has nothing better to do than count the number of > > suitcases I bring to an ICANN meeting. So be it. I tend to forget things > so > > it might be useful to know someone does that. > > > > Anyone serious knows that both Rafik and I could do this job and could > do > > it well. Our community needs peace right now. There is an old tradition > in > > my culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed > > man. I think it's a tradition made up by the newlywed women. :) In any > > event, if Rafik is still willing to volunteer for the position we should > > celebrate his nuptials by letting him do it. > > > > And then let's get some sort of selection policy in place for the NCSG. > > What we have now clearly is not up to snuff. Happy to help out if folks > are > > ready to work on one. > > > > Peace - thanks Matt for all of your work, and good luck Rafik, most of > all > > with your new wife, > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > From: "Matthew Shears" > > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 9:34 AM > > To: "ncsg-pc" > > Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC > > > > > > > > Normal 0 false false false EN-GB > > X-NONE X-NONE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi NCSG PC > > > > It is with regret that I must step back from my role in the current > > selection process for the SSC and recommend that the selection process > for > > the third member be restarted. > > > > As NCSG PC VC I have tried to manage the process so that we could have a > > positive outcome for our community. However, since the selection of > Renata > > and Poncelet last week, the state of play surrounding the process and > > intrigue/lobbying surrounding the selection of the third member has > become > > such that I am no longer able to fulfil my responsibilities or assume > such > > an outcome. > > > > Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the > > legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the effort > > undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I have worked with > > in this process has been denigrated. The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant > > lobbying and influencing, etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and > > reinforce the difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under. > > > > As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I > recommend > > that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC member. I do not > believe > > the process should go forward as is; it should be restarted with much > > clearer parameters and procedural rules and policies. > > > > I must commend the hard work and efforts of my fellow PC members Ayden, > > Juan, Marilia, Martin, Stefania and Stephanie. I should note that I > > shared these concerns with my fellow PC members yesterday. > > > > I must also state that my recommendation to restart the process should > not > > in any way imperil or undermine the membership of Renata and Poncelet to > > the SSC. We as a group achieved rough consensus on their selection and > > that decision should stand. Their work is already being recognized and > > appreciated. > > > > Finally, effective immediately I am resigning my position on the NCSG PC. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu Thu Apr 6 16:09:02 2017 From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:09:02 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>, Message-ID: I would suggest to go with Rafik, then. And discuss ASAP how to deal with similar processes in the future. I appreciate Ed's move to withdraw from the "race" to avoid the stall, and making us loose even more time and energies in this. Thanks, Ed (if you read us) and good luck Rafik, I am sure you will represent us greatly. And thanks Matt. Sorry you had to go through this. Incidentally: I very much hope you will come back to the PC. Stefania ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Martin Pablo Silva Valent Inviato: gioved? 6 aprile 2017 14.12.10 A: ncsg-pc; Tapani Tarvainen Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC I agree with Tapani, if Ed is not running Rafik is definitely the obvious choice, as I said many times, he is more than qualified for the job and has my full trust, as I know have others as well. We could run the process again, I am also up for that, but I think that if the pc agrees on this then we can move forward from the mud and maybe create a more clear process for the next ones. We still have other things to address! Matt, you have been doing an amazing job, I have only good things to say about that! I do take blame in any confusion the process might have brought. I think that as is usual in icann, appointing requires trust, and ultimately this is what we didn't discussed openly. Best, Martin On 6 Apr 2017 07:02, "Tapani Tarvainen" > wrote: Dear all, As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. So let's do that. As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future more gracefully. Tapani On Apr 06 05:36, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: > Matt, > > Your integrity was never in doubt. > > This has been a learning experience, a sad one, for most of us. By > learning I hope I mean that: let's learn from our mistakes and perhaps get > a process in place like the one I just helped write for the GNSO for NCSG > appointments. Full of rules that cover things like confidentiality, rules > for diversity and so on. Perhaps a NCSG SSC - happy to apply my experiences > with the GNSO model here to help develop one for ourselves. > > By the way, to cover some of the mud thrown at me in recent weeks: no, I > don't have a criminal record and I'm not a drug smuggler. And I'm amazed a > fellow NCSG member has nothing better to do than count the number of > suitcases I bring to an ICANN meeting. So be it. I tend to forget things so > it might be useful to know someone does that. > > Anyone serious knows that both Rafik and I could do this job and could do > it well. Our community needs peace right now. There is an old tradition in > my culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed > man. I think it's a tradition made up by the newlywed women. :) In any > event, if Rafik is still willing to volunteer for the position we should > celebrate his nuptials by letting him do it. > > And then let's get some sort of selection policy in place for the NCSG. > What we have now clearly is not up to snuff. Happy to help out if folks are > ready to work on one. > > Peace - thanks Matt for all of your work, and good luck Rafik, most of all > with your new wife, > > Ed > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > From: "Matthew Shears" > > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 9:34 AM > To: "ncsg-pc" > > Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC > > > > Normal 0 false false false EN-GB > X-NONE X-NONE > > > > > > > > Hi NCSG PC > > It is with regret that I must step back from my role in the current > selection process for the SSC and recommend that the selection process for > the third member be restarted. > > As NCSG PC VC I have tried to manage the process so that we could have a > positive outcome for our community. However, since the selection of Renata > and Poncelet last week, the state of play surrounding the process and > intrigue/lobbying surrounding the selection of the third member has become > such that I am no longer able to fulfil my responsibilities or assume such > an outcome. > > Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the > legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the effort > undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I have worked with > in this process has been denigrated. The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant > lobbying and influencing, etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and > reinforce the difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under. > > As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I recommend > that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC member. I do not believe > the process should go forward as is; it should be restarted with much > clearer parameters and procedural rules and policies. > > I must commend the hard work and efforts of my fellow PC members Ayden, > Juan, Marilia, Martin, Stefania and Stephanie. I should note that I > shared these concerns with my fellow PC members yesterday. > > I must also state that my recommendation to restart the process should not > in any way imperil or undermine the membership of Renata and Poncelet to > the SSC. We as a group achieved rough consensus on their selection and > that decision should stand. Their work is already being recognized and > appreciated. > > Finally, effective immediately I am resigning my position on the NCSG PC. > > > Thanks. > > > > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears > _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc 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 at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Apr 6 16:19:27 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:19:27 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Matthew Shears is no longer with CDT In-Reply-To: <6891D69D-2F67-45A0-9841-71B0255B7052@eui.eu> References: <20170406052925.rmv7e455gd6e452k@tarvainen.info> <6891D69D-2F67-45A0-9841-71B0255B7052@eui.eu> Message-ID: <7585fa6b-8e2e-c8bc-598b-bcfff008ee7c@mail.utoronto.ca> I absolutely agree with Stefi, for heaven's sake he applied as soon as he knew the situation, what more do you want? Steph On 2017-04-06 03:05, Stefania Milan wrote: > Dear PC, I have personally no problems with Matt's membership and role. I was aware of the situation but respect his work and have total faith in his integrity. Let's not be anal about this. We have better fights to fight, and I am a bit disturbed by the fact some of our members have the time and willingness to question this transitory situation. My two cents, st. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 6, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >> beginning > 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. > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Apr 6 16:49:43 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:49:43 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: I agree with Ayden that this mess needs to be resolved; he has stated the issues well. Stephanie On 2017-04-06 06:17, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I do not have an objection to Rafik serving on the SSC, just as I did > not have an objection to Ed serving. I had not assessed either > candidate and was reserving judgement until our scheduled call for > this evening, when I was going to compare CVs against the > publicly-developed scoring rubric. However, if I am interpreting > correctly the previous emails which have been sent to this list today, > some of us have just been accused of being biased and partial towards > a certain candidate, and ?this whole process is a mess and should be > started over with clear requirements and standards approved by the > PC.? Then an hour later, we should abandon process altogether, ?There > is an old tradition in my culture, well I just made it up, that all > new jobs go to the newlywed man.? So which is it? Should we be > starting over, putting out a new call for candidates with a clearly > defined process for how applications will be evaluated ? or is there > actually a tacit acknowledgement that the process we were following > was appropriate, but there was a fear the ?wrong? person was going to > be chosen? I hate to dwell on this, as I?d like us to move on as well, > but I think this is important. If Rafik is appointed because Ed has > withdrawn, I do not want his appointment to be seen by any as > illegitimate. > > Ayden F?rdeline > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC >> Local Time: 6 April 2017 11:02 AM >> UTC Time: 6 April 2017 10:02 >> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info >> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> Dear all, >> >> As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing >> candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, >> it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. >> >> So let's do that. >> >> As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would >> suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and >> if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. >> >> I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the >> process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things >> have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to >> develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future >> more gracefully. >> >> Tapani >> >> On Apr 06 05:36, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote: >> >> > Matt, >> > >> > Your integrity was never in doubt. >> > >> > This has been a learning experience, a sad one, for most of us. By >> > learning I hope I mean that: let's learn from our mistakes and >> perhaps get >> > a process in place like the one I just helped write for the GNSO >> for NCSG >> > appointments. Full of rules that cover things like confidentiality, >> rules >> > for diversity and so on. Perhaps a NCSG SSC - happy to apply my >> experiences >> > with the GNSO model here to help develop one for ourselves. >> > >> > By the way, to cover some of the mud thrown at me in recent weeks: >> no, I >> > don't have a criminal record and I'm not a drug smuggler. And I'm >> amazed a >> > fellow NCSG member has nothing better to do than count the number of >> > suitcases I bring to an ICANN meeting. So be it. I tend to forget >> things so >> > it might be useful to know someone does that. >> > >> > Anyone serious knows that both Rafik and I could do this job and >> could do >> > it well. Our community needs peace right now. There is an old >> tradition in >> > my culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the >> newlywed >> > man. I think it's a tradition made up by the newlywed women. :) In any >> > event, if Rafik is still willing to volunteer for the position we >> should >> > celebrate his nuptials by letting him do it. >> > >> > And then let's get some sort of selection policy in place for the >> NCSG. >> > What we have now clearly is not up to snuff. Happy to help out if >> folks are >> > ready to work on one. >> > >> > Peace - thanks Matt for all of your work, and good luck Rafik, most >> of all >> > with your new wife, >> > >> > Ed >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------- >> > From: "Matthew Shears" >> > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 9:34 AM >> > To: "ncsg-pc" >> > Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC >> > >> > >> > >> > Normal 0 false false false EN-GB >> > X-NONE X-NONE >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi NCSG PC >> > >> > It is with regret that I must step back from my role in the current >> > selection process for the SSC and recommend that the selection >> process for >> > the third member be restarted. >> > >> > As NCSG PC VC I have tried to manage the process so that we could >> have a >> > positive outcome for our community. However, since the selection of >> Renata >> > and Poncelet last week, the state of play surrounding the process and >> > intrigue/lobbying surrounding the selection of the third member has >> become >> > such that I am no longer able to fulfil my responsibilities or >> assume such >> > an outcome. >> > >> > Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the >> > legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the effort >> > undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I have >> worked with >> > in this process has been denigrated. The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant >> > lobbying and influencing, etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and >> > reinforce the difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating >> under. >> > >> > As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I >> recommend >> > that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC member. I do not >> believe >> > the process should go forward as is; it should be restarted with much >> > clearer parameters and procedural rules and policies. >> > >> > I must commend the hard work and efforts of my fellow PC members >> Ayden, >> > Juan, Marilia, Martin, Stefania and Stephanie. I should note that I >> > shared these concerns with my fellow PC members yesterday. >> > >> > I must also state that my recommendation to restart the process >> should not >> > in any way imperil or undermine the membership of Renata and >> Poncelet to >> > the SSC. We as a group achieved rough consensus on their selection and >> > that decision should stand. Their work is already being recognized and >> > appreciated. >> > >> > Finally, effective immediately I am resigning my position on the >> NCSG PC. >> > >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Thu Apr 6 22:10:13 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 22:10:13 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <20170406191013.2hxx3zru7ldex5qo@tarvainen.info> Ayden and Stephanie, I take it you two are objecting to appointing Rafik without washing the dirty laundry in public first. As I indicated I don't see the need or use of that - not all hasty words need to be avenged, victories don't need to include shaming losers, not everything needs to be said out loud. And the real issue at hand is not really all that big: sky would not fall regardless of who we appoint to the SSC. But if we don't have a consensus then we don't. So, unless I've misunderstood you, I guess we'll have to start the process over. Perhaps we should first elect a new Vice Chair to take care of it. Tapani On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:49:43AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > I agree with Ayden that this mess needs to be resolved; he has stated the > issues well. > > Stephanie > > > On 2017-04-06 06:17, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I do not have an objection to Rafik serving on the SSC, just as I did > > not have an objection to Ed serving. I had not assessed either candidate > > and was reserving judgement until our scheduled call for this evening, > > when I was going to compare CVs against the publicly-developed scoring > > rubric. However, if I am interpreting correctly the previous emails > > which have been sent to this list today, some of us have just been > > accused of being biased and partial towards a certain candidate, and > > ?this whole process is a mess and should be started over with clear > > requirements and standards approved by the PC.? Then an hour later, we > > should abandon process altogether, ?There is an old tradition in my > > culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed > > man.? So which is it? Should we be starting over, putting out a new call > > for candidates with a clearly defined process for how applications will > > be evaluated ? or is there actually a tacit acknowledgement that the > > process we were following was appropriate, but there was a fear the > > ?wrong? person was going to be chosen? I hate to dwell on this, as I?d > > like us to move on as well, but I think this is important. If Rafik is > > appointed because Ed has withdrawn, I do not want his appointment to be > > seen by any as illegitimate. > > > > Ayden F?rdeline > > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC > > > Local Time: 6 April 2017 11:02 AM > > > UTC Time: 6 April 2017 10:02 > > > From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info > > > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing > > > candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, > > > it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. > > > > > > So let's do that. > > > > > > As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would > > > suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and > > > if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. > > > > > > I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the > > > process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things > > > have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to > > > develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future > > > more gracefully. > > > > > > Tapani From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Apr 6 22:54:01 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:54:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: <20170406191013.2hxx3zru7ldex5qo@tarvainen.info> References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20170406191013.2hxx3zru7ldex5qo@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view. It is of resolving how we fix what was clearly a breakdown in process. I am concerned that we learn from this experience, set in place better procedures, and establish trust again. If I thought simply accepting Ed's withdrawal from the process and simply naming Rafik would effectuate a change in our collective behaviour, I would certainly opt for that, because like everyone else, I have a rather full agenda at the moment and this has taken an inordinate amount of time. However, as Ayden has indicated, I think it leaves Rafik as a lame duck in the position. And as Matthew indicated in his post this morning: Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the effort undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I have worked with in this process has been denigrated.The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant lobbying and influencing, etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and reinforce the difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under. As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I recommend that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC member.I do not believe the process should go forward as is; it should be restarted with much clearer parameters and procedural rules and policies. You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been subject to the chaos that ensued. I think it is inappropriate for you to accuse me of "washing dirty laundry", when all I am trying to do is respond to what I think are thoughtful concerns raised by some of the unfortunate few who have had to live through this experience. Perhaps we should just wait for a week or two until things calm down a bit to investigate how we can select our third member of the committee. Kind regards, Stephanie On 2017-04-06 15:10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Ayden and Stephanie, > > I take it you two are objecting to appointing Rafik without washing > the dirty laundry in public first. > > As I indicated I don't see the need or use of that - not all hasty > words need to be avenged, victories don't need to include shaming > losers, not everything needs to be said out loud. And the real issue > at hand is not really all that big: sky would not fall regardless of > who we appoint to the SSC. But if we don't have a consensus then we > don't. > > So, unless I've misunderstood you, I guess we'll have to start the > process over. > > Perhaps we should first elect a new Vice Chair to take care of it. > > Tapani > > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:49:43AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > >> I agree with Ayden that this mess needs to be resolved; he has stated the >> issues well. >> >> Stephanie >> >> >> On 2017-04-06 06:17, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> I do not have an objection to Rafik serving on the SSC, just as I did >>> not have an objection to Ed serving. I had not assessed either candidate >>> and was reserving judgement until our scheduled call for this evening, >>> when I was going to compare CVs against the publicly-developed scoring >>> rubric. However, if I am interpreting correctly the previous emails >>> which have been sent to this list today, some of us have just been >>> accused of being biased and partial towards a certain candidate, and >>> ?this whole process is a mess and should be started over with clear >>> requirements and standards approved by the PC.? Then an hour later, we >>> should abandon process altogether, ?There is an old tradition in my >>> culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed >>> man.? So which is it? Should we be starting over, putting out a new call >>> for candidates with a clearly defined process for how applications will >>> be evaluated ? or is there actually a tacit acknowledgement that the >>> process we were following was appropriate, but there was a fear the >>> ?wrong? person was going to be chosen? I hate to dwell on this, as I?d >>> like us to move on as well, but I think this is important. If Rafik is >>> appointed because Ed has withdrawn, I do not want his appointment to be >>> seen by any as illegitimate. >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC >>>> Local Time: 6 April 2017 11:02 AM >>>> UTC Time: 6 April 2017 10:02 >>>> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info >>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing >>>> candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, >>>> it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. >>>> >>>> So let's do that. >>>> >>>> As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would >>>> suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and >>>> if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. >>>> >>>> I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the >>>> process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things >>>> have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to >>>> develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future >>>> more gracefully. >>>> >>>> Tapani > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Apr 7 06:50:36 2017 From: avri at acm.org (avri doria) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:50:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20170406191013.2hxx3zru7ldex5qo@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <7ece8f2e-69a1-924c-fee9-396f4b3cb574@acm.org> Hi, As an observer from the outside, I do not believe the process was flawed, what was flawed was the lack of trust and the behavior of some individuals. And no process is going to account for that. If ICANN has taught me anything is that any process can be worked around or warped if the intent to do so is there. That is why we have appeals mechanisms and and an ombuds function. If you really want to understand what went on, request an ombudsman investigation to truly air all the dirty laundry so that you can start process building with a clean slate and understanding of the fault lines. You can also send the results of any process to the EC for confirmation, as they are oversight for the PC and the NCSG charter allows for the membership to challenge any EC decision. We have a set of accountability mechanisms that should be used before jumping into process design. Having said that, I wish you all the best in developing a process that cannot be thwarted by ill will and mistrust. avri On 06-Apr-17 15:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view. It is of > resolving how we fix what was clearly a breakdown in process. I am > concerned that we learn from this experience, set in place better > procedures, and establish trust again. If I thought simply accepting > Ed's withdrawal from the process and simply naming Rafik would > effectuate a change in our collective behaviour, I would certainly opt > for that, because like everyone else, I have a rather full agenda at > the moment and this has taken an inordinate amount of time. However, > as Ayden has indicated, I think it leaves Rafik as a lame duck in the > position. And as Matthew indicated in his post this morning: > > Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the > legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the > effort undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I > have worked with in this process has been denigrated. The > backtalk, rumors, unpleasant lobbying and influencing, etc., go > far beyond what is acceptable and reinforce the difficulties that > I and my colleagues are operating under. > > As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I > recommend that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC > member. I do not believe the process should go forward as is; it > should be restarted with much clearer parameters and procedural > rules and policies. > > You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been > subject to the chaos that ensued. I think it is inappropriate for you > to accuse me of "washing dirty laundry", when all I am trying to do is > respond to what I think are thoughtful concerns raised by some of the > unfortunate few who have had to live through this experience. Perhaps > we should just wait for a week or two until things calm down a bit to > investigate how we can select our third member of the committee. > > Kind regards, Stephanie > > On 2017-04-06 15:10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Ayden and Stephanie, >> >> I take it you two are objecting to appointing Rafik without washing >> the dirty laundry in public first. >> >> As I indicated I don't see the need or use of that - not all hasty >> words need to be avenged, victories don't need to include shaming >> losers, not everything needs to be said out loud. And the real issue >> at hand is not really all that big: sky would not fall regardless of >> who we appoint to the SSC. But if we don't have a consensus then we >> don't. >> >> So, unless I've misunderstood you, I guess we'll have to start the >> process over. >> >> Perhaps we should first elect a new Vice Chair to take care of it. >> >> Tapani >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:49:43AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: >> >>> I agree with Ayden that this mess needs to be resolved; he has stated the >>> issues well. >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> >>> On 2017-04-06 06:17, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> I do not have an objection to Rafik serving on the SSC, just as I did >>>> not have an objection to Ed serving. I had not assessed either candidate >>>> and was reserving judgement until our scheduled call for this evening, >>>> when I was going to compare CVs against the publicly-developed scoring >>>> rubric. However, if I am interpreting correctly the previous emails >>>> which have been sent to this list today, some of us have just been >>>> accused of being biased and partial towards a certain candidate, and >>>> ?this whole process is a mess and should be started over with clear >>>> requirements and standards approved by the PC.? Then an hour later, we >>>> should abandon process altogether, ?There is an old tradition in my >>>> culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed >>>> man.? So which is it? Should we be starting over, putting out a new call >>>> for candidates with a clearly defined process for how applications will >>>> be evaluated ? or is there actually a tacit acknowledgement that the >>>> process we were following was appropriate, but there was a fear the >>>> ?wrong? person was going to be chosen? I hate to dwell on this, as I?d >>>> like us to move on as well, but I think this is important. If Rafik is >>>> appointed because Ed has withdrawn, I do not want his appointment to be >>>> seen by any as illegitimate. >>>> >>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline >>>> >>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC >>>>> Local Time: 6 April 2017 11:02 AM >>>>> UTC Time: 6 April 2017 10:02 >>>>> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info >>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing >>>>> candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, >>>>> it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. >>>>> >>>>> So let's do that. >>>>> >>>>> As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would >>>>> suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and >>>>> if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. >>>>> >>>>> I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the >>>>> process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things >>>>> have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to >>>>> develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future >>>>> more gracefully. >>>>> >>>>> Tapani >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 06:58:32 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:58:32 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20170406191013.2hxx3zru7ldex5qo@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi all, First, I want to thank Matt for the work he has done and I am really confused that he had to resign in such way. I m really thankful that as vice-chair took the lead to handling the SSC selection. With regard to SSC, I kept myself away from the discussion since I recused myself. However, I do feel guilty that the burden for process setting and selection was put on other members and Matt as vice-chair. I cannot accept to be appointed to SSC due to the circumstances and I am more than keen to withdraw my candidature and restart the process based on the comments. I think this is an opportunity to work on a solid process and procedure to handle appointments. The PC has several additional items to work on including the ongoing public comments, request for inputs received by some working groups and vice chairs appointments. Best, Rafik 2017-04-07 4:54 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : > This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view. It is of > resolving how we fix what was clearly a breakdown in process. I am > concerned that we learn from this experience, set in place better > procedures, and establish trust again. If I thought simply accepting Ed's > withdrawal from the process and simply naming Rafik would effectuate a > change in our collective behaviour, I would certainly opt for that, because > like everyone else, I have a rather full agenda at the moment and this has > taken an inordinate amount of time. However, as Ayden has indicated, I > think it leaves Rafik as a lame duck in the position. And as Matthew > indicated in his post this morning: > > Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the > legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the effort > undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I have worked with > in this process has been denigrated. The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant > lobbying and influencing, etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and > reinforce the difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under. > As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I recommend > that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC member. I do not > believe the process should go forward as is; it should be restarted with > much clearer parameters and procedural rules and policies. > > You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been subject > to the chaos that ensued. I think it is inappropriate for you to accuse me > of "washing dirty laundry", when all I am trying to do is respond to what I > think are thoughtful concerns raised by some of the unfortunate few who > have had to live through this experience. Perhaps we should just wait for > a week or two until things calm down a bit to investigate how we can select > our third member of the committee. > > Kind regards, Stephanie > > On 2017-04-06 15:10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Ayden and Stephanie, > > I take it you two are objecting to appointing Rafik without washing > the dirty laundry in public first. > > As I indicated I don't see the need or use of that - not all hasty > words need to be avenged, victories don't need to include shaming > losers, not everything needs to be said out loud. And the real issue > at hand is not really all that big: sky would not fall regardless of > who we appoint to the SSC. But if we don't have a consensus then we > don't. > > So, unless I've misunderstood you, I guess we'll have to start the > process over. > > Perhaps we should first elect a new Vice Chair to take care of it. > > Tapani > > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:49:43AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > > > I agree with Ayden that this mess needs to be resolved; he has stated the > issues well. > > Stephanie > > > On 2017-04-06 06:17, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I do not have an objection to Rafik serving on the SSC, just as I did > not have an objection to Ed serving. I had not assessed either candidate > and was reserving judgement until our scheduled call for this evening, > when I was going to compare CVs against the publicly-developed scoring > rubric. However, if I am interpreting correctly the previous emails > which have been sent to this list today, some of us have just been > accused of being biased and partial towards a certain candidate, and > ?this whole process is a mess and should be started over with clear > requirements and standards approved by the PC.? Then an hour later, we > should abandon process altogether, ?There is an old tradition in my > culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed > man.? So which is it? Should we be starting over, putting out a new call > for candidates with a clearly defined process for how applications will > be evaluated ? or is there actually a tacit acknowledgement that the > process we were following was appropriate, but there was a fear the > ?wrong? person was going to be chosen? I hate to dwell on this, as I?d > like us to move on as well, but I think this is important. If Rafik is > appointed because Ed has withdrawn, I do not want his appointment to be > seen by any as illegitimate. > > Ayden F?rdelinelinkedin.com/in/ferdeline > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC > Local Time: 6 April 2017 11:02 AM > UTC Time: 6 April 2017 10:02 > From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > Dear all, > > As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing > candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, > it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. > > So let's do that. > > As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would > suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and > if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. > > I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the > process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things > have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to > develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future > more gracefully. > > Tapani > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Apr 7 07:32:46 2017 From: avri at acm.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 00:32:46 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20170406191013.2hxx3zru7ldex5qo@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi, I might add that I see no problem with continuing for a while with just 2 members in the SSC. That is one of the advantages of the SSC requiring full consensus. But I do recommend you do not try to design new processes until you really know why the previous, relatively simple and straightforward process failed. avri On 06-Apr-17 23:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > First, I want to thank Matt for the work he has done and I am really > confused that he had to resign in such way. I m really thankful that > as vice-chair took the lead to handling the SSC selection. > > With regard to SSC, I kept myself away from the discussion since I > recused myself. However, I do feel guilty that the burden for process > setting and selection was put on other members and Matt as vice-chair. > > I cannot accept to be appointed to SSC due to the circumstances and I > am more than keen to withdraw my candidature and restart the process > based on the comments. > I think this is an opportunity to work on a solid process and > procedure to handle appointments. The PC has several additional items > to work on including the ongoing public comments, request for inputs > received by some working groups and vice chairs appointments. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-04-07 4:54 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin > >: > > This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view. It is of > resolving how we fix what was clearly a breakdown in process. I > am concerned that we learn from this experience, set in place > better procedures, and establish trust again. If I thought simply > accepting Ed's withdrawal from the process and simply naming Rafik > would effectuate a change in our collective behaviour, I would > certainly opt for that, because like everyone else, I have a > rather full agenda at the moment and this has taken an inordinate > amount of time. However, as Ayden has indicated, I think it leaves > Rafik as a lame duck in the position. And as Matthew indicated in > his post this morning: > > Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, > the legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, > the effort undermined and my integrity and the integrity of > those I have worked with in this process has been denigrated. > The backtalk, rumors, unpleasant lobbying and influencing, > etc., go far beyond what is acceptable and reinforce the > difficulties that I and my colleagues are operating under. > > As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can > I recommend that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC > member. I do not believe the process should go forward as > is; it should be restarted with much clearer parameters and > procedural rules and policies. > > You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been > subject to the chaos that ensued. I think it is inappropriate for > you to accuse me of "washing dirty laundry", when all I am trying > to do is respond to what I think are thoughtful concerns raised by > some of the unfortunate few who have had to live through this > experience. Perhaps we should just wait for a week or two until > things calm down a bit to investigate how we can select our third > member of the committee. > > Kind regards, Stephanie > > On 2017-04-06 15:10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Ayden and Stephanie, >> >> I take it you two are objecting to appointing Rafik without washing >> the dirty laundry in public first. >> >> As I indicated I don't see the need or use of that - not all hasty >> words need to be avenged, victories don't need to include shaming >> losers, not everything needs to be said out loud. And the real issue >> at hand is not really all that big: sky would not fall regardless of >> who we appoint to the SSC. But if we don't have a consensus then we >> don't. >> >> So, unless I've misunderstood you, I guess we'll have to start the >> process over. >> >> Perhaps we should first elect a new Vice Chair to take care of it. >> >> Tapani >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:49:43AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> ) wrote: >> >>> I agree with Ayden that this mess needs to be resolved; he has stated the >>> issues well. >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> >>> On 2017-04-06 06:17, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> I do not have an objection to Rafik serving on the SSC, just as I did >>>> not have an objection to Ed serving. I had not assessed either candidate >>>> and was reserving judgement until our scheduled call for this evening, >>>> when I was going to compare CVs against the publicly-developed scoring >>>> rubric. However, if I am interpreting correctly the previous emails >>>> which have been sent to this list today, some of us have just been >>>> accused of being biased and partial towards a certain candidate, and >>>> ?this whole process is a mess and should be started over with clear >>>> requirements and standards approved by the PC.? Then an hour later, we >>>> should abandon process altogether, ?There is an old tradition in my >>>> culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed >>>> man.? So which is it? Should we be starting over, putting out a new call >>>> for candidates with a clearly defined process for how applications will >>>> be evaluated ? or is there actually a tacit acknowledgement that the >>>> process we were following was appropriate, but there was a fear the >>>> ?wrong? person was going to be chosen? I hate to dwell on this, as I?d >>>> like us to move on as well, but I think this is important. If Rafik is >>>> appointed because Ed has withdrawn, I do not want his appointment to be >>>> seen by any as illegitimate. >>>> >>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC >>>>> Local Time: 6 April 2017 11:02 AM >>>>> UTC Time: 6 April 2017 10:02 >>>>> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info >>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing >>>>> candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place, >>>>> it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice. >>>>> >>>>> So let's do that. >>>>> >>>>> As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would >>>>> suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and >>>>> if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection. >>>>> >>>>> I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the >>>>> process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things >>>>> have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to >>>>> develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future >>>>> more gracefully. >>>>> >>>>> Tapani >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing > list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 10:06:52 2017 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:06:52 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: References: <20170406100235.GC9690@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20170406191013.2hxx3zru7ldex5qo@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <0C9EF781-83E7-4C86-B3AF-68760D3306B9@gmail.com> Good morning As another observer who?s been watching from the sidelines in astonishment, FWIW let me say that I agree with Avri?s posts yesterday: > I might add that I see no problem with continuing for a while with just > 2 members in the SSC. That is one of the advantages of the SSC > requiring full consensus. I?d let the SSC get on with its business with the two solid reps you?ve chosen. If people feel the universe absolutely requires us to have three, I'd give it a good rest and focus on other work to rebuild normality before trying. > As an observer from the outside, I do not believe the process was > flawed, what was flawed was the lack of trust and the behavior of some > individuals. And no process is going to account for that. IMO the only significant procedural flaw concerned transparency. The VC changing jobs was amenable to a quick fix and didn?t require him to leave. As for all the hyper-heated verbiage I?ve read in the past couple days, wow, yikes, holy cow, etc. > If you really want to understand what went on, request an ombudsman > investigation to truly air all the dirty laundry so that you can start > process building with a clean slate and understanding of the fault lines. I hate to say it but this might be advisable before trying again?if you could really agree on how to request and pursue it. Good luck to us all, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Fri Apr 7 10:40:14 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:40:14 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: <7ece8f2e-69a1-924c-fee9-396f4b3cb574@acm.org> Message-ID: <20170407074014.j73rtxnr3ue75xcd@tarvainen.info> Replying to selected points from several messages inline. On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view. My apologies for poor choice of words and inappropriate accusatory tone. > You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been subject to > the chaos that ensued. Yes. I assume you don't mean the chaos resulted from my recusal, but perhaps that was indeed the case - perhaps I could have prevented it, perhaps it was my fault. Perhaps I should not have recused myself, but at the time I felt I couldn't do anything else. Or maybe I just took the easy way out. In any case I must accept my guilt, that the failure of the process was in part my fault, too. > Perhaps we should just wait for a week or two until things calm down > a bit to investigate how we can select our third member of the > committee. A timeout at this point sounds like a good idea. On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:50:36PM -0400, avri doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > what was flawed was the lack of trust and the behavior of some > individuals. And no process is going to account for that. If ICANN > has taught me anything is that any process can be worked around or > warped if the intent to do so is there. Yes. The rough consensus rule of PC decision-making, in effect a supermajority requirement, will inevitably lead to deadlocks and "game of chicken" situations when opinions are polarized and passionate, and there's no obvious "nuclear option" to break such deadlocks. That being the case it will be up to the negotiating skills of the participants and chair, ability to manage interpersonal conflicts and "personal chemistry" issues and get past them to get decisions made. And sometimes that can be really hard. > You can also send the results of any process to the EC for confirmation, > as they are oversight for the PC and the NCSG charter allows for the > membership to challenge any EC decision. We have a set of accountability > mechanisms that should be used before jumping into process design. That is a very good point. > Having said that, I wish you all the best in developing a process that > cannot be thwarted by ill will and mistrust. While that is obviously impossible, some processes are more robust than others, and we might be able to come up with some partial solutions that would make decision-making easier in the future. But I don't think we should try to come up with a radically new process that would solve everything. On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:58:32PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > I cannot accept to be appointed to SSC due to the circumstances and I am > more than keen to withdraw my candidature and restart the process At this point it is indeed clear we must do that. But there's no rush: On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:32:46AM -0400, avri doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > I might add that I see no problem with continuing for a while with just > 2 members in the SSC. That is one of the advantages of the SSC > requiring full consensus. Yes. The only (trivial) problem is that it's a bit embarrassing that after we insisted on having three slots we can't fill them all. But I guess people are already used to NCSG behaving... oddly at times. On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:06:52AM +0200, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > I?d let the SSC get on with its business with the two solid reps > you?ve chosen. If people feel the universe absolutely requires us to > have three, I'd give it a good rest and focus on other work to > rebuild normality before trying. Agreed. > IMO the only significant procedural flaw concerned transparency. Yes. And that is also one thing we can and should be able to agree about before trying again. I note in passing that the recordings of the PC subgroup debating this have not been published. They might help us understand what went wrong. > As for all the hyper-heated verbiage I?ve read in the past couple > days, wow, yikes, holy cow, etc. Agreed on that, too. :-) > Good luck to us all, Indeed. -- Tapani Tarvainen From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 15:48:44 2017 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:48:44 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: <20170407074014.j73rtxnr3ue75xcd@tarvainen.info> References: <7ece8f2e-69a1-924c-fee9-396f4b3cb574@acm.org> <20170407074014.j73rtxnr3ue75xcd@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: All, I agree with all said. Maybe while we wait Poncelet and renata should have a person to go back to if needed, Rafik would be ideal to advise them if they encounter doubt, or just invite them to share their thoughts on the pc list so wr can share the burden of guidance we expected from the third candidate. Cheers and onward! Martin On 7 Apr 2017 4:40 a.m., "Tapani Tarvainen" wrote: > Replying to selected points from several messages inline. > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin ( > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > > > This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view. > > My apologies for poor choice of words and inappropriate accusatory tone. > > > You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been subject > to > > the chaos that ensued. > > Yes. I assume you don't mean the chaos resulted from my recusal, but > perhaps that was indeed the case - perhaps I could have prevented it, > perhaps it was my fault. Perhaps I should not have recused myself, but > at the time I felt I couldn't do anything else. Or maybe I just took > the easy way out. In any case I must accept my guilt, that the failure > of the process was in part my fault, too. > > > Perhaps we should just wait for a week or two until things calm down > > a bit to investigate how we can select our third member of the > > committee. > > A timeout at this point sounds like a good idea. > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:50:36PM -0400, avri doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > > > what was flawed was the lack of trust and the behavior of some > > individuals. And no process is going to account for that. If ICANN > > has taught me anything is that any process can be worked around or > > warped if the intent to do so is there. > > Yes. > > The rough consensus rule of PC decision-making, in effect a > supermajority requirement, will inevitably lead to deadlocks and "game > of chicken" situations when opinions are polarized and passionate, > and there's no obvious "nuclear option" to break such deadlocks. > > That being the case it will be up to the negotiating skills of the > participants and chair, ability to manage interpersonal conflicts and > "personal chemistry" issues and get past them to get decisions made. > And sometimes that can be really hard. > > > You can also send the results of any process to the EC for confirmation, > > as they are oversight for the PC and the NCSG charter allows for the > > membership to challenge any EC decision. We have a set of accountability > > mechanisms that should be used before jumping into process design. > > That is a very good point. > > > Having said that, I wish you all the best in developing a process that > > cannot be thwarted by ill will and mistrust. > > While that is obviously impossible, some processes are more robust > than others, and we might be able to come up with some partial > solutions that would make decision-making easier in the future. > > But I don't think we should try to come up with a radically new > process that would solve everything. > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:58:32PM +0900, Rafik Dammak ( > rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > > > I cannot accept to be appointed to SSC due to the circumstances and I am > > more than keen to withdraw my candidature and restart the process > > At this point it is indeed clear we must do that. > > But there's no rush: > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:32:46AM -0400, avri doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > > > I might add that I see no problem with continuing for a while with just > > 2 members in the SSC. That is one of the advantages of the SSC > > requiring full consensus. > > Yes. The only (trivial) problem is that it's a bit embarrassing > that after we insisted on having three slots we can't fill them all. > But I guess people are already used to NCSG behaving... oddly at times. > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:06:52AM +0200, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) > wrote: > > > I?d let the SSC get on with its business with the two solid reps > > you?ve chosen. If people feel the universe absolutely requires us to > > have three, I'd give it a good rest and focus on other work to > > rebuild normality before trying. > > Agreed. > > > IMO the only significant procedural flaw concerned transparency. > > Yes. And that is also one thing we can and should be able to agree > about before trying again. > > I note in passing that the recordings of the PC subgroup debating > this have not been published. They might help us understand what > went wrong. > > > As for all the hyper-heated verbiage I?ve read in the past couple > > days, wow, yikes, holy cow, etc. > > Agreed on that, too. :-) > > > Good luck to us all, > > Indeed. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Apr 7 16:10:26 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:10:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC In-Reply-To: <20170407074014.j73rtxnr3ue75xcd@tarvainen.info> References: <20170407074014.j73rtxnr3ue75xcd@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Thanks for this Tapani! I think a timeout is a great idea. We have holidays coming up next week, lets enjoy them! May I point out once again that we do need to schedule a meeting/call of the NCSG prior to the next council meeting on April 20 though.... cheers Stephanie On 2017-04-07 03:40, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Replying to selected points from several messages inline. > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > >> This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view. > My apologies for poor choice of words and inappropriate accusatory tone. > >> You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been subject to >> the chaos that ensued. > Yes. I assume you don't mean the chaos resulted from my recusal, but > perhaps that was indeed the case - perhaps I could have prevented it, > perhaps it was my fault. Perhaps I should not have recused myself, but > at the time I felt I couldn't do anything else. Or maybe I just took > the easy way out. In any case I must accept my guilt, that the failure > of the process was in part my fault, too. > >> Perhaps we should just wait for a week or two until things calm down >> a bit to investigate how we can select our third member of the >> committee. > A timeout at this point sounds like a good idea. > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:50:36PM -0400, avri doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > >> what was flawed was the lack of trust and the behavior of some >> individuals. And no process is going to account for that. If ICANN >> has taught me anything is that any process can be worked around or >> warped if the intent to do so is there. > Yes. > > The rough consensus rule of PC decision-making, in effect a > supermajority requirement, will inevitably lead to deadlocks and "game > of chicken" situations when opinions are polarized and passionate, > and there's no obvious "nuclear option" to break such deadlocks. > > That being the case it will be up to the negotiating skills of the > participants and chair, ability to manage interpersonal conflicts and > "personal chemistry" issues and get past them to get decisions made. > And sometimes that can be really hard. > >> You can also send the results of any process to the EC for confirmation, >> as they are oversight for the PC and the NCSG charter allows for the >> membership to challenge any EC decision. We have a set of accountability >> mechanisms that should be used before jumping into process design. > That is a very good point. > >> Having said that, I wish you all the best in developing a process that >> cannot be thwarted by ill will and mistrust. > While that is obviously impossible, some processes are more robust > than others, and we might be able to come up with some partial > solutions that would make decision-making easier in the future. > > But I don't think we should try to come up with a radically new > process that would solve everything. > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:58:32PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > >> I cannot accept to be appointed to SSC due to the circumstances and I am >> more than keen to withdraw my candidature and restart the process > At this point it is indeed clear we must do that. > > But there's no rush: > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:32:46AM -0400, avri doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > >> I might add that I see no problem with continuing for a while with just >> 2 members in the SSC. That is one of the advantages of the SSC >> requiring full consensus. > Yes. The only (trivial) problem is that it's a bit embarrassing > that after we insisted on having three slots we can't fill them all. > But I guess people are already used to NCSG behaving... oddly at times. > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:06:52AM +0200, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > >> I?d let the SSC get on with its business with the two solid reps >> you?ve chosen. If people feel the universe absolutely requires us to >> have three, I'd give it a good rest and focus on other work to >> rebuild normality before trying. > Agreed. > >> IMO the only significant procedural flaw concerned transparency. > Yes. And that is also one thing we can and should be able to agree > about before trying again. > > I note in passing that the recordings of the PC subgroup debating > this have not been published. They might help us understand what > went wrong. > >> As for all the hyper-heated verbiage I?ve read in the past couple >> days, wow, yikes, holy cow, etc. > Agreed on that, too. :-) > >> Good luck to us all, > Indeed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Fri Apr 7 18:38:53 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:38:53 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Policy Call 18 April 1300 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <20170407074014.j73rtxnr3ue75xcd@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20170407153853.prvvj3qf6obq3qwn@tarvainen.info> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:10:26AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > May I point out once again that we do need to schedule a > meeting/call of the NCSG prior to the next council meeting on April > 20 though.... Yes. We've used to have our policy calls two days prior the council calls, in this case that'd be April 18, and I see no reason why that wouldn't work now, too. And at 1300 because it's convenient for Rafik. So let's have it then unless there're some conflicts I'm not aware of - do let me or Rafik know ASAP if you can't make it at that time. Thank you, -- Tapani Tarvainen From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Apr 7 18:52:26 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:52:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Policy Call 18 April 1300 UTC In-Reply-To: <20170407153853.prvvj3qf6obq3qwn@tarvainen.info> References: <20170407074014.j73rtxnr3ue75xcd@tarvainen.info> <20170407153853.prvvj3qf6obq3qwn@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Sounds great, lets get the invitation out right away so some of our new members will learn in time to schedule the call....it is one day after Easter Monday, some folks may be planning an extra long weekend.... cheers Steph PS I am going to write out a little blurb about the Glennies, and add that to the agenda if you will permit. Would like to get consensus of the group before sending on to the GNSO. On 2017-04-07 11:38, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:10:26AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > >> May I point out once again that we do need to schedule a >> meeting/call of the NCSG prior to the next council meeting on April >> 20 though.... > Yes. We've used to have our policy calls two days prior the council > calls, in this case that'd be April 18, and I see no reason why that > wouldn't work now, too. And at 1300 because it's convenient for Rafik. > > So let's have it then unless there're some conflicts I'm not aware of - > do let me or Rafik know ASAP if you can't make it at that time. > > Thank you, > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Apr 7 19:59:45 2017 From: avri at acm.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:59:45 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Policy Call 18 April 1300 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <20170407074014.j73rtxnr3ue75xcd@tarvainen.info> <20170407153853.prvvj3qf6obq3qwn@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <22becc7f-1283-70b5-59a3-f37e361e315a@acm.org> Hi, On 07-Apr-17 11:52, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > PS I am going to write out a little blurb about the Glennies, and add > that to the agenda if you will permit. Would like to get consensus of > the group before sending on to the GNSO. So going public with it? I thought it was remaining in the shadows until the first awarding. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Apr 10 03:36:52 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:36:52 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency report comment Message-ID: Hi all, (ccing Robin as NCSG rep to CCWG) as you know, Matt drafted the comment for NCSG regarding the transparency recommendations https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit . The draft received some comments and edits (Thanks, Stephanie and Michael!). I hope that Matt, currently as NCSG individual member, continues to solve the edits and suggestions there. As PC we have to decide about endorsing the comment in due time ( the deadline for the PC is the 10th April). we may need to request for submitting lately our response and/or extending the public comment period. I am wondering if we should reach the CCWG co-chairs for such request. looking forward you comments and response. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Apr 10 03:56:27 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 20:56:27 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency report comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Matt has been re-appointed by NCUC EC as the representative on NCSG PC. Best Farzaneh Farzaneh On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > (ccing Robin as NCSG rep to CCWG) > as you know, Matt drafted the comment for NCSG regarding the transparency > recommendations https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit. > > The draft received some comments and edits (Thanks, Stephanie and > Michael!). I hope that Matt, currently as NCSG individual member, continues > to solve the edits and suggestions there. As PC we have to decide about > endorsing the comment in due time ( the deadline for the PC is the 10th > April). > > we may need to request for submitting lately our response and/or extending > the public comment period. I am wondering if we should reach the CCWG > co-chairs for such request. > > looking forward you comments and response. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at doria.org Mon Apr 10 05:26:22 2017 From: avri at doria.org (avri@acm.org) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 22:26:22 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency report comment Message-ID: Well done. Avri Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message --------From: farzaneh badii Date: 4/9/17 20:56 (GMT-05:00) To: Rafik Dammak Cc: ncsg-pc Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency report comment Hi? Matt has been re-appointed by NCUC EC as the representative on NCSG PC.? Best? Farzaneh? Farzaneh On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, (ccing Robin as NCSG rep to CCWG)as you know, Matt drafted the comment for NCSG regarding the transparency recommendations https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit. The draft received some comments and edits (Thanks, Stephanie and Michael!). I hope that Matt, currently as NCSG individual member, continues to solve the edits and suggestions there.? As PC we have to decide about endorsing the comment in due time ( the deadline for the PC is the 10th April). we may need to request for submitting lately our response and/or extending the public comment period. I am wondering if we should reach the CCWG co-chairs for such request. looking forward you comments and response. Best, Rafik _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Tue Apr 11 10:49:16 2017 From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 07:49:16 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG monthly Open Policy Call on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 at 13:00 UTC Message-ID: Dear all, Please find below participation details for the NCSG monthly Open Policy Call on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 at 13:00 UTC Adobe Connect URL: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg Full List of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/m7m3vag Time in some other locations: Sydney: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 23:00 Tokyo: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 22:00 Beijing: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 21:00 Moscow: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 16:00 New Delhi: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 18:30 Paris: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 15:00 London: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 14:00 Buenos Aires: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 10:00 New York: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 09:00 Los Angeles: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 06:00 Passcode: NCSG Dial out Request: Please send an email to maryam.bakoshi at icann.org 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 SAO PAULO: 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 EGYPT 0800000-9029 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 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 351-2-10054705 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 VIETNAM 120-11751 Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) T: +44 7737698036 S: maryam.bakoshi.icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Apr 11 18:57:32 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:57:32 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Report of Public Comments for the At-Large Review: Draft Report Message-ID: <_DU5At99BZqnaK3KZJgSSJpyhYszBZuQ11nxhfUmNLM49-O6LsZzMrOozMEAcJ7K_hIzaQhTOmLPvZI_7c5Zy_3llJ56vWUkHRopSt9fqsg=@ferdeline.com> ICANN staff have now published their report on the public comments received re: the ALAC Review: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atlarge-review-draft-report-10apr17-en.pdf Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Apr 13 20:44:19 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:44:19 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] DRAFT GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN59 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WE have just received the block schedule for the Johannesburg meeting. Members may wish to go over it prior to the NCSG prep call next week on the 18th. Regards, Stephanie Perrin -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] DRAFT GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN59 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:32:34 +0000 From: Austin, Donna To: council at gnso.icann.org Hi Everyone (apologies for the long email) As you are probably aware there are a few activities going on in preparation for the ICANN 59 Policy Forum meeting in Johannesburg. On one level there are a number of SO/AC representatives participating in the Planning Committee that is convened by the ICANN Organisation. Separately, the GNSO Leadership Team have been working with staff to develop a GNSO related schedule, which is attached. Given the GNSO has a number of PDP WGs currently underway, we are affording the requirements of those efforts priority and we are trying to ensure that no two WGs will be scheduled at the same time. In addition, the RDS PDP WG and the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG (you might recall Jeff and Avri forecasting this in Copenhagen?they want to have a substantive discussion with the community about geographic names) will be submitting requests for cross-community discussions or high interest topics that have the potential to take up 5 of the 8 currently allocated slots. The Planning Committee will be considering topics for cross-community discussion next week and I am anticipating resistance to the slots requested by the two WGs. It would be greatly appreciated if you could encourage your representatives on the Planning Committee to support the submissions from the WGs because they are important to progressing the PDP WG efforts and require interaction with the community beyond those on the WGs. And after all?this is a Policy Forum meeting. We will start engaging your respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies regarding individual meeting requests in the near future, once we have some other information confirmed, for example, the number of rooms the GNSO will have available for other meetings and what services will be available. But I would ask that you respect the priority we have afforded to the PDP WGs given that this meeting is a Policy Forum, it is only four days, we will have fewer options for rooms, and we would like to see bums on seats in the PDP WG sessions. Happy to answer any questions folks might have and we will let you know when we better understand what services will be available to us in Johannesburg. Thanks Donna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN59 Draft GNSO Schedule - ICANN59 Draft GNSO Schedule (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 80711 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 07:47:01 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:47:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder WS2 Transparency report comment Message-ID: Hi all, the deadline for transparency report passed. I sent a few days ago notes to the ICANN staff regarding a late submission from NCSG. we need PC members to review the document and help to finalize it. Matt solved the comments there https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit . we need to submit this, it will be really pity to miss that again after all the work done. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-04-10 9:36 GMT+09:00 Subject: WS2 Transparency report comment To: ncsg-pc , Robin Gross Hi all, (ccing Robin as NCSG rep to CCWG) as you know, Matt drafted the comment for NCSG regarding the transparency recommendations https://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit. The draft received some comments and edits (Thanks, Stephanie and Michael!). I hope that Matt, currently as NCSG individual member, continues to solve the edits and suggestions there. As PC we have to decide about endorsing the comment in due time ( the deadline for the PC is the 10th April). we may need to request for submitting lately our response and/or extending the public comment period. I am wondering if we should reach the CCWG co-chairs for such request. looking forward you comments and response. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 10:09:42 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:09:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 -- Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability Message-ID: Hi all, we have another public comment from CCWG to cover. I put in cc Robin and Farzaneh since she is one of co-rapporteur of the subgroup. we need to identify volunteer(s) to help for drafting NCSG comment I will send a list of other public comments we should respond to. Best, Rafik *Date: *Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 2:59 AM *Subject: *ICANN News Alert -- Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability [image: CANN] News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-04-14-en ------------------------------ Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability 14 April 2017 *Open Date:* 14 April 2017 *Close Date:* 26 May 2017 *Originating Organization:* Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) *Categories/Tags:* - Bylaws - Transparency/Accountability *Brief Overview:* This Public Comment seeks community input on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 (WS2) draft recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability. These draft recommendations were developed by the CCWG-Accountability as required by Annex 12 of the final report of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, Work Stream 1 (CCWG-Accountability, WS1). *Link:* https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 14:55:01 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:55:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public Comments Message-ID: hi all, I am sending here the list of open public comments. definitely, several them are going to end soon. we will also discuss this during the today NCSG call and ask for volunteer(s) for drafting - Interim Paper Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Names of Countries and Territories as Top Level Domains , 21 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC - Enhancing Accountability Guidelines for Good Faith , 24 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC - Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs , 27 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC, Poncelet volunteered for drafting comment - ICANN's Draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget, and Five-Year Operating Plan , 28 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC - GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process , 1 May 2017 23:59 UTC, possible extension - Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Implementation Guidelines , 2 May 2017 23:59 UTC - Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study , 5 May 2017 23:59 UTC - Proposal for Ethiopic Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules (LGR) , 5 May 2017 23:59 UTC - Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee , 10 May 2017 23:59 UTC - Deferral of Country Code Names Supporting Organization Review , 19 May 2017 23:59 UTC - Recommendations to Improve SO/AC Accountability , 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Wed Apr 19 11:33:24 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:33:24 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG Message-ID: Hi all We are late with this submission but it is important that it be submitted. I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up this text. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through as well. I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in the doc. Thanks! Matthew -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Apr 19 13:53:01 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:53:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for shepherding this comment, Matthew. I have now reviewed the comment and would like to express my support for it being filed. Is it, however, possible that Stephanie's insightful note at the conclusion of the Google Doc can in some way be integrated into the comment? Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG Local Time: 19 April 2017 9:33 AM UTC Time: 19 April 2017 08:33 From: matthew at intpolicy.com To: ncsg-pc , Michael Karanicolas Hi all We are late with this submission but it is important that it be submitted. I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up this text. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through as well. I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in the doc. Thanks! Matthew -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Wed Apr 19 14:06:26 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:06:26 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden - absolutely. I incorporated the specific recommendations Stephanie made but would be delighted for more to be integrated. Matthew On 19/04/2017 11:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks for shepherding this comment, Matthew. > > I have now reviewed the comment and would like to express my support > for it being filed. Is it, however, possible that Stephanie's > insightful note at the conclusion of the Google Doc can in some way be > integrated into the comment? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG >> Local Time: 19 April 2017 9:33 AM >> UTC Time: 19 April 2017 08:33 >> From: matthew at intpolicy.com >> To: ncsg-pc , Michael Karanicolas >> >> >> Hi all >> >> We are late with this submission but it is important that it be >> submitted. >> >> I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up >> this text. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through >> as well. >> >> I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and >> make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. >> >> Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in >> the doc. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Matthew >> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Apr 19 14:37:48 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:37:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] REMINDER: Monthly NCSG Open Policy Call at 1300 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My apologies for missing the call yesterday. It had dropped out of my calendar, unfortunately, and I have been largely offline for the past few days. I will catch up on the recording. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: REMINDER: Monthly NCSG Open Policy Call at 1300 UTC Local Time: 18 April 2017 2:48 PM UTC Time: 18 April 2017 13:48 From: mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Dear all, my belated apologies for now being able to join the policy call taking place at this moment. I have a work deadline COB today that prevents me from connecting this afternoon. I will certainly listen to the records in preparation for the GNSO call. Thanks Marilia On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Maryam Bakoshi wrote: Dear all, The Monthly NCSG Open Policy Call will take place today at 1300 UTC. UTC: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 13:00 Canvey Island: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 14:00 Time in some other locations: Sydney: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 23:00 Tokyo: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 22:00 Beijing: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 21:00 Moscow: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 16:00 New Delhi: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 18:30 Paris: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 15:00 London: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 14:00 Buenos Aires: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 10:00 New York: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 09:00 Los Angeles: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 06:00 Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg For dial out requests, please send an email to maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Passcode: NCSG Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) T: [+44 7737698036](tel:+44%207737%20698036) S: maryam.bakoshi.icann -- Mar?lia Maciel Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland Tel [+41 (0) 22 9073632](tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632) | Email: [MariliaM at diplomacy.edu](mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu) | Twitter: @MariliaM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 15:22:37 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:22:37 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Matt, thanks for leading on this statement, I hope that we can get the PC endorsement this time. Best, Rafik 2017-04-19 17:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > Hi all > > We are late with this submission but it is important that it be submitted. > > I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up > this text. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDv > sNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing > > Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through as > well. > > I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and > make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. > > Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in the doc. > > Thanks! > > Matthew > > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jumaropi at yahoo.com Wed Apr 19 15:37:56 2017 From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:37:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1349882326.4364218.1492605476269@mail.yahoo.com> Good day to all,I have been reviewing all comments in docs, and I support this comments.? ?JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P. Presidente?-?AGEIA DENSI?ColombiaCommunications Committee Chair.?Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANNCluster Orinoco TIC memberMaster IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes Cel. +57 3017435600 Twitter:?@JmanuRojas ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? El Mi?rcoles, 19 de abril, 2017 7:23:11, Rafik Dammak escribi?: Hi Matt, thanks for leading on this statement, I hope that we can get the PC endorsement?this time. Best, Rafik 2017-04-19 17:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : Hi all We are late with this submission but it is important that it be submitted. I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up this text. https://docs.google.com/docume nt/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDv sNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=s haring Please review carefully.? ?Michael - would appreciate your read through as well. I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in the doc. Thanks! Matthew -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears ______________________________ _________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Wed Apr 19 16:42:38 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:42:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, and an observer i think the comment should go int as soon as poissible. As for Stephanie's, comments, I think she should submit them directly as an email, even if the comment period is closed. I do not think we should take the time to integrate them at this point. avri On 19-Apr-17 06:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks for shepherding this comment, Matthew. > > I have now reviewed the comment and would like to express my support > for it being filed. Is it, however, possible that Stephanie's > insightful note at the conclusion of the Google Doc can in some way be > integrated into the comment? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG >> Local Time: 19 April 2017 9:33 AM >> UTC Time: 19 April 2017 08:33 >> From: matthew at intpolicy.com >> To: ncsg-pc , Michael Karanicolas >> >> >> Hi all >> >> We are late with this submission but it is important that it be >> submitted. >> >> I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up >> this text. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through >> as well. >> >> I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and >> make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. >> >> Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in >> the doc. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Matthew >> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From michael at law-democracy.org Wed Apr 19 16:23:28 2017 From: michael at law-democracy.org (Michael Karanicolas) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:23:28 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This looks excellent to me. Congratulations to all on your outstanding work. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Matthew Shears wrote: > Hi all > > We are late with this submission but it is important that it be submitted. > > I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up this > text. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing > > Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through as > well. > > I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and > make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. > > Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in the doc. > > Thanks! > > Matthew > > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Apr 19 18:51:26 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:51:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ok I added my note on the integrated policy suite issue to the doc as recommendation 8, and picked up some grammaticals. I had checked with Herb, that hotline policy is a California requirement so this explains its orphan status...they had to whip one up. cheers steph and sorry for the delay, was swamped On 2017-04-19 08:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Matt, > > thanks for leading on this statement, I hope that we can get the PC > endorsement this time. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-04-19 17:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >: > > Hi all > > We are late with this submission but it is important that it be > submitted. > > I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and > cleaned up this text. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing > > > Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read > through as well. > > I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please > review and make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. > > Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in > the doc. > > Thanks! > > Matthew > > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Apr 19 19:29:15 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:29:15 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for these edits, Stephanie. I support the comment as it now stands, particularly with the inclusion of the eighth recommendation. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG Local Time: 19 April 2017 4:50 PM UTC Time: 19 April 2017 15:50 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Ok I added my note on the integrated policy suite issue to the doc as recommendation 8, and picked up some grammaticals. I had checked with Herb, that hotline policy is a California requirement so this explains its orphan status...they had to whip one up. cheers steph and sorry for the delay, was swamped On 2017-04-19 08:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Matt, thanks for leading on this statement, I hope that we can get the PC endorsement this time. Best, Rafik 2017-04-19 17:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : Hi all We are late with this submission but it is important that it be submitted. I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up this text. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through as well. I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in the doc. Thanks! Matthew -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:%2B447712472987) Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Thu Apr 20 01:00:49 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:00:49 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On 19 April 2017 at 17:29, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks for these edits, Stephanie. I support the comment as it now stands, > particularly with the inclusion of the eighth recommendation. > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG > Local Time: 19 April 2017 4:50 PM > UTC Time: 19 April 2017 15:50 > From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > > Ok I added my note on the integrated policy suite issue to the doc as > recommendation 8, and picked up some grammaticals. > > I had checked with Herb, that hotline policy is a California requirement > so this explains its orphan status...they had to whip one up. > > cheers steph and sorry for the delay, was swamped > > > > On 2017-04-19 08:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > thanks for leading on this statement, I hope that we can get the PC > endorsement this time. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2017-04-19 17:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > > Hi all >> >> We are late with this submission but it is important that it be submitted. >> >> I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up >> this text. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDv >> sNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through >> as well. >> >> I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and >> make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. >> >> Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in the >> doc. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Matthew >> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 01:09:26 2017 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:09:26 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On everything! I just sent an email yesterday asking about this. Good to see is moving! I know Rafik and Kathy were pushing this as well. So +1 to all. Thanks Mathew and Ayden as well! Cheers, Mart?n > On Apr 19, 2017, at 7:00 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > > +1 > > On 19 April 2017 at 17:29, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > Thanks for these edits, Stephanie. I support the comment as it now stands, particularly with the inclusion of the eighth recommendation. > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG >> Local Time: 19 April 2017 4:50 PM >> UTC Time: 19 April 2017 15:50 >> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> >> Ok I added my note on the integrated policy suite issue to the doc as recommendation 8, and picked up some grammaticals. >> >> I had checked with Herb, that hotline policy is a California requirement so this explains its orphan status...they had to whip one up. >> >> cheers steph and sorry for the delay, was swamped >> >> >> >> >> On 2017-04-19 08:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> thanks for leading on this statement, I hope that we can get the PC endorsement this time. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2017-04-19 17:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> We are late with this submission but it is important that it be submitted. >>> >>> I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up this text. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through as well. >>> >>> I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. >>> >>> Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in the doc. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shears >>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears <> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > www.ymca.gm > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Apr 20 04:40:10 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:40:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9aba07d0-fd10-f30f-777e-1302b35908da@mail.utoronto.ca> Rafik pointed out that it was not clear what to do with the notes. I added yet another recommendation to deal with the privacy policy required to clarify rights under the whistleblower policy, and deleted the rest. I neglected to keep a copy so I hope someone else did or can explain to me how to get back to an earlier version. I am not in the habit of working in Google docs... Regards Stephanie Perrin On 2017-04-19 12:29, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks for these edits, Stephanie. I support the comment as it now > stands, particularly with the inclusion of the eighth recommendation. > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG >> Local Time: 19 April 2017 4:50 PM >> UTC Time: 19 April 2017 15:50 >> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> >> Ok I added my note on the integrated policy suite issue to the doc as >> recommendation 8, and picked up some grammaticals. >> >> I had checked with Herb, that hotline policy is a California >> requirement so this explains its orphan status...they had to whip one up. >> >> cheers steph and sorry for the delay, was swamped >> >> >> >> On 2017-04-19 08:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> thanks for leading on this statement, I hope that we can get the PC >>> endorsement this time. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2017-04-19 17:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >> >: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> We are late with this submission but it is important that it be >>> submitted. >>> >>> I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and >>> cleaned up this text. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read >>> through as well. >>> >>> I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please >>> review and make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. >>> >>> Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or >>> in the doc. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shears >>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Thu Apr 20 08:00:31 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 01:00:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: <9aba07d0-fd10-f30f-777e-1302b35908da@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <9aba07d0-fd10-f30f-777e-1302b35908da@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <55abc191-498e-687f-b9de-f2e31fb72086@apc.org> hi, its file -> revision history then pick the version you want to compare to. avri On 19-Apr-17 21:40, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Rafik pointed out that it was not clear what to do with the notes. I > added yet another recommendation to deal with the privacy policy > required to clarify rights under the whistleblower policy, and deleted > the rest. I neglected to keep a copy so I hope someone else did or > can explain to me how to get back to an earlier version. I am not in > the habit of working in Google docs... > > Regards > > Stephanie Perrin > > > On 2017-04-19 12:29, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> Thanks for these edits, Stephanie. I support the comment as it now >> stands, particularly with the inclusion of the eighth recommendation. >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden >> >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG >>> Local Time: 19 April 2017 4:50 PM >>> UTC Time: 19 April 2017 15:50 >>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> >>> Ok I added my note on the integrated policy suite issue to the doc >>> as recommendation 8, and picked up some grammaticals. >>> >>> I had checked with Herb, that hotline policy is a California >>> requirement so this explains its orphan status...they had to whip >>> one up. >>> >>> cheers steph and sorry for the delay, was swamped >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2017-04-19 08:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi Matt, >>>> >>>> thanks for leading on this statement, I hope that we can get the PC >>>> endorsement this time. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-04-19 17:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >>> >: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> We are late with this submission but it is important that it be >>>> submitted. >>>> >>>> I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and >>>> cleaned up this text. >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDvsNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>>> Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read >>>> through as well. >>>> >>>> I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please >>>> review and make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 >>>> April. >>>> >>>> Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or >>>> in the doc. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shears >>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>> +447712472987 >>>> Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Apr 21 02:24:46 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:24:46 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - The Diversity Sub-Group of WS2 Message-ID: Hi all, the CCWG diversity subgroup is sending this questionnaire to seek input from SO/AC/SG/C. as co-rapporteur of the subgroup I will be he glad to help for drafting the response from NCSG but cannot take the lead. anyone wants to volunteer for this? Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James M. Bladel Date: 2017-04-21 1:56 GMT+09:00 Subject: [council] FW: CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - The Diversity Sub-Group of WS2 seeks your input on Diversity To: GNSO Council List Councilors and Policy Staff ? See below for a message and Questionnaire (attached) from the CCWG-ACCT WS2 co-chairs, regarding Diversity within the ICANN Community. I would ask each Councilor to ensure that this is shared with their respective SO/ACs, and ask Policy Staff to work with the Chairs to determine the applicability of a separate response from the GNSO Council. Thank you, J. *From: *Bernard Turcotte *Date: *Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 10:32 *Subject: *CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - The Diversity Sub-Group of WS2 seeks your input on Diversity Dear Chairman Steve Crocker, CEO Goran Marby, NomCom Chair Hans Petter Holen and SO/AC Chairs, As you are aware, the newly-adopted ICANN bylaws tasked our Cross Community Working Group to investigate several issues as part of our Work Stream 2 effort. Diversity is one of these items. As part of this effort, we have set up a subgroup, responsible for reviewing how diversity is accommodated, supported and promoted within ICANN and to make recommendations to enhance diversity efforts. As part of this work, the group intends to inform itself by an assessment of the current situation. That?s why we are turning to you to provide input and point us to any resources and documents related to diversity in your respective group or designated community, taking into account the particular or specific working modalities of each group. We would appreciate if you could provide responses to the attached questions ?by 1 June? 23:59UTC , so that work on this important item of WS2 can proceed as quickly as possible. Responses can be provided to ?? *?ws2-diversity-questionnaire at icann.org * Along with the rapporteurs of the Diversity subgroup, Fiona Asonga and Rafik Dammak, we thank you in advance and remain available for any clarification that you may need. Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu ?? _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170316-Diversity-Questionnaire Updated.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 91941 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Apr 21 06:04:31 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] WS2 Transparency - comments from NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, since the deadline passed with no objection and several PC members supporting it, we can declare the statement endorsed by NCSG PC and to be submitted. I will send the document (attached) to ICANN staff, CCWG co-chairs and Michael as rapporteur. Thanks for the work done here. Best, Rafik 2017-04-19 17:33 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > Hi all > > We are late with this submission but it is important that it be submitted. > > I have accepted most of the suggested additions/changes and cleaned up > this text. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLCMDHoAqdo6pShdTEThHPDv > sNYXpTkv1eaHFDMMwBI/edit?usp=sharing > > Please review carefully. Michael - would appreciate your read through as > well. > > I would like to submit this at the latest on Friday so please review and > make final comments/edits by 23:59 UTC Thursday 20 April. > > Please indicate your support for the comments to the PC list or in the doc. > > Thanks! > > Matthew > > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG comments on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Draft Recommendations to improve ICANN?s transparency.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 292341 bytes Desc: not available URL: From drive-shares-noreply at google.com Fri Apr 21 14:02:45 2017 From: drive-shares-noreply at google.com (Poncelet Ileleji (via Google Docs)) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:02:45 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG - Invitation to edit References: <3f72953d-8dca-4112-8567-375355a4cc68@docs-share.google.com> Message-ID: I've shared an item with you: CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit?usp=sharing&invite=CPecwecO&ts=58f9e6d5 It's not an attachment ? it's stored online. To open this item, just click the link above. Dear Colleagues, Please review initial draft, make comments and revision of text as applicable; before I send it off on Tuesday latest. Lucas made some suggestions already, and Rafik has suggestd we get Carlos involved. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Apr 22 15:22:14 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:22:14 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique In-Reply-To: References: <0E253124-07FC-40CD-9C32-3877628C3EEE@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi all, We need some feedback for GNSO response to GAC communique in particular the redcross/IGO protection and the 2 caracteres country code at second level, from those who have been following the issue closely Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date: Apr 22, 2017 5:04 AM Subject: Re: [council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique To: "Mary Wong" , "GNSO Council List" < council at gnso.icann.org> Cc: Councilors ? Please see attached for a revised version of this comment document. Note that due to a configuration error, I appear as both ?James Bladel? and ?Microsoft User?. I?ve attempted to clarify existing comments, but I believe we still have some work to do in item #2 (IGO Protections). I?m good with the other elements of the comment. As we are attempting to hit a short deadline, please review and provide your comments as soon as possible. I will then work with Staff to (a) restructure this document in the form of a letter that can be sent to the Board and (b) prepare a new formal motion for consideration at or before our next meeting. Thank you, J. *From: * on behalf of Mary Wong < mary.wong at icann.org> *Date: *Friday, April 21, 2017 at 10:18 *To: *GNSO Council List *Subject: *[council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique Dear Councilors, As discussed on the Council call yesterday, please find attached the current draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the gTLD policy issues raised in the GAC?s Copenhagen Communique. Staff had taken the liberty, when assisting the group of Council volunteers on this effort, of inserting certain comments and suggestions that are also reflected in the document. Please review the document and send your comments and suggestions to this mailing list. As noted on the Council call, the Board?s call with the GAC on the Communique is scheduled for 27 April, so it will be ideal if the Council chairs are in a position to send a note generally highlighting the Council?s views before that date, with a view toward formal Council adoption of the final text at the Council?s next meeting in mid-May. Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JMB--GNSO Council Review of GAC Communique - CPH - 13 April 2017.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 33451 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Mon Apr 24 18:09:37 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:09:37 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? Message-ID: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> Dear PC members, Do we need (and can we arrange) some special sessions in Johannesburg? We will have PC meeting and (I assume) meeting with the Board, like we did in Helsinki, and I plan to have EC meeting as well, but should we request something else, too? Note that it is Policy Forum and we've been encouraged to concentrate on policy-centered stuff. Time is short, deadline is Wednesday so quick comments please. Thank you and apologies for being so late with this. -- Tapani Tarvainen From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Apr 24 19:34:11 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:34:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi Tapani, I've taken a look through the [draft block schedule](http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170413/83c921e7/ICANN59DraftGNSOSchedule-ICANN59DraftGNSOSchedule1-0001.pdf) and I'm not seeing much time to spare for additional sessions. I think it would be nice to have a working lunch one day, along with a separate PC meeting, but I think that might be all we need at the NCSG level? Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? Local Time: 24 April 2017 4:09 PM UTC Time: 24 April 2017 15:09 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Dear PC members, Do we need (and can we arrange) some special sessions in Johannesburg? We will have PC meeting and (I assume) meeting with the Board, like we did in Helsinki, and I plan to have EC meeting as well, but should we request something else, too? Note that it is Policy Forum and we've been encouraged to concentrate on policy-centered stuff. Time is short, deadline is Wednesday so quick comments please. Thank you and apologies for being so late with this. -- Tapani Tarvainen _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Mon Apr 24 20:25:34 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:25:34 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 Message-ID: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> Congratulations, Matthew! ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan ----- Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 From: Greg Shatan To: Tapani Tarvainen , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" , WUKnoben Dear Tapani and Rafik, The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. Best regards, Greg Shatan on behalf of the CSG *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc at gmail.com ----- End forwarded message ----- From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 02:12:37 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:12:37 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi, yes, there are few available slots like in Helsinki, basically the lunch breaks (unlikely to have breakfast meetings since sessions start at 8:30 and there is outreach before). so we have 4 slots to use wisely. while we can have a PC meeting, as usual, other slots can be used for joint meetings with other groups. Best, Rafik 2017-04-25 1:34 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Hi Tapani, > > I've taken a look through the draft block schedule > > and I'm not seeing much time to spare for additional sessions. I think it > would be nice to have a working lunch one day, along with a separate PC > meeting, but I think that might be all we need at the NCSG level? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > Local Time: 24 April 2017 4:09 PM > UTC Time: 24 April 2017 15:09 > From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > Dear PC members, > > Do we need (and can we arrange) some special sessions in Johannesburg? > > We will have PC meeting and (I assume) meeting with the Board, like we > did in Helsinki, and I plan to have EC meeting as well, but should we > request something else, too? > > Note that it is Policy Forum and we've been encouraged to concentrate > on policy-centered stuff. > > Time is short, deadline is Wednesday so quick comments please. > > Thank you and apologies for being so late with this. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 02:38:18 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:38:18 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] LAST CALL: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique In-Reply-To: References: <7BF37DE7-4149-479F-9CA7-C985277852A0@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi all, are we fine with the latest version and amendments for the GNSO response to GAC communique? Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Austin, Donna Date: 2017-04-25 3:05 GMT+09:00 Subject: Re: [council] LAST CALL: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique To: Mary Wong , Carlos Raul Gutierrez , "James M. Bladel" Cc: GNSO Council List Mary, all Thank you to everyone for their input. I?ve suggested some changes to the language responding to IGOs and 2 Characters with the intent of making the responses a little more focused. I?ve copied my suggested language below for ease of reference. I?m conscious that in our recent responses we have moved away some from the original intent of providing a GNSO Council response to GAC advice to the Board and I accept this as part of the evolution of this exercise. However, I don?t think it is appropriate for the Council to be telling the Board whether they should accept or reject GAC advice and for that reason I have removed that language from the original text on 2 characters. I also felt that we should be explicit with regard to the 2 character advice that the Board should not be re-opening this discussion after they have passed a resolution and had staff implement accordingly. On the IGO language, I have re-worked this with Mary?s help, to try to address Heather?s suggestions. It may also be worth explaining to the Board, in our transmittal letter, that at a meta level the Council is concerned that GAC advice does seem to be straying beyond the new ICANN bylaws and as a result potentially undermining the multi-stakeholder model and disenfranchising the broader ICANN community. As representatives of the stakeholder groups and constituencies that comprise the GNSO, the GNSO Council feels compelled to raise these issues with the Board where they appear as GAC advice. Perhaps this is also a conversation we should have with the Board at some point. Thanks Donna IGO Language: The GNSO Council refers to its previous response to the Board on this topic, which notes the ongoing work of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group. The GNSO Council appreciates the opportunity to participate in the facilitated discussion with the GAC at ICANN58, and the good faith dialogue that took place. In relation to the GAC?s advice to the Board to pursue implementation of: (i) a permanent system of notification to IGOs regarding second-level registration of strings that match their acronyms in up to two languages; and (ii) a parallel system of notification to registrants for a more limited time period, in line with both previous GAC advice and GNSO recommendations. The GNSO Council understands that the agreed outcome of the facilitated dialogue session at ICANN 58 was that further input from ICANN on the feasibility of permanent notification to IGOs is required; and that a parallel system of notification to registrants for a more limited time period, is in line with both previous GAC advice and GNSO recommendations. In relation to the GAC?s advice to the Board to facilitate continued discussions in order to develop a resolution that will reflect (i) the fact that IGOs are in an objectively unique category of rights holders and (ii) a better understanding of relevant GAC Advice, particularly as it relates to IGO immunities recognized under international law as noted by IGO Legal Counsels. The GNSO Council looks forward to continuing, in good faith, the discussions with the GAC and the Board on appropriate next steps, but is concerned that the GAC advice in this instance seems to suggest a predetermined outcome, which the Council believes is premature. As previously communicated to the Board, the ongoing PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms will take into account the GAC?s comments on the Initial Report. The GNSO Council notes that the Working Group is actively reviewing all comments received on its Initial Report, including the comments submitted by the GAC and a number of IGOs. 2 character language: There should be no opportunity for this Advice to cause the Board to re-open their decision on two letter codes at the second level, as contained in the Board?s resolution of 8 November 2016 and subsequent implementation, which came at the end of a long process that included community consultation and input. The Council is also concerned that the Consensus Advice contained in Section VI. 4. of the Communique that essentially requires the ICANN Board to negotiate directly, and reach resolution, with individual governments on two letter domain names at the second level is, in our view, inconsistent with the Consensus Advice mechanism found in the ICANN bylaws and as such should not be considered ?Consensus Advice?. The GNSO Council regards this as an unhelpful attempt to sidestep requirements contained in the Bylaws to delegate GAC-equivalent consensus advice to individual GAC members, rather than the GAC as a whole. We note that this was discussed extensively during the CCWG-ACCT Workstream 1 process and was ultimately rejected. Bilateralism between the Board and individual GAC members also has the potential to undermine the utility of the GAC itself and is also inconsistent with ICANN?s commitment to the United States Government and other parts of the ICANN Community that the GAC or individual governments would not end up with more power in a post-transition ICANN. *From:* council-bounces at gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces at gnso. icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Monday, April 24, 2017 8:00 AM *To:* Carlos Raul Gutierrez ; James M. Bladel < jbladel at godaddy.com> *Cc:* GNSO Council List *Subject:* [council] LAST CALL: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique Dear all, As the Board and GAC will be meeting this Thursday to discuss the GAC Copenhagen Communique, *please provide any comments or suggestions on the current draft of the GNSO Council response as soon as possible* and preferably *no later than 1400 UTC tomorrow (Tuesday 25 April)*. We are suggesting this deadline as the Council leadership needs to finalize the letter to be sent to the Board the same day noting the gist of the Council?s response. For your convenience, the latest draft is attached. This contains the edits made by James and the suggestions from Paul (see thread below). Your comments on Issue 2 (IGO names and acronyms) and Issue 4 (two-letter codes) will be particularly welcome as those are the topics on which substantive language has either been provided or requires resolution. Thanks and cheers Mary *From: *Carlos Raul Gutierrez *Date: *Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 08:34 *To: *"James M. Bladel" *Cc: *Mary Wong , GNSO Council List < council at gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique James, sorry for missing the call last Thursday. Here are my personal suggestions to the issues that a focused letter should raise to the board before their meeting with the GAC based on comments of the drafting team so far: 1. In the case of the Red Cross et. al., the Copenhagen mediation by a former Board member made a clear Board resolution possible! The GNSO council looks forward to a revision of the policy based on this resolution, as the international law basis for the Red Cross et.al[et.al] . can be considered rather homogeneous. 2. In the case to the IGOs, The GNSO?s IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group is actively reviewing all comments received on its Initial Report, including the comment submitted by the GAC. It remains clear from the mediation efforts during the Copenhagen meeting, that there is still the expectation in the Council that the Boards owes the GNSO community a clear resolution to direct future efforts in an efficient way forward, as was the case with the Red Cross et.al[et.al] . 3. In the case of the delegation of 2-letter codes, some members of the Council will like to raise serious concerns to the Board, of the impact that bilateral case by case resolution with Governments could have on the principle of bottom-up policy development of ICANN. Instead of developing a consensus position that all GAC members have agreed with, the Consensus Advice mechanism found in the bylaws is being circumvented to order the ICANN Board to negotiate with, and presumably reach agreement on, each government?s individual demands. This should not be considered proper ?Consensus Advice?, but could rather be considered an attempt to circumvent the very clear threshold for the GAC to issue ?Consensus Advice?. 4. In the case of the Mitigation of the DNS abuse, the GNSO Council refers to its input to the Board regarding the GAC?s Hyderabad Communique on this topic, and reiterates the concerns it stated in that response: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] . I hope it helps. Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:04 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors ? Please see attached for a revised version of this comment document. Note that due to a configuration error, I appear as both ?James Bladel? and ?Microsoft User?. I?ve attempted to clarify existing comments, but I believe we still have some work to do in item #2 (IGO Protections). I?m good with the other elements of the comment. As we are attempting to hit a short deadline, please review and provide your comments as soon as possible. I will then work with Staff to (a) restructure this document in the form of a letter that can be sent to the Board and (b) prepare a new formal motion for consideration at or before our next meeting. Thank you, J. *From: * on behalf of Mary Wong < mary.wong at icann.org> *Date: *Friday, April 21, 2017 at 10:18 *To: *GNSO Council List *Subject: *[council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique Dear Councilors, As discussed on the Council call yesterday, please find attached the current draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the gTLD policy issues raised in the GAC?s Copenhagen Communique. Staff had taken the liberty, when assisting the group of Council volunteers on this effort, of inserting certain comments and suggestions that are also reflected in the document. Please review the document and send your comments and suggestions to this mailing list. As noted on the Council call, the Board?s call with the GAC on the Communique is scheduled for 27 April, so it will be ideal if the Council chairs are in a position to send a note generally highlighting the Council?s views before that date, with a view toward formal Council adoption of the final text at the Council?s next meeting in mid-May. Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Council Review of GAC Communique - CPH - 21 April 2017_DA.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 35847 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 02:51:50 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:51:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi all, with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward in this process: - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we insisted on having a vote anyway. copying here what was suggested from Greg: "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what terms. " I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have to try to make it. comments and suggestions are welcome. Best, Rafik 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen : > Congratulations, Matthew! > > ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan ----- > > Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 > From: Greg Shatan > To: Tapani Tarvainen , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" > > Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" , WUKnoben < > wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> > > Dear Tapani and Rafik, > > The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current > candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred > and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate > chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the > incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. > > We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the > community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were > noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no > requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of > engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be > much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on > the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. > > Best regards, > > Greg Shatan > on behalf of the CSG > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > S: gsshatan > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Apr 25 11:21:09 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 04:21:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 From: icann at ferdeline.com To: Rafik Dammak Hi, While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one of which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, allocating them, and formulating our positions? Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? Local Time: 25 April 2017 12:12 AM UTC Time: 24 April 2017 23:12 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Ayden F?rdeline Tapani Tarvainen , ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Hi, yes, there are few available slots like in Helsinki, basically the lunch breaks (unlikely to have breakfast meetings since sessions start at 8:30 and there is outreach before). so we have 4 slots to use wisely. while we can have a PC meeting, as usual, other slots can be used for joint meetings with other groups. Best, Rafik 2017-04-25 1:34 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Hi Tapani, I've taken a look through the [draft block schedule](http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170413/83c921e7/ICANN59DraftGNSOSchedule-ICANN59DraftGNSOSchedule1-0001.pdf) and I'm not seeing much time to spare for additional sessions. I think it would be nice to have a working lunch one day, along with a separate PC meeting, but I think that might be all we need at the NCSG level? Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? Local Time: 24 April 2017 4:09 PM UTC Time: 24 April 2017 15:09 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Dear PC members, Do we need (and can we arrange) some special sessions in Johannesburg? We will have PC meeting and (I assume) meeting with the Board, like we did in Helsinki, and I plan to have EC meeting as well, but should we request something else, too? Note that it is Policy Forum and we've been encouraged to concentrate on policy-centered stuff. Time is short, deadline is Wednesday so quick comments please. Thank you and apologies for being so late with this. -- Tapani Tarvainen _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 11:56:50 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:56:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG - Invitation to edit In-Reply-To: References: <3f72953d-8dca-4112-8567-375355a4cc68@docs-share.google.com> Message-ID: Hi all, please review the comment shared by Poncelet, the deadline for submission was extended to the 19th May so we have an opportunity to expand our comment. Best, Rafik 2017-04-21 20:02 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji (via Google Docs) via NCSG-PC < ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>: > Poncelet Ileleji has invited you to *edit* the > following document: > CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG > > [image: Sender's profile photo]Dear Colleagues, > Please review initial draft, make comments and revision of text as > applicable; before I send it off on Tuesday latest. Lucas made some > suggestions already, and Rafik has suggestd we get Carlos involved. Thanks > > Open in Docs > > This email grants access to this item. Only forward it to people you trust. > Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. > Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA > You have received this email because someone shared a document with you > from Google Docs. [image: Logo for Google Docs] > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 11:59:17 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:59:17 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public comments and positions makes sense. I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of wrap-up session. Best, Rafik 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > > - Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > From: icann at ferdeline.com > To: Rafik Dammak > > Hi, > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one of > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, allocating > them, and formulating our positions? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > Local Time: 25 April 2017 12:12 AM > UTC Time: 24 April 2017 23:12 > From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > To: Ayden F?rdeline > Tapani Tarvainen , ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is < > ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> > > Hi, > > yes, there are few available slots like in Helsinki, basically the lunch > breaks (unlikely to have breakfast meetings since sessions start at 8:30 > and there is outreach before). > so we have 4 slots to use wisely. while we can have a PC meeting, as > usual, other slots can be used for joint meetings with other groups. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-04-25 1:34 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Hi Tapani, >> >> I've taken a look through the draft block schedule >> >> and I'm not seeing much time to spare for additional sessions. I think it >> would be nice to have a working lunch one day, along with a separate PC >> meeting, but I think that might be all we need at the NCSG level? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >> Local Time: 24 April 2017 4:09 PM >> UTC Time: 24 April 2017 15:09 >> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info >> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> Dear PC members, >> >> Do we need (and can we arrange) some special sessions in Johannesburg? >> >> We will have PC meeting and (I assume) meeting with the Board, like we >> did in Helsinki, and I plan to have EC meeting as well, but should we >> request something else, too? >> >> Note that it is Policy Forum and we've been encouraged to concentrate >> on policy-centered stuff. >> >> Time is short, deadline is Wednesday so quick comments please. >> >> Thank you and apologies for being so late with this. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Tue Apr 25 18:14:22 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:14:22 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. Tapani On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public comments and > positions makes sense. > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of > wrap-up session. > Best, > > Rafik > > > > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > > > > - Ayden > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > > To: Rafik Dammak > > > > Hi, > > > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one of > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, allocating > > them, and formulating our positions? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Ayden From pileleji at ymca.gm Tue Apr 25 20:08:15 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:08:15 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG - Invitation to edit In-Reply-To: References: <3f72953d-8dca-4112-8567-375355a4cc68@docs-share.google.com> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, Definitely good idea. Poncelet On 25 April 2017 at 08:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > please review the comment shared by Poncelet, the deadline for submission > was extended to the 19th May > so we have an opportunity to expand our comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > 2017-04-21 20:02 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji (via Google Docs) via NCSG-PC > : > >> Poncelet Ileleji has invited you to *edit* the >> following document: >> CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG >> >> [image: Sender's profile photo]Dear Colleagues, >> Please review initial draft, make comments and revision of text as >> applicable; before I send it off on Tuesday latest. Lucas made some >> suggestions already, and Rafik has suggestd we get Carlos involved. Thanks >> >> Open in Docs >> >> This email grants access to this item. Only forward it to people you >> trust. >> Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. >> Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA >> You have received this email because someone shared a document with you >> from Google Docs. [image: Logo for Google Docs] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 21:19:10 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:19:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hello PC Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting in the morning is wiser. Farzaneh On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. > > Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? > > Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, > like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. > > Tapani > > On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > > > Hi Ayden, > > > > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the > > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public comments > and > > positions makes sense. > > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of > > wrap-up session. > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > > > > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > > > > > > - Ayden > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > > > To: Rafik Dammak > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am > > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one of > > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, > allocating > > > them, and formulating our positions? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Apr 25 21:25:51 2017 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:25:51 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into a WG discussion. - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. Best, Kathy On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hello PC > > Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule > unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning > sessions and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be > there I would like some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead > the discussions and prepare our members for each day. We might also > arrange a 45 minutes board meeting for NCUC during a lunch > break.Please keep this in mind before submitting your requests, we > don't want to have schedule conflicts with NCSG. If you want to also > have similar half an hour morning sessions on policy strategy and > outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting in the morning > is wiser. > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen > > wrote: > > I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. > > Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? > > Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, > like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. > > Tapani > > On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com > ) wrote: > > > Hi Ayden, > > > > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so > discussing the > > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public > comments and > > positions makes sense. > > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of > > wrap-up session. > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: > > > > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > > > > > > - Ayden > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > > > To: Rafik Dammak > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am > > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings > --- one of > > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, > allocating > > > them, and formulating our positions? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 22:04:05 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:04:05 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Kathy, all, Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly have meetings that do not conflict. I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit : One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) 30 minutes during lunch breaks If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time slots for NCUC. Farzaneh On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. > > Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting > (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have > an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give > people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into > a WG discussion. > > - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing > > - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members > > - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an arc > of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. > > Best, Kathy > > On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hello PC > > Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule > unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions > and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like > some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and > prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board > meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before > submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with > NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on > policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting > in the morning is wiser. > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > >> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >> >> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >> >> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, >> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. >> >> Tapani >> >> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: >> >> > Hi Ayden, >> > >> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the >> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public comments >> and >> > positions makes sense. >> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of >> > wrap-up session. >> > Best, >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > >> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> > >> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. >> > > >> > > - Ayden >> > > >> > > >> > > -------- Original Message -------- >> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >> > > To: Rafik Dammak >> > > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am >> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one of >> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, >> allocating >> > > them, and formulating our positions? >> > > >> > > Best wishes, >> > > >> > > Ayden >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Tue Apr 25 22:11:42 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:11:42 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> I support this approach - thanks! On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Kathy, all, > > Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have > separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot > possibly have meetings that do not conflict. > > I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the > morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every > day and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We > might have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the > planning team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with > other groups. > > I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might > reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of > the board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG > can submit : > > One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) > > 30 minutes during lunch breaks > > If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate > time slots for NCUC. > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. > > Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep > meeting (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would > be good to have an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be > thinking about -- and give people some time to think, research and > read for a day before jumping into a WG discussion. > > - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing > > - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members > > - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to > provide an arc of the issues we need to work on together in this > meeting. > > Best, Kathy > > > On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Hello PC >> >> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule >> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning >> sessions and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be >> there I would like some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to >> lead the discussions and prepare our members for each day. We >> might also arrange a 45 minutes board meeting for NCUC during a >> lunch break.Please keep this in mind before submitting your >> requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with NCSG. If >> you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on >> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining >> NCSG meeting in the morning is wiser. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen >> > >> wrote: >> >> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >> >> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >> >> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, >> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. >> >> Tapani >> >> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> ) wrote: >> >> > Hi Ayden, >> > >> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so >> discussing the >> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to >> public comments and >> > positions makes sense. >> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it >> as kind of >> > wrap-up session. >> > Best, >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > >> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >> >: >> > >> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. >> > > >> > > - Ayden >> > > >> > > >> > > -------- Original Message -------- >> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >> > > To: Rafik Dammak > > >> > > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time >> permits, I am >> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC >> meetings --- one of >> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public >> comments, allocating >> > > them, and formulating our positions? >> > > >> > > Best wishes, >> > > >> > > Ayden >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 22:18:31 2017 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:18:31 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can maybe bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, after all they share some common audience. Martin > On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > > I support this approach - thanks! > > On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Hi Kathy, all, >> >> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly have meetings that do not conflict. >> >> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. >> >> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit : >> >> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) >> >> 30 minutes during lunch breaks >> >> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time slots for NCUC. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: >> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. >> >> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into a WG discussion. >> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing >> >> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members >> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> Hello PC >>> >>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting in the morning is wiser. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: >>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >>> >>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >>> >>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, >>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. >>> >>> Tapani >>> >>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com ) wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Ayden, >>> > >>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the >>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public comments and >>> > positions makes sense. >>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of >>> > wrap-up session. >>> > Best, >>> > >>> > Rafik >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: >>> > >>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. >>> > > >>> > > - Ayden >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -------- Original Message -------- >>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >>> > > To: Rafik Dammak > >>> > > >>> > > Hi, >>> > > >>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am >>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one of >>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, allocating >>> > > them, and formulating our positions? >>> > > >>> > > Best wishes, >>> > > >>> > > Ayden >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> Virus-free. www.avg.com >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 22:35:36 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:35:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC and NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as well as its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about policy and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up with policies. Farzaneh On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can maybe > bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, after > all they share some common audience. > > Martin > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > > I support this approach - thanks! > > On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi Kathy, all, > > Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have > separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly > have meetings that do not conflict. > > I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the > morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day > and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might > have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning > team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. > > I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might > reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the > board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit > : > > One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) > > 30 minutes during lunch breaks > > If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time > slots for NCUC. > > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > >> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. >> >> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting >> (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have >> an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give >> people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into >> a WG discussion. >> >> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing >> >> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members >> >> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an >> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Hello PC >> >> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule >> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions >> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like >> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and >> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board >> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before >> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with >> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on >> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting >> in the morning is wiser. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < >> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: >> >>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >>> >>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >>> >>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, >>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. >>> >>> Tapani >>> >>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Ayden, >>> > >>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the >>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public >>> comments and >>> > positions makes sense. >>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of >>> > wrap-up session. >>> > Best, >>> > >>> > Rafik >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> > >>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. >>> > > >>> > > - Ayden >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -------- Original Message -------- >>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >>> > > To: Rafik Dammak >>> > > >>> > > Hi, >>> > > >>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am >>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one >>> of >>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, >>> allocating >>> > > them, and formulating our positions? >>> > > >>> > > Best wishes, >>> > > >>> > > Ayden >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > Virus-free. > www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 22:36:55 2017 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:36:55 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <796AC116-8AA0-40BE-B2FE-75575D38DEDD@gmail.com> +100 > On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:35 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC and NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as well as its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about policy and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up with policies. > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent > wrote: > Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can maybe bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, after all they share some common audience. > > Martin > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears > wrote: >> >> I support this approach - thanks! >> >> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> Hi Kathy, all, >>> >>> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly have meetings that do not conflict. >>> >>> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. >>> >>> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit : >>> >>> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) >>> >>> 30 minutes during lunch breaks >>> >>> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time slots for NCUC. >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: >>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. >>> >>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into a WG discussion. >>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing >>> >>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members >>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. >>> >>> Best, Kathy >>> >>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> Hello PC >>>> >>>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting in the morning is wiser. >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: >>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >>>> >>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >>>> >>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, >>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. >>>> >>>> Tapani >>>> >>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com ) wrote: >>>> >>>> > Hi Ayden, >>>> > >>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the >>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public comments and >>>> > positions makes sense. >>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of >>>> > wrap-up session. >>>> > Best, >>>> > >>>> > Rafik >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: >>>> > >>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. >>>> > > >>>> > > - Ayden >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- >>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak > >>>> > > >>>> > > Hi, >>>> > > >>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am >>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one of >>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, allocating >>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? >>>> > > >>>> > > Best wishes, >>>> > > >>>> > > Ayden >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com <> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears <>_______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Tue Apr 25 22:38:12 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:38:12 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: + 1 On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC > and NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, > as well as its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly > talk about policy and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based > on each day GNSO program I think we could brief the attendees on the > issues and our strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on > how we come up with policies. > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent > > wrote: > > Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can > maybe bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with > NCUC, after all they share some common audience. > > Martin > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears >> > wrote: >> >> I support this approach - thanks! >> >> >> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> Hi Kathy, all, >>> >>> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not >>> have separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we >>> cannot possibly have meetings that do not conflict. >>> >>> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in >>> the morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of >>> those every day and prepare people for the rest of the day that >>> would be good. We might have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks >>> (as instructed by the planning team) to either strategize for >>> the afternoon or meet with other groups. >>> >>> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I >>> might reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting >>> with some of the board memebers but other than that I think we >>> will be ok if NCSG can submit : >>> >>> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) >>> >>> 30 minutes during lunch breaks >>> >>> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for >>> separate time slots for NCUC. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. >>> >>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG >>> prep meeting (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the >>> meeting. It would be good to have an arc of all the issues >>> in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give people >>> some time to think, research and read for a day before >>> jumping into a WG discussion. >>> >>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing >>> >>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members >>> >>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to >>> provide an arc of the issues we need to work on together in >>> this meeting. >>> >>> Best, Kathy >>> >>> >>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> Hello PC >>>> >>>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule >>>> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes >>>> morning sessions and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since >>>> I will not be there I would like some of the NCUC members >>>> on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and prepare our >>>> members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes >>>> board meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep >>>> this in mind before submitting your requests, we don't want >>>> to have schedule conflicts with NCSG. If you want to also >>>> have similar half an hour morning sessions on policy >>>> strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining >>>> NCSG meeting in the morning is wiser. >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >>>> >>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >>>> >>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the >>>> day, >>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow >>>> evening. >>>> >>>> Tapani >>>> >>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>> ) wrote: >>>> >>>> > Hi Ayden, >>>> > >>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum >>>> so discussing the >>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response >>>> to public comments and >>>> > positions makes sense. >>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we >>>> have it as kind of >>>> > wrap-up session. >>>> > Best, >>>> > >>>> > Rafik >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >: >>>> > >>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off >>>> inadvertently. >>>> > > >>>> > > - Ayden >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- >>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak >>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > Hi, >>>> > > >>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if >>>> time permits, I am >>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC >>>> meetings --- one of >>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming >>>> public comments, allocating >>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? >>>> > > >>>> > > Best wishes, >>>> > > >>>> > > Ayden >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing >> list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 01:00:48 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:00:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Since I have a lot of time, I have written the NCSG meeting requests for Tapani's consideration to submit to Terri tomorrow. NCUC will participate in all of the NCSG meetings but we might have a couple of informal meetings separate from NCSG, I will ask for nonconflicting meetings. Note that I have asked for all the meetings to be public and in the email to Terri we should be clear that we want meetings for all 4 days and they are not just for one day. Best Farzaneh On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > + 1 > > On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC and > NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as well as > its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about policy > and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO > program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our > strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up with > policies. > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can maybe >> bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, after >> all they share some common audience. >> >> Martin >> >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears >> wrote: >> >> I support this approach - thanks! >> >> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Hi Kathy, all, >> >> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have >> separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly >> have meetings that do not conflict. >> >> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the >> morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day >> and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might >> have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning >> team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. >> >> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might >> reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the >> board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit >> : >> >> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) >> >> 30 minutes during lunch breaks >> >> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time >> slots for NCUC. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> wrote: >> >>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. >>> >>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting >>> (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have >>> an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give >>> people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into >>> a WG discussion. >>> >>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing >>> >>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members >>> >>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an >>> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. >>> >>> Best, Kathy >>> >>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>> Hello PC >>> >>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule >>> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions >>> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like >>> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and >>> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board >>> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before >>> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with >>> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on >>> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting >>> in the morning is wiser. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < >>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >>>> >>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >>>> >>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, >>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. >>>> >>>> Tapani >>>> >>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: >>>> >>>> > Hi Ayden, >>>> > >>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the >>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public >>>> comments and >>>> > positions makes sense. >>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of >>>> > wrap-up session. >>>> > Best, >>>> > >>>> > Rafik >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>> > >>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. >>>> > > >>>> > > - Ayden >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- >>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak >>>> > > >>>> > > Hi, >>>> > > >>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am >>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one >>>> of >>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, >>>> allocating >>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? >>>> > > >>>> > > Best wishes, >>>> > > >>>> > > Ayden >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> Virus-free. >> www.avg.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >> >> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG-Lunchbreak meetings.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15370 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG-Session requests.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15437 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 01:39:37 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:39:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hello Rafik Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. Farzaneh On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward > in this process: > - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from > NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. > - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we > rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we > insisted on having a vote anyway. > > copying here what was suggested from Greg: > > "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this > topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by > acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. > 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: > (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, > or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. > (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what > terms. > " > I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal > vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. > agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have > to try to make it. > > comments and suggestions are welcome. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen : > >> Congratulations, Matthew! >> >> ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan ----- >> >> Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 >> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 >> From: Greg Shatan >> To: Tapani Tarvainen , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" >> >> Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" , WUKnoben < >> wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> >> >> Dear Tapani and Rafik, >> >> The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current >> candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred >> and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate >> chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the >> incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. >> >> We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the >> community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were >> noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no >> requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of >> engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will >> be >> much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on >> the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Greg Shatan >> on behalf of the CSG >> >> >> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> >> S: gsshatan >> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> >> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> >> ----- End forwarded message ----- >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Wed Apr 26 03:24:49 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:24:49 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Highly seconded +1 poncelet On 25 April 2017 at 20:18, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can maybe > bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, after > all they share some common audience. > > Martin > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > > I support this approach - thanks! > > On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi Kathy, all, > > Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have > separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly > have meetings that do not conflict. > > I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the > morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day > and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might > have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning > team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. > > I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might > reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the > board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit > : > > One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) > > 30 minutes during lunch breaks > > If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time > slots for NCUC. > > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > >> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. >> >> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting >> (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have >> an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give >> people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into >> a WG discussion. >> >> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing >> >> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members >> >> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an >> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Hello PC >> >> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule >> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions >> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like >> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and >> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board >> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before >> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with >> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on >> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting >> in the morning is wiser. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < >> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: >> >>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >>> >>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >>> >>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, >>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. >>> >>> Tapani >>> >>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Ayden, >>> > >>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the >>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public >>> comments and >>> > positions makes sense. >>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of >>> > wrap-up session. >>> > Best, >>> > >>> > Rafik >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> > >>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. >>> > > >>> > > - Ayden >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -------- Original Message -------- >>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >>> > > To: Rafik Dammak >>> > > >>> > > Hi, >>> > > >>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am >>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one >>> of >>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, >>> allocating >>> > > them, and formulating our positions? >>> > > >>> > > Best wishes, >>> > > >>> > > Ayden >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > Virus-free. > www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 03:54:48 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:54:48 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (EMAIL) VOTE - Initiate Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names In-Reply-To: <5E76CA56-221D-4774-8D58-BCDADD23957E@godaddy.com> References: <5E76CA56-221D-4774-8D58-BCDADD23957E@godaddy.com> Message-ID: Hi all, councilors will have to do an electronic vote soon about the amending policy for redcross. while we discussed the process and acknowledge that is included in GNSO PDP manual, I am wondering to which extend the list is made, including the variation of names. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James M. Bladel Date: 2017-04-26 7:04 GMT+09:00 Subject: [council] MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (EMAIL) VOTE - Initiate Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names To: GNSO Council List Councilors ? Attached and copied below, please find an amended version of the Motion to Initiate Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names that was discussed during our last meeting. Recall that, during our last GNSO Council call on 20 April, the Council agreed to defer this Motion to an electronic vote, in order to allow for certain updates to be made to the text of the motion. Also note that the Council agreed to proceed with an electronic vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. The updated language of the motion has been reviewed and approved by me as its proposer, and Michele and Rubens as its seconders. It includes some minor clarifications received as feedback from the ICRC representatives, but does not include any items that materially changed the scope of the affected strings, or any other items that were not discussed previously in Copenhagen. This email will also serve as notice that, as Council Chair, I am hereby *formally providing all Councilors with the requisite minimum 7 days? advance notice of the electronic vote, in accordance with Section 4.10.2.d. of the GNSO Operating Procedures *(https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op- procedures-01sep16-en.pdf). The 4-day voting period will begin at *23:59 UTC on Tuesday 2 May 2017 and close at 23:59 UTC on Saturday 6 May 2017*. (Please be reminded that the GNSO Operating Procedures require that electronic voting be an open vote, and its outcome be published and recorded, with accompanying voter statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping.) Thank you, J. ------------------ James Bladel GNSO Chair _______________________ *Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross and Red Crescent Names - Deferred to electronic vote* *Submitted by: James Bladel* *Seconded: Rubens Kuhl, Michele Neylon* WHEREAS, in November 2013, the GNSO completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) which resulted in a number of consensus recommendations for protecting the identifiers of International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), at the top and second level in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (PDP Working Group Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, with Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo- final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf ); WHEREAS, the GNSO Council approved all the PDP consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ) and, following a mandatory public comment period on the final PDP recommendations, sent its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on 23 January 2014 ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf ); WHEREAS, on 30 April 2014 the Board adopted those of the GNSO?s PDP recommendations that were consistent with GAC advice on the topic, which in relation to the Movement were for the terms ?Red Cross?, ?Red Crescent?, ?Red Crystal?, and ?Red Lion & Sun? (referred to as ?Scope 1 Identifiers? by the PDP Working Group) to be reserved at the top and second levels, with an Exception Procedure to be designed for the affected organization ( http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2.a ); WHEREAS, between June 2014 and January 2015 the Board and the GNSO Council engaged in discussions of the remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy, which in relation to the Movement concerned the names of 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the names and acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (referred to as ?Scope 2 Identifiers? by the PDP Working Group); WHEREAS, at ICANN57 in November 2016 the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve the remaining inconsistencies between GAC public policy advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations regarding the ?Scope 2 Identifiers? of the Movement; WHEREAS, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in such a facilitated, good faith discussion at ICANN58 in March 2017 during which the following matters were noted: (1) The public policy considerations associated with protecting the Movement?s identifiers in the domain name system (DNS); (2) The GAC?s rationale for seeking permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the Movement and its respective components is grounded in the protections of the designations ?Red Cross?, ?Red Crescent?, ?Red Lion and Sun?, and ?Red Crystal? under international treaty law and under multiple national laws; (3) The list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies is a finite, limited list of specific names of the National Societies recognized within the Movement (http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf ); (4) There are no other legitimate uses for these terms; and (5) The GAC had provided clarification following the completion of the GNSO PDP, via its March 2014 Singapore Communique, on the finite scope of the specific list of Movement names for which permanent protections were being requested (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/ Final%20Communique%20-%20Singapore%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate= 1397225538000&api=v2 ); WHEREAS, following the GAC-GNSO discussion, the Board passed a resolution on 16 March 2017 requesting that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual (https://gnso.icann.org/en/ council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf ), to consider amending the GNSO?s approved policy concerning the specific names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies and the specific names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (collectively, Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report): and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agrees that the aforementioned set of exceptional circumstances provides a justifiable basis for the Council to take this extraordinary step to reconsider the policy recommendation and that this is not to be viewed as the Council?s consent to reopen PDP recommendations in all cases where GNSO-developed policy is in discord with GAC advice: RESOLVED, 1.The GNSO Council hereby initiates the process described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual; accordingly, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be reconvened for the purpose of consultation by the GNSO Council on the following proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report: (a) The full names of the 190 Red Cross National Societies and the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are to be placed into Specification 5 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, with an exception procedure to be created for cases where the relevant Red Cross Red Crescent Movement organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the second level; (b) In placing the specified identifiers into Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, this should apply to an exact match of the full name of the relevant National Society recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of its state of origin), the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official United Nations languages) and a defined limited set of variations of these names; and (c) In considering the proposed amendment, account is to be duly taken of the matters noted during the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion at ICANN58 as well as of the GAC?s public policy advice to reserve the finite list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, as recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in all gTLDs. 2. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to post the proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 for public comment, for a period of 30 days commencing from the date of the first meeting of the reconvened PDP Working Group. 3. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council intends to put the proposed amendment to a vote following consultation with the PDP Working Group and the conclusion of the requisite public comment period. The GNSO Council notes that approval of the proposed amendment requires a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour of the amendment. 4. The Council thanks all of those who participated in the talks at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and in particular Bruce Tonkin for moderating the discussion. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FINAL - Motion to Initiate Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names - 25 April 2017.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17309 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 04:18:38 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:18:38 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Farzaneh for the requests draft. maybe just to set the expectations right here: - we are requesting 1 hour every morning for outreach AND policy discussion purpose. We should have that in mind in term of preparation and briefing about policy issues based on the day schedule since we need to include and involve newcomers while working on NCSG policy positions. Based on the GNSO preliminary block schedule ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann59-draft-gnso-schedule-19apr17-en.pdf), several PDP session seems to start at 8:30 am which may create some conflicts. - 30min lunch daily meeting to reserve the slots and have that for whatever purpose. GNSO council may have a working lunch on Monday and the council public meeting will start 30min earlier on Wednesday. I guess we should also have in mind some logistical questions such as: is the venue near to the hotels or not (just to avoid the challenge of coming early to the venue) and also ensuring proper access to food if we don?t get catering :). the schedule will be busy anyway :) but I do think we have to prepare for those sessions if we are aiming for policy discussion and sharing the workload among us. the Policy Committee should organize and support those sessions. Best, Rafik 2017-04-26 7:00 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii : > Hi > > Since I have a lot of time, I have written the NCSG meeting requests for > Tapani's consideration to submit to Terri tomorrow. NCUC will participate > in all of the NCSG meetings but we might have a couple of informal meetings > separate from NCSG, I will ask for nonconflicting meetings. > > Note that I have asked for all the meetings to be public and in the email > to Terri we should be clear that we want meetings for all 4 days and they > are not just for one day. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Shears > wrote: > >> + 1 >> >> On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC and >> NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as well as >> its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about policy >> and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO >> program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our >> strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up with >> policies. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can maybe >>> bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, after >>> all they share some common audience. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears >>> wrote: >>> >>> I support this approach - thanks! >>> >>> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>> Hi Kathy, all, >>> >>> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have >>> separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly >>> have meetings that do not conflict. >>> >>> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the >>> morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day >>> and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might >>> have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning >>> team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. >>> >>> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might >>> reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the >>> board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit >>> : >>> >>> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) >>> >>> 30 minutes during lunch breaks >>> >>> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time >>> slots for NCUC. >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. >>>> >>>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep >>>> meeting (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good >>>> to have an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- >>>> and give people some time to think, research and read for a day before >>>> jumping into a WG discussion. >>>> >>>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing >>>> >>>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members >>>> >>>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an >>>> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. >>>> >>>> Best, Kathy >>>> >>>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello PC >>>> >>>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule >>>> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions >>>> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like >>>> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and >>>> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board >>>> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before >>>> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with >>>> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on >>>> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting >>>> in the morning is wiser. >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < >>>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >>>>> >>>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >>>>> >>>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, >>>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. >>>>> >>>>> Tapani >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Hi Ayden, >>>>> > >>>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing >>>>> the >>>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public >>>>> comments and >>>>> > positions makes sense. >>>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of >>>>> > wrap-up session. >>>>> > Best, >>>>> > >>>>> > Rafik >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>> > >>>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > - Ayden >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >>>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >>>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >>>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >>>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Hi, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am >>>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- >>>>> one of >>>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, >>>>> allocating >>>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Best wishes, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Ayden >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> Virus-free. >>> www.avg.com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>> >>> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -- >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed Apr 26 04:50:46 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 04:50:46 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <6p7wRQpffvfpToeiK-5CKxNFQLZ4LoV4UbXiWfz-vev2EcXmmfpkLQdiRiUsru2pu72r7QqjG2dS8z_F44ecffQ7qDiaoSAvawbfjuGfHYk=@ferdeline.com> <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <20170426015046.2laxa2qv2dqjdmhs@tarvainen.info> Hi Farzaneh, That sounds good to me. Tapani On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:04:05PM -0400, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi Kathy, all, > > Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have > separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly > have meetings that do not conflict. > > I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the > morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day > and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might > have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning > team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. > > I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might > reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the > board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit > : > > One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) > > 30 minutes during lunch breaks > > If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time > slots for NCUC. > > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > > Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. > > > > Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting > > (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have > > an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give > > people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into > > a WG discussion. > > > > - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing > > > > - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members > > > > - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an arc > > of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. > > > > Best, Kathy > > > > On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > Hello PC > > > > Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule > > unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions > > and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like > > some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and > > prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board > > meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before > > submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with > > NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on > > policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting > > in the morning is wiser. > > > > Farzaneh > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > > > >> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. > >> > >> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? > >> > >> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, > >> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. > >> > >> Tapani > >> > >> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Ayden, > >> > > >> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the > >> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public comments > >> and > >> > positions makes sense. > >> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of > >> > wrap-up session. > >> > Best, > >> > > >> > Rafik > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> > > >> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > >> > > > >> > > - Ayden > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -------- Original Message -------- > >> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > >> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > >> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > >> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > >> > > To: Rafik Dammak > >> > > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am > >> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one of > >> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, > >> allocating > >> > > them, and formulating our positions? > >> > > > >> > > Best wishes, > >> > > > >> > > Ayden From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 09:45:41 2017 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 08:45:41 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> Hi Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through a proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? Thanks Bill > On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hello Rafik > > Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > Hi all, > > with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward in this process: > - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. > - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we insisted on having a vote anyway. > > copying here what was suggested from Greg: > > "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. > 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: > (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. > (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what terms. > " > I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. > agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have to try to make it. > > comments and suggestions are welcome. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen >: > Congratulations, Matthew! > > ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan > ----- > > Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 > From: Greg Shatan > > To: Tapani Tarvainen >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com " > > Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >, WUKnoben > > > Dear Tapani and Rafik, > > The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current > candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred > and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate > chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the > incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. > > We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the > community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were > noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no > requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of > engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be > much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on > the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. > > Best regards, > > Greg Shatan > on behalf of the CSG > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > S: gsshatan > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc *********************************************** 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 icann at ferdeline.com Wed Apr 26 11:24:38 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 04:24:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: These are great questions, Rafik. I really like Farzi's idea of coming together as the NCSG when we can. But I do wonder if we really need so many sessions together. If the answer is 'yes', I'll be there for them, but at first glance the four morning briefings, two PC meetings, four lunch-time meetings, and the NCUC's potential meeting with a few Board members strikes me all as a little excessive. Might we be able to cut the four morning briefings down to just the one on the morning of the 26th? (I note, however, that this would conflict with the multistakeholder ethos award presentation.) As for the lunchtime strategy briefings, can we also cut this down to one, perhaps on the 28th, as more of a mid-week catch up? I think this would be more manageable for us to arrange, and possibly ensure a larger turnout. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? Local Time: 26 April 2017 2:18 AM UTC Time: 26 April 2017 01:18 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: farzaneh badii ncsg-pc Hi, Thanks Farzaneh for the requests draft. maybe just to set the expectations right here: - we are requesting 1 hour every morning for outreach AND policy discussion purpose. We should have that in mind in term of preparation and briefing about policy issues based on the day schedule since we need to include and involve newcomers while working on NCSG policy positions. Based on the GNSO preliminary block schedule (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann59-draft-gnso-schedule-19apr17-en.pdf), several PDP session seems to start at 8:30 am which may create some conflicts. - 30min lunch daily meeting to reserve the slots and have that for whatever purpose. GNSO council may have a working lunch on Monday and the council public meeting will start 30min earlier on Wednesday. I guess we should also have in mind some logistical questions such as: is the venue near to the hotels or not (just to avoid the challenge of coming early to the venue) and also ensuring proper access to food if we don?t get catering :). the schedule will be busy anyway :) but I do think we have to prepare for those sessions if we are aiming for policy discussion and sharing the workload among us. the Policy Committee should organize and support those sessions. Best, Rafik 2017-04-26 7:00 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii : Hi Since I have a lot of time, I have written the NCSG meeting requests for Tapani's consideration to submit to Terri tomorrow. NCUC will participate in all of the NCSG meetings but we might have a couple of informal meetings separate from NCSG, I will ask for nonconflicting meetings. Note that I have asked for all the meetings to be public and in the email to Terri we should be clear that we want meetings for all 4 days and they are not just for one day. Best Farzaneh On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: + 1 On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC and NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as well as its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about policy and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up with policies. Farzaneh On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can maybe bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, after all they share some common audience. Martin On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: I support this approach - thanks! On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: Hi Kathy, all, Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly have meetings that do not conflict. I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit : One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) 30 minutes during lunch breaks If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time slots for NCUC. Farzaneh On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into a WG discussion. - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. Best, Kathy On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: Hello PC Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting in the morning is wiser. Farzaneh On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. Tapani On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public comments and > positions makes sense. > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of > wrap-up session. > Best, > > Rafik > > > > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > > > > - Ayden > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > > To: Rafik Dammak > > > > Hi, > > > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one of > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, allocating > > them, and formulating our positions? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Ayden _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc ______________________________ _________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient) ______________________________ _________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:+44%207712%20472987) Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:+44%207712%20472987) Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 14:04:04 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:04:04 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170424150937.bhcg66yjjjqkqos6@tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: An organizations advice: you can always cancel the meetings. But you cannot add a meeting after the request for meetings deadline passed. So I suggest keep the numbers as is and if you see you don't need as many then cancel them. On 26 Apr 2017 04:24, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: > These are great questions, Rafik. I really like Farzi's idea of coming > together as the NCSG when we can. But I do wonder if we really need so many > sessions together. If the answer is 'yes', I'll be there for them, but at > first glance the four morning briefings, two PC meetings, four lunch-time > meetings, and the NCUC's potential meeting with a few Board members strikes > me all as a little excessive. Might we be able to cut the four morning > briefings down to just the one on the morning of the 26th? (I note, > however, that this would conflict with the multistakeholder ethos award > presentation.) As for the lunchtime strategy briefings, can we also cut > this down to one, perhaps on the 28th, as more of a mid-week catch up? I > think this would be more manageable for us to arrange, and possibly ensure > a larger turnout. > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? > Local Time: 26 April 2017 2:18 AM > UTC Time: 26 April 2017 01:18 > From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > To: farzaneh badii > ncsg-pc > > Hi, > > Thanks Farzaneh for the requests draft. > > maybe just to set the expectations right here: > > - we are requesting 1 hour every morning for outreach AND policy > discussion purpose. We should have that in mind in term of preparation and > briefing about policy issues based on the day schedule since we need to > include and involve newcomers while working on NCSG policy positions. Based > on the GNSO preliminary block schedule (https://gnso.icann.org/en/ > drafts/icann59-draft-gnso-schedule-19apr17-en.pdf), several PDP session > seems to start at 8:30 am which may create some conflicts. > > - 30min lunch daily meeting to reserve the slots and have that for > whatever purpose. GNSO council may have a working lunch on Monday and the > council public meeting will start 30min earlier on Wednesday. > > I guess we should also have in mind some logistical questions such as: is > the venue near to the hotels or not (just to avoid the challenge of coming > early to the venue) and also ensuring proper access to food if we don?t get > catering :). > > the schedule will be busy anyway :) but I do think we have to prepare for > those sessions if we are aiming for policy discussion and sharing the > workload among us. the Policy Committee should organize and support those > sessions. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-04-26 7:00 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii : > >> Hi >> >> Since I have a lot of time, I have written the NCSG meeting requests for >> Tapani's consideration to submit to Terri tomorrow. NCUC will participate >> in all of the NCSG meetings but we might have a couple of informal meetings >> separate from NCSG, I will ask for nonconflicting meetings. >> >> Note that I have asked for all the meetings to be public and in the email >> to Terri we should be clear that we want meetings for all 4 days and they >> are not just for one day. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Shears >> wrote: >> >>> + 1 >>> >>> On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>> Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC and >>> NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as well as >>> its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about policy >>> and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO >>> program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our >>> strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up with >>> policies. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can maybe >>>> bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, after >>>> all they share some common audience. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I support this approach - thanks! >>>> >>>> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Kathy, all, >>>> >>>> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have >>>> separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly >>>> have meetings that do not conflict. >>>> >>>> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the >>>> morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day >>>> and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might >>>> have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning >>>> team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. >>>> >>>> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might >>>> reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the >>>> board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit >>>> : >>>> >>>> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) >>>> >>>> 30 minutes during lunch breaks >>>> >>>> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time >>>> slots for NCUC. >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. >>>>> >>>>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep >>>>> meeting (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good >>>>> to have an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- >>>>> and give people some time to think, research and read for a day before >>>>> jumping into a WG discussion. >>>>> >>>>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing >>>>> >>>>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members >>>>> >>>>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an >>>>> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Best, Kathy >>>>> >>>>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello PC >>>>> >>>>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule >>>>> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions >>>>> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like >>>>> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and >>>>> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board >>>>> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before >>>>> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with >>>>> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on >>>>> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting >>>>> in the morning is wiser. >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < >>>>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. >>>>>> >>>>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, >>>>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tapani >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Hi Ayden, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing >>>>>> the >>>>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public >>>>>> comments and >>>>>> > positions makes sense. >>>>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of >>>>>> > wrap-up session. >>>>>> > Best, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Rafik >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > - Ayden >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? >>>>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM >>>>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 >>>>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com >>>>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Hi, >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am >>>>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- >>>>>> one of >>>>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, >>>>>> allocating >>>>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Best wishes, >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Ayden >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> -- >>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed Apr 26 16:54:19 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:54:19 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> Yeah we should've had a proper process with discussion and all, but time is running out - deadline is 3 May. Suggestion: Let's have a vote with Matt and Markus and NotA on ballot, NCPH councillors (CSG, NCSG & NCA) voting, starting ASAP, vote to end by 2 May, 8 votes required for election. Any objections if I propose that to CSG? As to your question: CSG councillors vote as per their constituencies' decisions, and you can see those positions in Greg's mail I forwarded. Tapani On Apr 26 08:45, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > Hi > > Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through a proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. > > Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > Hello Rafik > > > > Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. > > > > Farzaneh > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward in this process: > > - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. > > - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we insisted on having a vote anyway. > > > > copying here what was suggested from Greg: > > > > "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. > > 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: > > (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. > > (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what terms. > > " > > I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. > > agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have to try to make it. > > > > comments and suggestions are welcome. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen >: > > Congratulations, Matthew! > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan > ----- > > > > Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 > > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 > > From: Greg Shatan > > > To: Tapani Tarvainen >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com " > > > Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >, WUKnoben > > > > > Dear Tapani and Rafik, > > > > The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current > > candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred > > and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate > > chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the > > incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. > > > > We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the > > community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were > > noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no > > requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of > > engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be > > much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on > > the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg Shatan > > on behalf of the CSG > > > > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > > S: gsshatan > > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > *********************************************** > 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 > ************************************************ > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Tapani Tarvainen From pileleji at ymca.gm Wed Apr 26 16:57:50 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:57:50 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hello Tapani, As time is running out, I concur with your suggestion. +1 Poncelet On 26 April 2017 at 13:54, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Yeah we should've had a proper process with discussion > and all, but time is running out - deadline is 3 May. > > Suggestion: > > Let's have a vote with Matt and Markus and NotA on ballot, > NCPH councillors (CSG, NCSG & NCA) voting, starting ASAP, > vote to end by 2 May, 8 votes required for election. > > Any objections if I propose that to CSG? > > As to your question: CSG councillors vote as per their constituencies' > decisions, and you can see those positions in Greg's mail I forwarded. > > Tapani > > On Apr 26 08:45, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through a > proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. > > > > Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us > or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? > > > > Thanks > > > > Bill > > > > > On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > > > > > Hello Rafik > > > > > > Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you > that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move > forward in this process: > > > - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates > from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. > > > - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we > rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we > insisted on having a vote anyway. > > > > > > copying here what was suggested from Greg: > > > > > > "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on > this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated > by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. > > > 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: > > > (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the > call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. > > > (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under > what terms. > > > " > > > I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal > vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. > > > agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still > have to try to make it. > > > > > > comments and suggestions are welcome. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen >: > > > Congratulations, Matthew! > > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan > ----- > > > > > > Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 > > > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 > > > From: Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> > > > To: Tapani Tarvainen tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com rafik.dammak at gmail.com>" rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> > > > Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >, > WUKnoben online.de>> > > > > > > Dear Tapani and Rafik, > > > > > > The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current > > > candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have > conferred > > > and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate > > > chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the > > > incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. > > > > > > We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the > > > community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition > were > > > noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no > > > requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the > level of > > > engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings > will be > > > much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy > and on > > > the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Greg Shatan > > > on behalf of the CSG > > > > > > > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > > > S: gsshatan > > > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > *********************************************** > > 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 > > ************************************************ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 17:04:56 2017 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:04:56 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <93188754-189F-4EF0-8876-A0D5A49719A1@gmail.com> Our dear friend NOTA! Now which interpretation of this are we following?:-) BD > On Apr 26, 2017, at 15:54, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Yeah we should've had a proper process with discussion > and all, but time is running out - deadline is 3 May. > > Suggestion: > > Let's have a vote with Matt and Markus and NotA on ballot, > NCPH councillors (CSG, NCSG & NCA) voting, starting ASAP, > vote to end by 2 May, 8 votes required for election. > > Any objections if I propose that to CSG? > > As to your question: CSG councillors vote as per their constituencies' > decisions, and you can see those positions in Greg's mail I forwarded. > > Tapani > > On Apr 26 08:45, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com ) wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through a proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. >> >> Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill >> >>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>> Hello Rafik >>> >>> Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward in this process: >>> - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. >>> - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we insisted on having a vote anyway. >>> >>> copying here what was suggested from Greg: >>> >>> "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. >>> 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: >>> (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. >>> (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what terms. >>> " >>> I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. >>> agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have to try to make it. >>> >>> comments and suggestions are welcome. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen >>: >>> Congratulations, Matthew! >>> >>> ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan >> ----- >>> >>> Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 >>> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 >>> From: Greg Shatan >> >>> To: Tapani Tarvainen >>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com >" >> >>> Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >>, WUKnoben >> >>> >>> Dear Tapani and Rafik, >>> >>> The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current >>> candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred >>> and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate >>> chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the >>> incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. >>> >>> We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the >>> community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were >>> noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no >>> requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of >>> engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be >>> much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on >>> the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Greg Shatan >>> on behalf of the CSG >>> >>> >>> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 >>> S: gsshatan >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > >>> >>> ----- End forwarded message ----- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> *********************************************** >> 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 >> ************************************************ >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc *********************************************** 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 at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed Apr 26 17:12:32 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:12:32 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <93188754-189F-4EF0-8876-A0D5A49719A1@gmail.com> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> <93188754-189F-4EF0-8876-A0D5A49719A1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170426141232.ceesv37bdveo547z@roller.tarvainen.info> In this case the requirement of 8 votes for getting elected makes NotA interpretation is unambiguous. :-) Tapani On Apr 26 16:04, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > Our dear friend NOTA! Now which interpretation of this are we following?:-) > > BD > > > On Apr 26, 2017, at 15:54, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > > > Yeah we should've had a proper process with discussion > > and all, but time is running out - deadline is 3 May. > > > > Suggestion: > > > > Let's have a vote with Matt and Markus and NotA on ballot, > > NCPH councillors (CSG, NCSG & NCA) voting, starting ASAP, > > vote to end by 2 May, 8 votes required for election. > > > > Any objections if I propose that to CSG? > > > > As to your question: CSG councillors vote as per their constituencies' > > decisions, and you can see those positions in Greg's mail I forwarded. > > > > Tapani > > > > On Apr 26 08:45, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com ) wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through a proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. > >> > >> Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Bill > >> > >>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello Rafik > >>> > >>> Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. > >>> > >>> Farzaneh > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward in this process: > >>> - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. > >>> - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we insisted on having a vote anyway. > >>> > >>> copying here what was suggested from Greg: > >>> > >>> "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. > >>> 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: > >>> (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. > >>> (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what terms. > >>> " > >>> I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. > >>> agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have to try to make it. > >>> > >>> comments and suggestions are welcome. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen >>: > >>> Congratulations, Matthew! > >>> > >>> ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan >> ----- > >>> > >>> Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 > >>> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 > >>> From: Greg Shatan >> > >>> To: Tapani Tarvainen >>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com >" >> > >>> Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >>, WUKnoben >> > >>> > >>> Dear Tapani and Rafik, > >>> > >>> The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current > >>> candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred > >>> and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate > >>> chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the > >>> incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. > >>> > >>> We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the > >>> community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were > >>> noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no > >>> requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of > >>> engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be > >>> much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on > >>> the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Greg Shatan > >>> on behalf of the CSG > >>> > >>> > >>> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > >>> S: gsshatan > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > >>> > >>> ----- End forwarded message ----- > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> > >> > >> *********************************************** > >> 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 > >> ************************************************ > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NCSG-PC mailing list > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > *********************************************** > 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 > ************************************************ > From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed Apr 26 17:33:39 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:33:39 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170426143339.j3qdx4y4nb2xxqcd@roller.tarvainen.info> Hi all, I have not seen even titles or descriptions, let alone agendas for the multitude of sessions proposed. I won't request meetings for NCSG without without descriptive title and proper description. I don't want to request meetings just as placeholders - every meeting needs to have a definite purpose. Asking for too much will make things difficult for schedule makers and they won't reward us for that. I don't really see the need for all that many meetings, but I can make the requests *if* I get good titles and descriptions - I won't make them up myself. Note also that we may not get all we ask and may not get the specific timeslots we ask for - sessions with flexibility in that regard are more likely to be accepted. Also, I'd rather not have any lunch meetings at all if it can be helped. I plan to request PC meeting with this kind of spec: "NCSG Policy Committee meeting, 90 minutes, before Council meeting, no overlap with any GNSO sessions or PDP WGs, if possible no overlap with Cross-Community discussions." I may not even bother suggesting any specific timeslot as it's likely to be ignored anyway - if they can come up with any time that fits those constraints it should be fine. In addition I'll request NCSG EC and NCSG FC meetings (with less restrictive overlap constraints). For anything else I'll wait for titles & descriptions and timeslot constraints. Remember, deadline is tonight. Tapani On Apr 25 18:00, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote: > Hi > > Since I have a lot of time, I have written the NCSG meeting requests for > Tapani's consideration to submit to Terri tomorrow. NCUC will participate > in all of the NCSG meetings but we might have a couple of informal meetings > separate from NCSG, I will ask for nonconflicting meetings. > > Note that I have asked for all the meetings to be public and in the email > to Terri we should be clear that we want meetings for all 4 days and they > are not just for one day. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Shears > wrote: > > > + 1 > > > > On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC and > > NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as well as > > its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about policy > > and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO > > program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our > > strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up with > > policies. > > > > Farzaneh > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can maybe > >> bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, after > >> all they share some common audience. > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears > >> wrote: > >> > >> I support this approach - thanks! > >> > >> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> > >> Hi Kathy, all, > >> > >> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have > >> separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot possibly > >> have meetings that do not conflict. > >> > >> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the > >> morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those every day > >> and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We might > >> have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning > >> team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other groups. > >> > >> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might > >> reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of the > >> board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can submit > >> : > >> > >> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) > >> > >> 30 minutes during lunch breaks > >> > >> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate time > >> slots for NCUC. > >> > >> > >> Farzaneh > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. > >>> > >>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep meeting > >>> (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good to have > >>> an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- and give > >>> people some time to think, research and read for a day before jumping into > >>> a WG discussion. > >>> > >>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing > >>> > >>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members > >>> > >>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide an > >>> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. > >>> > >>> Best, Kathy > >>> > >>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello PC > >>> > >>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule > >>> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning sessions > >>> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I would like > >>> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions and > >>> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes board > >>> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before > >>> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts with > >>> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions on > >>> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG meeting > >>> in the morning is wiser. > >>> > >>> Farzaneh > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > >>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. > >>>> > >>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? > >>>> > >>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, > >>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. > >>>> > >>>> Tapani > >>>> > >>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > Hi Ayden, > >>>> > > >>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so discussing the > >>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public > >>>> comments and > >>>> > positions makes sense. > >>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind of > >>>> > wrap-up session. > >>>> > Best, > >>>> > > >>>> > Rafik > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >>>> > > >>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > - Ayden > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- > >>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > >>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > >>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > >>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > >>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Hi, > >>>> > > > >>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I am > >>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- one > >>>> of > >>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, > >>>> allocating > >>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Best wishes, > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Ayden > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>> > >>> > >> Virus-free. > >> www.avg.com > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> > >> -- > >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > >> > >> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> > >> -- > > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > > From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 17:39:11 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:39:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <20170426143339.j3qdx4y4nb2xxqcd@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20170425151420.q2mn4j7xddu2eswo@roller.tarvainen.info> <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> <20170426143339.j3qdx4y4nb2xxqcd@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Tapani Please look closely, both requests have titles and descriptions and agendas are not needed for meeting requests and can be requested at a later stage. I have worked on them and have submitted meeting requests which were praised for being complete., if you don't submit these I will submit as NCUC meetings. Farzaneh On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have not seen even titles or descriptions, let alone agendas > for the multitude of sessions proposed. I won't request meetings > for NCSG without without descriptive title and proper description. > I don't want to request meetings just as placeholders - every > meeting needs to have a definite purpose. Asking for too much > will make things difficult for schedule makers and they won't > reward us for that. > > I don't really see the need for all that many meetings, but > I can make the requests *if* I get good titles and descriptions - > I won't make them up myself. > > Note also that we may not get all we ask and may not get the specific > timeslots we ask for - sessions with flexibility in that regard are > more likely to be accepted. > > Also, I'd rather not have any lunch meetings at all if it can be > helped. > > I plan to request PC meeting with this kind of spec: > > "NCSG Policy Committee meeting, 90 minutes, before Council meeting, no > overlap with any GNSO sessions or PDP WGs, if possible no overlap > with Cross-Community discussions." > > I may not even bother suggesting any specific timeslot as it's > likely to be ignored anyway - if they can come up with any time > that fits those constraints it should be fine. > > In addition I'll request NCSG EC and NCSG FC meetings (with > less restrictive overlap constraints). > > For anything else I'll wait for titles & descriptions and > timeslot constraints. Remember, deadline is tonight. > > Tapani > > On Apr 25 18:00, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Since I have a lot of time, I have written the NCSG meeting requests for > > Tapani's consideration to submit to Terri tomorrow. NCUC will > participate > > in all of the NCSG meetings but we might have a couple of informal > meetings > > separate from NCSG, I will ask for nonconflicting meetings. > > > > Note that I have asked for all the meetings to be public and in the email > > to Terri we should be clear that we want meetings for all 4 days and they > > are not just for one day. > > > > Best > > > > Farzaneh > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Shears > > wrote: > > > > > + 1 > > > > > > On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > > > Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC > and > > > NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as > well as > > > its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about > policy > > > and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO > > > program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our > > > strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up > with > > > policies. > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > > > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can > maybe > > >> bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, > after > > >> all they share some common audience. > > >> > > >> Martin > > >> > > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> I support this approach - thanks! > > >> > > >> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Kathy, all, > > >> > > >> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have > > >> separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot > possibly > > >> have meetings that do not conflict. > > >> > > >> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the > > >> morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those > every day > > >> and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We > might > > >> have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning > > >> team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other > groups. > > >> > > >> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might > > >> reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of > the > > >> board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can > submit > > >> : > > >> > > >> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) > > >> > > >> 30 minutes during lunch breaks > > >> > > >> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate > time > > >> slots for NCUC. > > >> > > >> > > >> Farzaneh > > >> > > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman < > kathy at kathykleiman.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. > > >>> > > >>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep > meeting > > >>> (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good > to have > > >>> an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- > and give > > >>> people some time to think, research and read for a day before > jumping into > > >>> a WG discussion. > > >>> > > >>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing > > >>> > > >>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members > > >>> > > >>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide > an > > >>> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. > > >>> > > >>> Best, Kathy > > >>> > > >>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hello PC > > >>> > > >>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule > > >>> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning > sessions > > >>> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I > would like > > >>> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions > and > > >>> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes > board > > >>> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before > > >>> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts > with > > >>> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions > on > > >>> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG > meeting > > >>> in the morning is wiser. > > >>> > > >>> Farzaneh > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > > >>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. > > >>>> > > >>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? > > >>>> > > >>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, > > >>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. > > >>>> > > >>>> Tapani > > >>>> > > >>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > Hi Ayden, > > >>>> > > > >>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so > discussing the > > >>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public > > >>>> comments and > > >>>> > positions makes sense. > > >>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind > of > > >>>> > wrap-up session. > > >>>> > Best, > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Rafik > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > - Ayden > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- > > >>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > > >>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > > >>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > > >>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > > >>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > Hi, > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I > am > > >>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- > one > > >>>> of > > >>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, > > >>>> allocating > > >>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > Best wishes, > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > Ayden > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > > >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/ > mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >>> > > >>> > > >> utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Virus-free. > > >> www.avg.com > > >> utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/ > mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 > <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list > > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >> > > >> -- > > > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 > <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed Apr 26 17:52:55 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:52:55 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: References: <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> <20170426143339.j3qdx4y4nb2xxqcd@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20170426145254.cyznesprrj4rc6ek@roller.tarvainen.info> Apologies, I missed the attachments. (I'm traveling, reading mail with small screen...) I'll take a closer look when I get home (in about an hour) but I doubt we can get that many sessions... -- Tapani Tarvainen On Apr 26 10:39, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote: > Tapani > > Please look closely, both requests have titles and descriptions and agendas > are not needed for meeting requests and can be requested at a later stage. > I have worked on them and have submitted meeting requests which were > praised for being complete., if you don't submit these I will submit as > NCUC meetings. > > Farzaneh > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have not seen even titles or descriptions, let alone agendas > > for the multitude of sessions proposed. I won't request meetings > > for NCSG without without descriptive title and proper description. > > I don't want to request meetings just as placeholders - every > > meeting needs to have a definite purpose. Asking for too much > > will make things difficult for schedule makers and they won't > > reward us for that. > > > > I don't really see the need for all that many meetings, but > > I can make the requests *if* I get good titles and descriptions - > > I won't make them up myself. > > > > Note also that we may not get all we ask and may not get the specific > > timeslots we ask for - sessions with flexibility in that regard are > > more likely to be accepted. > > > > Also, I'd rather not have any lunch meetings at all if it can be > > helped. > > > > I plan to request PC meeting with this kind of spec: > > > > "NCSG Policy Committee meeting, 90 minutes, before Council meeting, no > > overlap with any GNSO sessions or PDP WGs, if possible no overlap > > with Cross-Community discussions." > > > > I may not even bother suggesting any specific timeslot as it's > > likely to be ignored anyway - if they can come up with any time > > that fits those constraints it should be fine. > > > > In addition I'll request NCSG EC and NCSG FC meetings (with > > less restrictive overlap constraints). > > > > For anything else I'll wait for titles & descriptions and > > timeslot constraints. Remember, deadline is tonight. > > > > Tapani > > > > On Apr 25 18:00, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Since I have a lot of time, I have written the NCSG meeting requests for > > > Tapani's consideration to submit to Terri tomorrow. NCUC will > > participate > > > in all of the NCSG meetings but we might have a couple of informal > > meetings > > > separate from NCSG, I will ask for nonconflicting meetings. > > > > > > Note that I have asked for all the meetings to be public and in the email > > > to Terri we should be clear that we want meetings for all 4 days and they > > > are not just for one day. > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Shears > > > wrote: > > > > > > > + 1 > > > > > > > > On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > > > > > Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC > > and > > > > NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as > > well as > > > > its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about > > policy > > > > and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO > > > > program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our > > > > strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up > > with > > > > policies. > > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > > > > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can > > maybe > > > >> bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, > > after > > > >> all they share some common audience. > > > >> > > > >> Martin > > > >> > > > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I support this approach - thanks! > > > >> > > > >> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Kathy, all, > > > >> > > > >> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have > > > >> separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot > > possibly > > > >> have meetings that do not conflict. > > > >> > > > >> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the > > > >> morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those > > every day > > > >> and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We > > might > > > >> have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning > > > >> team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other > > groups. > > > >> > > > >> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might > > > >> reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of > > the > > > >> board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can > > submit > > > >> : > > > >> > > > >> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) > > > >> > > > >> 30 minutes during lunch breaks > > > >> > > > >> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate > > time > > > >> slots for NCUC. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Farzaneh > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman < > > kathy at kathykleiman.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. > > > >>> > > > >>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep > > meeting > > > >>> (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good > > to have > > > >>> an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- > > and give > > > >>> people some time to think, research and read for a day before > > jumping into > > > >>> a WG discussion. > > > >>> > > > >>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing > > > >>> > > > >>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members > > > >>> > > > >>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide > > an > > > >>> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. > > > >>> > > > >>> Best, Kathy > > > >>> > > > >>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Hello PC > > > >>> > > > >>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule > > > >>> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning > > sessions > > > >>> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I > > would like > > > >>> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions > > and > > > >>> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes > > board > > > >>> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before > > > >>> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts > > with > > > >>> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions > > on > > > >>> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG > > meeting > > > >>> in the morning is wiser. > > > >>> > > > >>> Farzaneh > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > > > >>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, > > > >>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Tapani > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Hi Ayden, > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so > > discussing the > > > >>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public > > > >>>> comments and > > > >>>> > positions makes sense. > > > >>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind > > of > > > >>>> > wrap-up session. > > > >>>> > Best, > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Rafik > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > - Ayden > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > >>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > > > >>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > > > >>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > > > >>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > > > >>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > Hi, > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I > > am > > > >>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- > > one > > > >>>> of > > > >>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, > > > >>>> allocating > > > >>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > Best wishes, > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > Ayden > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > > > >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/ > > mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > Virus-free. > > > >> www.avg.com > > > >> > utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/ > > mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 > > <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list > > > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 > > <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 17:59:52 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:59:52 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <20170426145254.cyznesprrj4rc6ek@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> <20170426143339.j3qdx4y4nb2xxqcd@roller.tarvainen.info> <20170426145254.cyznesprrj4rc6ek@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Rafik gave us some good suggestions. You can modify the slots based on his suggestions ( maybe 30 mins outreach for the mornings so that does not clash with GNSO). If I were you I'd ask for all those slots and play it by the ear. But ehem reality hits that I am not you :) . If NCSG decides to go with a lesser number of meetings I would like to request some slots for NCUC so let me know soon so that I can put in NCUC requests. Farzaneh On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > Apologies, I missed the attachments. (I'm traveling, reading mail > with small screen...) > > I'll take a closer look when I get home (in about an hour) but > I doubt we can get that many sessions... > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > On Apr 26 10:39, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote: > > > Tapani > > > > Please look closely, both requests have titles and descriptions and > agendas > > are not needed for meeting requests and can be requested at a later > stage. > > I have worked on them and have submitted meeting requests which were > > praised for being complete., if you don't submit these I will submit as > > NCUC meetings. > > > > Farzaneh > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I have not seen even titles or descriptions, let alone agendas > > > for the multitude of sessions proposed. I won't request meetings > > > for NCSG without without descriptive title and proper description. > > > I don't want to request meetings just as placeholders - every > > > meeting needs to have a definite purpose. Asking for too much > > > will make things difficult for schedule makers and they won't > > > reward us for that. > > > > > > I don't really see the need for all that many meetings, but > > > I can make the requests *if* I get good titles and descriptions - > > > I won't make them up myself. > > > > > > Note also that we may not get all we ask and may not get the specific > > > timeslots we ask for - sessions with flexibility in that regard are > > > more likely to be accepted. > > > > > > Also, I'd rather not have any lunch meetings at all if it can be > > > helped. > > > > > > I plan to request PC meeting with this kind of spec: > > > > > > "NCSG Policy Committee meeting, 90 minutes, before Council meeting, no > > > overlap with any GNSO sessions or PDP WGs, if possible no overlap > > > with Cross-Community discussions." > > > > > > I may not even bother suggesting any specific timeslot as it's > > > likely to be ignored anyway - if they can come up with any time > > > that fits those constraints it should be fine. > > > > > > In addition I'll request NCSG EC and NCSG FC meetings (with > > > less restrictive overlap constraints). > > > > > > For anything else I'll wait for titles & descriptions and > > > timeslot constraints. Remember, deadline is tonight. > > > > > > Tapani > > > > > > On Apr 25 18:00, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Since I have a lot of time, I have written the NCSG meeting requests > for > > > > Tapani's consideration to submit to Terri tomorrow. NCUC will > > > participate > > > > in all of the NCSG meetings but we might have a couple of informal > > > meetings > > > > separate from NCSG, I will ask for nonconflicting meetings. > > > > > > > > Note that I have asked for all the meetings to be public and in the > email > > > > to Terri we should be clear that we want meetings for all 4 days and > they > > > > are not just for one day. > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Shears < > matthew at intpolicy.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > + 1 > > > > > > > > > > On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both > NCUC > > > and > > > > > NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as > > > well as > > > > > its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk > about > > > policy > > > > > and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day > GNSO > > > > > program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our > > > > > strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come > up > > > with > > > > > policies. > > > > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > > > > > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can > > > maybe > > > > >> bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, > > > after > > > > >> all they share some common audience. > > > > >> > > > > >> Martin > > > > >> > > > > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears < > matthew at intpolicy.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> I support this approach - thanks! > > > > >> > > > > >> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Kathy, all, > > > > >> > > > > >> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not > have > > > > >> separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot > > > possibly > > > > >> have meetings that do not conflict. > > > > >> > > > > >> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in > the > > > > >> morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those > > > every day > > > > >> and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We > > > might > > > > >> have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the > planning > > > > >> team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other > > > groups. > > > > >> > > > > >> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I > might > > > > >> reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with > some of > > > the > > > > >> board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG > can > > > submit > > > > >> : > > > > >> > > > > >> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) > > > > >> > > > > >> 30 minutes during lunch breaks > > > > >> > > > > >> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate > > > time > > > > >> slots for NCUC. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Farzaneh > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman < > > > kathy at kathykleiman.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep > > > meeting > > > > >>> (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be > good > > > to have > > > > >>> an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about > -- > > > and give > > > > >>> people some time to think, research and read for a day before > > > jumping into > > > > >>> a WG discussion. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to > provide > > > an > > > > >>> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Best, Kathy > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hello PC > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule > > > > >>> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning > > > sessions > > > > >>> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I > > > would like > > > > >>> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the > discussions > > > and > > > > >>> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 > minutes > > > board > > > > >>> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind > before > > > > >>> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule > conflicts > > > with > > > > >>> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning > sessions > > > on > > > > >>> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining > NCSG > > > meeting > > > > >>> in the morning is wiser. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Farzaneh > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > > > > >>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, > > > > >>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Tapani > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Hi Ayden, > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so > > > discussing the > > > > >>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public > > > > >>>> comments and > > > > >>>> > positions makes sense. > > > > >>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as > kind > > > of > > > > >>>> > wrap-up session. > > > > >>>> > Best, > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > Rafik > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline < > icann at ferdeline.com>: > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > - Ayden > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > >>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > > > > >>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > > > > >>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > > > > >>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > > > > >>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > Hi, > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time > permits, I > > > am > > > > >>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings > --- > > > one > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public > comments, > > > > >>>> allocating > > > > >>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > Best wishes, > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > Ayden > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > > > > >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/ > > > mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > Virus-free. > > > > >> www.avg.com > > > > >> > > utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/ > > > mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 > > > <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing > list > > > > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ > listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 > > > <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed Apr 26 20:14:34 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:14:34 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: Sessions in Johannesburg? In-Reply-To: <20170426145254.cyznesprrj4rc6ek@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <159269ad-4e10-18df-4846-8edd6573228e@kathykleiman.com> <2a58ac5f-f4fd-6690-5cee-6b4357b45ff3@intpolicy.com> <696B5C9E-3A26-4E0C-9695-3488B46854A3@gmail.com> <20170426143339.j3qdx4y4nb2xxqcd@roller.tarvainen.info> <20170426145254.cyznesprrj4rc6ek@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20170426171434.6jmscaa2q5gtdiua@tarvainen.info> OK, After quick offlist chat with Rafik and Farzaneh, I'll request the morning sessions, only shortening Monday one to 30 minutes to avoid overlap with opening ceremony, but leave lunch times for NCUC, Tapani On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:52:55PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > > Apologies, I missed the attachments. (I'm traveling, reading mail > with small screen...) > > I'll take a closer look when I get home (in about an hour) but > I doubt we can get that many sessions... > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > On Apr 26 10:39, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote: > > > Tapani > > > > Please look closely, both requests have titles and descriptions and agendas > > are not needed for meeting requests and can be requested at a later stage. > > I have worked on them and have submitted meeting requests which were > > praised for being complete., if you don't submit these I will submit as > > NCUC meetings. > > > > Farzaneh > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I have not seen even titles or descriptions, let alone agendas > > > for the multitude of sessions proposed. I won't request meetings > > > for NCSG without without descriptive title and proper description. > > > I don't want to request meetings just as placeholders - every > > > meeting needs to have a definite purpose. Asking for too much > > > will make things difficult for schedule makers and they won't > > > reward us for that. > > > > > > I don't really see the need for all that many meetings, but > > > I can make the requests *if* I get good titles and descriptions - > > > I won't make them up myself. > > > > > > Note also that we may not get all we ask and may not get the specific > > > timeslots we ask for - sessions with flexibility in that regard are > > > more likely to be accepted. > > > > > > Also, I'd rather not have any lunch meetings at all if it can be > > > helped. > > > > > > I plan to request PC meeting with this kind of spec: > > > > > > "NCSG Policy Committee meeting, 90 minutes, before Council meeting, no > > > overlap with any GNSO sessions or PDP WGs, if possible no overlap > > > with Cross-Community discussions." > > > > > > I may not even bother suggesting any specific timeslot as it's > > > likely to be ignored anyway - if they can come up with any time > > > that fits those constraints it should be fine. > > > > > > In addition I'll request NCSG EC and NCSG FC meetings (with > > > less restrictive overlap constraints). > > > > > > For anything else I'll wait for titles & descriptions and > > > timeslot constraints. Remember, deadline is tonight. > > > > > > Tapani > > > > > > On Apr 25 18:00, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Since I have a lot of time, I have written the NCSG meeting requests for > > > > Tapani's consideration to submit to Terri tomorrow. NCUC will > > > participate > > > > in all of the NCSG meetings but we might have a couple of informal > > > meetings > > > > separate from NCSG, I will ask for nonconflicting meetings. > > > > > > > > Note that I have asked for all the meetings to be public and in the email > > > > to Terri we should be clear that we want meetings for all 4 days and they > > > > are not just for one day. > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Shears > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > + 1 > > > > > > > > > > On 25/04/2017 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Martin, I think these can be NCSG meetings which include both NCUC > > > and > > > > > NPOC. we should say in the description of the meeting that NCSG, as > > > well as > > > > > its constituencies, will hold these meetings but strictly talk about > > > policy > > > > > and what at the NCSG level we are working on. Based on each day GNSO > > > > > program I think we could brief the attendees on the issues and our > > > > > strategies to tackle the issue and also brief them on how we come up > > > with > > > > > policies. > > > > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > > > > > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Maybe NPOC can pitch in the outreach session as well, Poncelet can > > > maybe > > > > >> bring that idea back if we decide to merge NCSG session with NCUC, > > > after > > > > >> all they share some common audience. > > > > >> > > > > >> Martin > > > > >> > > > > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Shears > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> I support this approach - thanks! > > > > >> > > > > >> On 25/04/2017 21:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Kathy, all, > > > > >> > > > > >> Actually it might make more sense to have NCSG meetings and not have > > > > >> separate NCUC meetings. Because from the schedule I see, we cannot > > > possibly > > > > >> have meetings that do not conflict. > > > > >> > > > > >> I think Tapani wanted the slots for Outreach policy practice in the > > > > >> morning. which starts at 8.00 AM. If we can have 1 hour of those > > > every day > > > > >> and prepare people for the rest of the day that would be good. We > > > might > > > > >> have to just do 30 minutes lunch breaks (as instructed by the planning > > > > >> team) to either strategize for the afternoon or meet with other > > > groups. > > > > >> > > > > >> I talked to EC members and they don't mind merging with NCSG. I might > > > > >> reserve a 30 minutes lunch break for an informal meeting with some of > > > the > > > > >> board memebers but other than that I think we will be ok if NCSG can > > > submit > > > > >> : > > > > >> > > > > >> One hour morning sessions (outreach and policy strategy) > > > > >> > > > > >> 30 minutes during lunch breaks > > > > >> > > > > >> If Tapani and the rest agree with that I will not ask for separate > > > time > > > > >> slots for NCUC. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Farzaneh > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman < > > > kathy at kathykleiman.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Observer too to Farzi's important suggestion -- with follow-up. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Quick thought that we might want to have a longer NCUC/NCSG prep > > > meeting > > > > >>> (for all NCSG attendees) early on in the meeting. It would be good > > > to have > > > > >>> an arc of all the issues in Jo'burg we should be thinking about -- > > > and give > > > > >>> people some time to think, research and read for a day before > > > jumping into > > > > >>> a WG discussion. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - So 30 minute AM meetings for the daily briefing > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - Occasional lunch sessions, including one with Board members > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - An initial hour meeting at the very start (Monday AM?) to provide > > > an > > > > >>> arc of the issues we need to work on together in this meeting. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Best, Kathy > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 4/25/2017 2:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hello PC > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Observer here: for NCUC, not to make a very busy schedule > > > > >>> unnecessarily busier, I will send requests for 30 minutes morning > > > sessions > > > > >>> and 45 minutes lunch break sessions. Since I will not be there I > > > would like > > > > >>> some of the NCUC members on NCSG PC members to lead the discussions > > > and > > > > >>> prepare our members for each day. We might also arrange a 45 minutes > > > board > > > > >>> meeting for NCUC during a lunch break.Please keep this in mind before > > > > >>> submitting your requests, we don't want to have schedule conflicts > > > with > > > > >>> NCSG. If you want to also have similar half an hour morning sessions > > > on > > > > >>> policy strategy and outreach, let me know perhaps just joining NCSG > > > meeting > > > > >>> in the morning is wiser. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Farzaneh > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > > > > >>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> I'm fine with an extra PC session - at least we can ask. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Could somebody come up with a title and description for it? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Deadline is tomorrow, and I'll be traveling most of the day, > > > > >>>> like today (now in train) - I'll finalize this tomorrow evening. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Tapani > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Apr 25 17:59, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > Hi Ayden, > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > yes, we can do that. It is at the end a policy forum so > > > discussing the > > > > >>>> > scheduled topics and sessions, and planning response to public > > > > >>>> comments and > > > > >>>> > positions makes sense. > > > > >>>> > I assume that should be on the last day so can we have it as kind > > > of > > > > >>>> > wrap-up session. > > > > >>>> > Best, > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > Rafik > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > 2017-04-25 17:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > Resending this, as the PC list dropped off inadvertently. > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > - Ayden > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > >>>> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Sessions in Johannesburg? > > > > >>>> > > Local Time: 25 April 2017 9:20 AM > > > > >>>> > > UTC Time: 25 April 2017 08:20 > > > > >>>> > > From: icann at ferdeline.com > > > > >>>> > > To: Rafik Dammak > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > Hi, > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > While I am open to meeting with other groups if time permits, I > > > am > > > > >>>> > > wondering if it might be more useful having two PC meetings --- > > > one > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>> > > which could be solely for discussing upcoming public comments, > > > > >>>> allocating > > > > >>>> > > them, and formulating our positions? > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > Best wishes, > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > Ayden > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > > > > >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/ > > > mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > Virus-free. > > > > >> www.avg.com > > > > >> > > utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/ > > > mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 > > > <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list > > > > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 > > > <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Tapani Tarvainen From avri at apc.org Wed Apr 26 20:27:54 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:27:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <20170426141232.ceesv37bdveo547z@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> <93188754-189F-4EF0-8876-A0D5A49719A1@gmail.com> <20170426141232.ceesv37bdveo547z@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <443f4c6a-175c-b2bf-1344-13ed12d51473@apc.org> hi, except that if NOTA gets 8 you should throw out both candidates and try again. which won't happen. avri On 26-Apr-17 10:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > In this case the requirement of 8 votes for getting elected > makes NotA interpretation is unambiguous. :-) > > Tapani > > > On Apr 26 16:04, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > >> Our dear friend NOTA! Now which interpretation of this are we following?:-) >> >> BD >> >>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 15:54, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> >>> Yeah we should've had a proper process with discussion >>> and all, but time is running out - deadline is 3 May. >>> >>> Suggestion: >>> >>> Let's have a vote with Matt and Markus and NotA on ballot, >>> NCPH councillors (CSG, NCSG & NCA) voting, starting ASAP, >>> vote to end by 2 May, 8 votes required for election. >>> >>> Any objections if I propose that to CSG? >>> >>> As to your question: CSG councillors vote as per their constituencies' >>> decisions, and you can see those positions in Greg's mail I forwarded. >>> >>> Tapani >>> >>> On Apr 26 08:45, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com ) wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through a proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. >>>> >>>> Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward in this process: >>>>> - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. >>>>> - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we insisted on having a vote anyway. >>>>> >>>>> copying here what was suggested from Greg: >>>>> >>>>> "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. >>>>> 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: >>>>> (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. >>>>> (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what terms. >>>>> " >>>>> I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. >>>>> agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have to try to make it. >>>>> >>>>> comments and suggestions are welcome. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen >>: >>>>> Congratulations, Matthew! >>>>> >>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan >> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 >>>>> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 >>>>> From: Greg Shatan >> >>>>> To: Tapani Tarvainen >>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com >" >> >>>>> Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >>, WUKnoben >> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Tapani and Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current >>>>> candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred >>>>> and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate >>>>> chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the >>>>> incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. >>>>> >>>>> We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the >>>>> community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were >>>>> noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no >>>>> requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of >>>>> engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be >>>>> much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on >>>>> the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>> on behalf of the CSG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 >>>>> S: gsshatan >>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > >>>>> >>>>> ----- End forwarded message ----- >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> *********************************************** >>>> 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 >>>> ************************************************ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> *********************************************** >> 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 >> ************************************************ >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed Apr 26 20:42:57 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:42:57 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <443f4c6a-175c-b2bf-1344-13ed12d51473@apc.org> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> <93188754-189F-4EF0-8876-A0D5A49719A1@gmail.com> <20170426141232.ceesv37bdveo547z@roller.tarvainen.info> <443f4c6a-175c-b2bf-1344-13ed12d51473@apc.org> Message-ID: <20170426174257.sonu2aubndkgh75e@tarvainen.info> I stand corrected. Thank you for being precise. :-) Anyway, seeing no objections I sent this suggestion to CSG chairs, now waiting for their response. We need to get voting started on Friday at the latest to get it finished in time. Tapani On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:27:54PM -0400, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote: > > hi, > > except that if NOTA gets 8 you should throw out both candidates and try > again. > > which won't happen. > > avri > > > On 26-Apr-17 10:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > In this case the requirement of 8 votes for getting elected > > makes NotA interpretation is unambiguous. :-) > > > > Tapani > > > > > > On Apr 26 16:04, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > > > >> Our dear friend NOTA! Now which interpretation of this are we following?:-) > >> > >> BD > >> > >>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 15:54, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >>> > >>> Yeah we should've had a proper process with discussion > >>> and all, but time is running out - deadline is 3 May. > >>> > >>> Suggestion: > >>> > >>> Let's have a vote with Matt and Markus and NotA on ballot, > >>> NCPH councillors (CSG, NCSG & NCA) voting, starting ASAP, > >>> vote to end by 2 May, 8 votes required for election. > >>> > >>> Any objections if I propose that to CSG? > >>> > >>> As to your question: CSG councillors vote as per their constituencies' > >>> decisions, and you can see those positions in Greg's mail I forwarded. > >>> > >>> Tapani > >>> > >>> On Apr 26 08:45, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com ) wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through a proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. > >>>> > >>>> Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >>>>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello Rafik > >>>>> > >>>>> Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. > >>>>> > >>>>> Farzaneh > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward in this process: > >>>>> - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. > >>>>> - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we insisted on having a vote anyway. > >>>>> > >>>>> copying here what was suggested from Greg: > >>>>> > >>>>> "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. > >>>>> 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: > >>>>> (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. > >>>>> (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what terms. > >>>>> " > >>>>> I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. > >>>>> agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have to try to make it. > >>>>> > >>>>> comments and suggestions are welcome. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Rafik > >>>>> > >>>>> 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen >>: > >>>>> Congratulations, Matthew! > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan >> ----- > >>>>> > >>>>> Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 > >>>>> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 > >>>>> From: Greg Shatan >> > >>>>> To: Tapani Tarvainen >>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com >" >> > >>>>> Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >>, WUKnoben >> > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear Tapani and Rafik, > >>>>> > >>>>> The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current > >>>>> candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred > >>>>> and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate > >>>>> chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the > >>>>> incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. > >>>>> > >>>>> We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the > >>>>> community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were > >>>>> noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no > >>>>> requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of > >>>>> engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be > >>>>> much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on > >>>>> the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Greg Shatan > >>>>> on behalf of the CSG > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > >>>>> S: gsshatan > >>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > >>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- End forwarded message ----- > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>>> > >>>> *********************************************** > >>>> 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 > >>>> ************************************************ > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Tapani Tarvainen > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> *********************************************** > >> 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 > >> ************************************************ From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 09:55:23 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:55:23 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] NCSG comment on ICANN budget Message-ID: Hi all, we have the NCSG comment on ICANN budget here https://docs.google.com/ document/d/1Z4tRltx7mOfKgeZneRjmkCMMiiLY9cFRkyaeThD1uUE/edit the deadline for submission is the 28th April. Please review the draft and check if you can endorse it or you have any concern. we get over 24hours to make it. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri Apr 28 18:00:05 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:00:05 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Comment on ICANN Budget Message-ID: Hi Rafik, I?d like to thank those who stepped in to contribute to the budget comment. I sadly disagree with the tone and much of the content of the document. I do not endorse it. There was no way for me to edit the document without completely deleting much of what had previously been written there. I just didn?t feel that was an appropriate thing to do. Rather I have completed and submitted to the Comments Forum a Personal Comment, which I am attaching to this post. I welcome those who have stepped up to do the NCSG comment to consider what I had to say, borrow from my post, or disregard it completely. My objection to the NCSG comment as written consists of the following objections: 1. I believe it is too negative and accusatory and fails to recognize the hard work done by Finance and the unique nature of the first year of the Empowered Community. I have major problems with the process, and have expressed them in my Comment, along with suggested ways of improving cooperation and community input. However, I don?t believe any slights were deliberate or intentional. I believe the Community, including myself, erred in placing so many hard deadlines on Finance as part of the budget process in the new Bylaws. This is a year of adaptation but generalized critical comments without specific proposed solutions serve no purpose. And that is what much of the proposed NCSG comment consists of. 2. I find the objections to ALAC expenditures to appear as a stand alone attack on the AC. There are a number of areas of expenditure that many of us would find questionable. Why focus only on these in the absence of criticism of other questionable expenses? 3. I don?t find staff retreats to be among the most pressing fiscal matters. After all, as a supplemental request components of the NCSG asked for their own retreats and the GNSO Council was actually granted one. Should we not first oppose these retreats or is there a reason staff retreats are so onerous? 4. As noted in my personal comment, my biggest concern involves the lack of funding priority for core policy activities. I have focused on one unfunded proposal ? that of $100,000 for external PDP support ? and would encourage the NCSG to consider adopting this view. Although I can not endorse the comment, out of respect for the work done on the document I will not oppose it. I will abstain and hope my comments above as well as those in my personal comment will be considered by the PC. Regrettably, I have some domestic responsibilities to attend to this evening that must take priority over my volunteer activities here. Consider my abstention to be a permament one and feel free to borrow from, or ignore, my offerings on this matter. Best, Ed Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: budget comment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 59158 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Apr 28 18:14:44 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:14:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Comment on ICANN Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ed, Thanks for your email. I was just about to send something to this list along similar lines. It is true that the current draft comment has a negative tone, and it is not in final format where I would feel comfortable submitting it. It is really just a few bullet points that I put together that were intended as a starting point for others to draw off of. A conversation starter, if you will. Sadly that did not happen, and I agree that we cannot submit the present document as the NCSG's comment on the budgetary process. With the deadline for comments on the budget closing in several hours time, regretfully it does not seem likely to me that we will be able to submit something as the NCSG. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Comment on ICANN Budget Local Time: 28 April 2017 4:00 PM UTC Time: 28 April 2017 15:00 From: egmorris1 at toast.net To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Hi Rafik, I?d like to thank those who stepped in to contribute to the budget comment. I sadly disagree with the tone and much of the content of the document. I do not endorse it. There was no way for me to edit the document without completely deleting much of what had previously been written there. I just didn?t feel that was an appropriate thing to do. Rather I have completed and submitted to the Comments Forum a Personal Comment, which I am attaching to this post. I welcome those who have stepped up to do the NCSG comment to consider what I had to say, borrow from my post, or disregard it completely. My objection to the NCSG comment as written consists of the following objections: 1. I believe it is too negative and accusatory and fails to recognize the hard work done by Finance and the unique nature of the first year of the Empowered Community. I have major problems with the process, and have expressed them in my Comment, along with suggested ways of improving cooperation and community input. However, I don?t believe any slights were deliberate or intentional. I believe the Community, including myself, erred in placing so many hard deadlines on Finance as part of the budget process in the new Bylaws. This is a year of adaptation but generalized critical comments without specific proposed solutions serve no purpose. And that is what much of the proposed NCSG comment consists of. 2. I find the objections to ALAC expenditures to appear as a stand alone attack on the AC. There are a number of areas of expenditure that many of us would find questionable. Why focus only on these in the absence of criticism of other questionable expenses? 3. I don?t find staff retreats to be among the most pressing fiscal matters. After all, as a supplemental request components of the NCSG asked for their own retreats and the GNSO Council was actually granted one. Should we not first oppose these retreats or is there a reason staff retreats are so onerous? 4. As noted in my personal comment, my biggest concern involves the lack of funding priority for core policy activities. I have focused on one unfunded proposal ? that of $100,000 for external PDP support ? and would encourage the NCSG to consider adopting this view. Although I can not endorse the comment, out of respect for the work done on the document I will not oppose it. I will abstain and hope my comments above as well as those in my personal comment will be considered by the PC. Regrettably, I have some domestic responsibilities to attend to this evening that must take priority over my volunteer activities here. Consider my abstention to be a permament one and feel free to borrow from, or ignore, my offerings on this matter. Best, Ed Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Apr 28 18:16:13 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:16:13 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Comment on ICANN Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ed, Thanks for the comments. there were some suggestions in the current draft to change the tone and make it more neutral. there are still work to be done there. I also think that NCSG FC members can jump in here and share their thoughts. I am looking forward other NCSG PC members suggestions and ideas to move forward. I guess can try to submit the comment a few days later (while since it is about the budget and there are time constraints)if we can resolve the concerns and elaborate in some areas. Best, Rafik 2017-04-29 0:00 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > Hi Rafik, > > I?d like to thank those who stepped in to contribute to the budget > comment. I sadly disagree with the tone and much of the content of the > document. I do not endorse it. > > There was no way for me to edit the document without completely deleting > much of what had previously been written there. I just didn?t feel that was > an appropriate thing to do. > > Rather I have completed and submitted to the Comments Forum a Personal > Comment, which I am attaching to this post. I welcome those who have > stepped up to do the NCSG comment to consider what I had to say, borrow > from my post, or disregard it completely. > > My objection to the NCSG comment as written consists of the following > objections: > > 1. I believe it is too negative and accusatory and fails to recognize the > hard work done by Finance and the unique nature of the first year of the > Empowered Community. > > I have major problems with the process, and have expressed them in my > Comment, along with suggested ways of improving cooperation and community > input. However, I don?t believe any slights were deliberate or intentional. > I believe the Community, including myself, erred in placing so many hard > deadlines on Finance as part of the budget process in the new Bylaws. This > is a year of adaptation but generalized critical comments without specific > proposed solutions serve no purpose. And that is what much of the proposed > NCSG comment consists of. > > 2. I find the objections to ALAC expenditures to appear as a stand alone > attack on the AC. There are a number of areas of expenditure that many of > us would find questionable. Why focus only on these in the absence of > criticism of other questionable expenses? > > 3. I don?t find staff retreats to be among the most pressing fiscal > matters. After all, as a supplemental request components of the NCSG asked > for their own retreats and the GNSO Council was actually granted one. > Should we not first oppose these retreats or is there a reason staff > retreats are so onerous? > > 4. As noted in my personal comment, my biggest concern involves the lack > of funding priority for core policy activities. I have focused on one > unfunded proposal ? that of $100,000 for external PDP support ? and would > encourage the NCSG to consider adopting this view. > > Although I can not endorse the comment, out of respect for the work done > on the document I will not oppose it. I will abstain and hope my comments > above as well as those in my personal comment will be considered by the PC. > > Regrettably, I have some domestic responsibilities to attend to this > evening that must take priority over my volunteer activities here. Consider > my abstention to be a permament one and feel free to borrow from, or > ignore, my offerings on this matter. > > Best, > > Ed Morris > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Fri Apr 28 19:43:46 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:43:46 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Comment on ICANN Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, as an observer want to note: I also found the tone unfortunate and object to slamming Staff retreats or other AC's. I do not think this is fit for submission. Perhaps we want to review Ed's personal submissions and if the PC agrees with it, send in an NCSG endorsement. I have not read it yet, so can't comment on whether I agree with my own suggestion. avri On 28-Apr-17 11:16, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ed, > > Thanks for the comments. > there were some suggestions in the current draft to change the tone > and make it more neutral. there are still work to be done there. I > also think that NCSG FC members can jump in here and share their thoughts. > > I am looking forward other NCSG PC members suggestions and ideas to > move forward. I guess can try to submit the comment a few days later > (while since it is about the budget and there are time constraints)if > we can resolve the concerns and elaborate in some areas. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-04-29 0:00 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris >: > > Hi Rafik, > > I?d like to thank those who stepped in to contribute to the budget > comment. I sadly disagree with the tone and much of the content of > the document. I do not endorse it. > > There was no way for me to edit the document without completely > deleting much of what had previously been written there. I just > didn?t feel that was an appropriate thing to do. > > Rather I have completed and submitted to the Comments Forum a > Personal Comment, which I am attaching to this post. I welcome > those who have stepped up to do the NCSG comment to consider what > I had to say, borrow from my post, or disregard it completely. > > My objection to the NCSG comment as written consists of the > following objections: > > 1. I believe it is too negative and accusatory and fails to > recognize the hard work done by Finance and the unique nature of > the first year of the Empowered Community. > > I have major problems with the process, and have expressed them in > my Comment, along with suggested ways of improving cooperation and > community input. However, I don?t believe any slights were > deliberate or intentional. I believe the Community, including > myself, erred in placing so many hard deadlines on Finance as part > of the budget process in the new Bylaws. This is a year of > adaptation but generalized critical comments without specific > proposed solutions serve no purpose. And that is what much of the > proposed NCSG comment consists of. > > 2. I find the objections to ALAC expenditures to appear as a > stand alone attack on the AC. There are a number of areas of > expenditure that many of us would find questionable. Why focus > only on these in the absence of criticism of other questionable > expenses? > > 3. I don?t find staff retreats to be among the most pressing > fiscal matters. After all, as a supplemental request components of > the NCSG asked for their own retreats and the GNSO Council was > actually granted one. Should we not first oppose these retreats > or is there a reason staff retreats are so onerous? > > 4. As noted in my personal comment, my biggest concern involves > the lack of funding priority for core policy activities. I have > focused on one unfunded proposal ? that of $100,000 for external > PDP support ? and would encourage the NCSG to consider adopting > this view. > > Although I can not endorse the comment, out of respect for the > work done on the document I will not oppose it. I will abstain and > hope my comments above as well as those in my personal comment > will be considered by the PC. > > Regrettably, I have some domestic responsibilities to attend to > this evening that must take priority over my volunteer activities > here. Consider my abstention to be a permament one and feel free > to borrow from, or ignore, my offerings on this matter. > > Best, > > Ed Morris > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Fri Apr 28 21:36:12 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 21:36:12 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20170428183612.blccft5lmubwzygu@tarvainen.info> Dear PC, Unfortunately CSG is apparently unable to agree on this in time. I have no reason to assume they actually object but they need to get their ExComs to agree and it takes time. And if we want to have a vote with email ballots it should've been started today to have acceptably long voting period and get results by Wednesday. I can think of three options now: (1) Make do with less time for voting. We could try to get ICANN staff (meaning Maryam) to start it during the weekend. Everything else aside, that still requires CSG to agree quickly so I don't think this'll fly. (2) Have an NCPH councillor call on Tuesday (or maybe Wednesday morning would work) and vote there (open vote). If we can find a timeslot that's good for enough councillors this could work. (3) Miss the deadline. I'm not sure anything really bad would happen, although it would be embarrassing. Opinions? Tapani On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 04:54:19PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > > Yeah we should've had a proper process with discussion > and all, but time is running out - deadline is 3 May. > > Suggestion: > > Let's have a vote with Matt and Markus and NotA on ballot, > NCPH councillors (CSG, NCSG & NCA) voting, starting ASAP, > vote to end by 2 May, 8 votes required for election. > > Any objections if I propose that to CSG? > > As to your question: CSG councillors vote as per their constituencies' > decisions, and you can see those positions in Greg's mail I forwarded. > > Tapani > > On Apr 26 08:45, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through a proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. > > > > Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? > > > > Thanks > > > > Bill > > > > > On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > > > Hello Rafik > > > > > > Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward in this process: > > > - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. > > > - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we insisted on having a vote anyway. > > > > > > copying here what was suggested from Greg: > > > > > > "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. > > > 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: > > > (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. > > > (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what terms. > > > " > > > I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. > > > agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have to try to make it. > > > > > > comments and suggestions are welcome. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen >: > > > Congratulations, Matthew! > > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan > ----- > > > > > > Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 > > > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 > > > From: Greg Shatan > > > > To: Tapani Tarvainen >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com " > > > > Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >, WUKnoben > > > > > > > Dear Tapani and Rafik, > > > > > > The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current > > > candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred > > > and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate > > > chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the > > > incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. > > > > > > We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the > > > community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were > > > noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no > > > requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of > > > engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be > > > much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on > > > the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Greg Shatan > > > on behalf of the CSG > > > > > > > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > > > S: gsshatan > > > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > *********************************************** > > 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 > > ************************************************ From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Apr 30 22:56:38 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:56:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <20170428183612.blccft5lmubwzygu@tarvainen.info> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> <20170428183612.blccft5lmubwzygu@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: I think the only realistic option now is to miss the deadline. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 Local Time: 28 April 2017 7:36 PM UTC Time: 28 April 2017 18:36 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Dear PC, Unfortunately CSG is apparently unable to agree on this in time. I have no reason to assume they actually object but they need to get their ExComs to agree and it takes time. And if we want to have a vote with email ballots it should've been started today to have acceptably long voting period and get results by Wednesday. I can think of three options now: (1) Make do with less time for voting. We could try to get ICANN staff (meaning Maryam) to start it during the weekend. Everything else aside, that still requires CSG to agree quickly so I don't think this'll fly. (2) Have an NCPH councillor call on Tuesday (or maybe Wednesday morning would work) and vote there (open vote). If we can find a timeslot that's good for enough councillors this could work. (3) Miss the deadline. I'm not sure anything really bad would happen, although it would be embarrassing. Opinions? Tapani On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 04:54:19PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > > Yeah we should've had a proper process with discussion > and all, but time is running out - deadline is 3 May. > > Suggestion: > > Let's have a vote with Matt and Markus and NotA on ballot, > NCPH councillors (CSG, NCSG & NCA) voting, starting ASAP, > vote to end by 2 May, 8 votes required for election. > > Any objections if I propose that to CSG? > > As to your question: CSG councillors vote as per their constituencies' > decisions, and you can see those positions in Greg's mail I forwarded. > > Tapani > > On Apr 26 08:45, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through a proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. > > > > Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? > > > > Thanks > > > > Bill > > > > > On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > > > Hello Rafik > > > > > > Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move forward in this process: > > > - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. > > > - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we insisted on having a vote anyway. > > > > > > copying here what was suggested from Greg: > > > > > > "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. > > > 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: > > > (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. > > > (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under what terms. > > > " > > > I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. > > > agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still have to try to make it. > > > > > > comments and suggestions are welcome. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen >: > > > Congratulations, Matthew! > > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan > ----- > > > > > > Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 > > > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 > > > From: Greg Shatan > > > > To: Tapani Tarvainen >, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com " > > > > Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >, WUKnoben > > > > > > > Dear Tapani and Rafik, > > > > > > The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current > > > candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have conferred > > > and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate > > > chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the > > > incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. > > > > > > We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the > > > community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition were > > > noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no > > > requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the level of > > > engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings will be > > > much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy and on > > > the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Greg Shatan > > > on behalf of the CSG > > > > > > > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > > > S: gsshatan > > > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > *********************************************** > > 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 > > ************************************************ _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: