From mshears  Wed Jan 11 03:13:25 2017
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:13:25 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?final_version_for_review=3A_NCUC_comment_to_I?=
 =?utf-8?q?CANN=E2=80=99s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_Policy?=
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvBx+qvH8VMuSZA7TT1__px4Lf_BE5QRsnedFpqr_Maohw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvBx+qvH8VMuSZA7TT1__px4Lf_BE5QRsnedFpqr_Maohw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>

Dear colleagues

Attached please find the draft final of*__*NCUC's comment on ICANN?s 
proposed Anti-Harassment Policy.  This has gone through a number of 
iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version tomorrow 
so that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline.

Please review the document. I believe that we have discussed and 
resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or 
two dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and indented. 
These will be removed before submission.

If there are any_major _issues please raise to the PC as a whole and the 
persons above cc:ed asap.

Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time.

Thanks so much.

Matthew*__*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170111/79345c3a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170111/79345c3a/attachment-0001.docx>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Jan 11 03:22:25 2017
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:22:25 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
	=?utf-8?q?final_version_for_review=3A_NCUC_comment_to_I?=
	=?utf-8?q?CANN=E2=80=99s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_Policy?=
In-Reply-To: <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
References: <CAN1qJvBx+qvH8VMuSZA7TT1__px4Lf_BE5QRsnedFpqr_Maohw@mail.gmail.com>
	<245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmL2ghQF9SipT=uBnET2k9nv7P4uWTOTxt1YqPh+Ke1pA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Matt,

as I supported the work from the beginning,  I would like first to thank
Corinne for the work done and her patience to resolve all concerns and
issues in the statement. I also endorse the comment to be submitted on
behalf of NCSG.

Best,

Rafik

2017-01-11 10:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>:

> Dear colleagues
>
> Attached please find the draft final of NCUC's comment on ICANN?s
> proposed Anti-Harassment Policy.  This has gone through a number of
> iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version tomorrow so
> that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline.
>
> Please review the document.  I believe that we have discussed and
> resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or two
> dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and indented.   These
> will be removed before submission.
>
> If there are any* major *issues please raise to the PC as a whole and the
> persons above cc:ed asap.
>
> Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time.
>
> Thanks so much.
>
> Matthew
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170111/8496ce29/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Jan 11 03:48:11 2017
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:48:11 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?utf-8?q?final_version_for_review=3A_NCUC_comment_to_I?=
 =?utf-8?q?CANN=E2=80=99s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_Policy?=
In-Reply-To: <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
References: <CAN1qJvBx+qvH8VMuSZA7TT1__px4Lf_BE5QRsnedFpqr_Maohw@mail.gmail.com>
	<245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <18873e50-8a84-c024-e413-947458778bb2@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks, I caught a few grammaticals.

Stephanie Perrin


On 2017-01-10 20:13, matthew shears wrote:
> Dear colleagues
>
> Attached please find the draft final of*__*NCUC's comment on ICANN?s 
> proposed Anti-Harassment Policy.  This has gone through a number of 
> iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version 
> tomorrow so that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline.
>
> Please review the document. I believe that we have discussed and 
> resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or 
> two dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and 
> indented. These will be removed before submission.
>
> If there are any_major _issues please raise to the PC as a whole and 
> the persons above cc:ed asap.
>
> Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time.
>
> Thanks so much.
>
> Matthew*__*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170110/759ccec2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017sp.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 25330 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170110/759ccec2/attachment-0001.docx>


From ncsg  Wed Jan 11 07:59:09 2017
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:59:09 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] IMPORTANT: List move to new server
Message-ID: <20170111055909.airdyjxfqg4v46lk@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

The Policy Committee mailing list is being moved to NCSG's own list
server (lists.ncsg.is). The new list has been created, I will subscribe
all current PC list members there plus NCUC's new representative Ayden -
you should all get notification of your subscription momentarily.

The new list can be found at

https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

I will copy old list archives there, too, but it may take a while;
in the meantime old list archives should remain online.

Please update your addressbooks and don't use the old list anymore.

Thank you,

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From stephanie.perrin  Thu Jan 19 20:30:21 2017
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:30:21 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN58
In-Reply-To: <3EAFD474-AD52-4A34-B54D-503A4D07E0D7@icann.org>
References: <3EAFD474-AD52-4A34-B54D-503A4D07E0D7@icann.org>
Message-ID: <ba658b22-ab56-818a-cbfb-59513589a6b2@mail.utoronto.ca>


Here is the revised GNSO schedule.  Not sure of new address, hope this 
arrives.  Let me know if we have comments on this....
cheers SP

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Updated GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN58
Date: 	Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:21:38 +0000
From: 	Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear Councilors,

Following further discussion with the Council leadership, a few slight 
updates have been made to the previously-circulated Draft GNSO Block 
Schedule. Please use this version for your reference and consultation 
with your respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and for the 
Council call later today, thank you!

James and Donna ? please note that this version has a couple of minor 
tweaks from the one I circulated to you earlier (per some suggestions 
from Donna).

Cheers

Mary

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong at icann.org

Telephone: +1-603-5744889

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170119/8739fa41/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN58 GNSO Block Schedule - v3.1 - 19 Jan 2017.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 104704 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170119/8739fa41/attachment-0001.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council


From kathy  Sun Jan 22 19:38:29 2017
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 12:38:29 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Message-ID: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>

Hi All,

On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would draft a 
short set of comments on the Open Public Comment: /Identifier Technology 
Health Indicators: Definition. /Staff's idea here is to assign made up 
"disease names" to policy issues and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew 
Shears and I shared the view that this is an utterly ridiculous 
proposal. Frankly, this proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the 
Ministry of Silly Walks!

I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view that the 
proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of issues we work 
on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior comments of James 
Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill and IAB Chair Andrew 
Sullivan in sharing that this is a really bad idea.

The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing

/Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can submit these 
comments by the deadline tomorrow?

Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these comments 
once we have approval? //
/
Best, Kathy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition

        https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en


        Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse of the
        time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who have to stop their
        lives to respond to them. I think we should create a name for
        it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.


        The comments below strongly support the cries of John Berryhill,
        IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in setting forth that
        sometimes a comment topic does not deserve consideration and
        should be eliminated at the start. How this slide presentation
        made it to the level of a poorly-presented public comment is
        beyond the understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious
        issues and PDPs before us.


        In all seriousness, let us share that:


          *

            SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly supportable;

          *

            BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to issues
            that need /careful and balanced /review, consideration and
            evaluation is, as you have been told in other comments,
            DANGEROUS:

                1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name to a
                certain situation implies it is a problem. For example,
                DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data) delves into difficulties
                we have been exploring for over 15 years: of privacy and
                data protection protections and laws not currently
                allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of legitimate
                exercises of Free Expression by individuals and
                organizations operating in opposition to oppressive
                regimes and governments who would jail them for their
                views (or worse); of students who have no phones, but do
                have computers, Internet connections and ideas that to
                share via domain names. This data is not a disease, but
                a complex policy discussion and concern.

                2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name atop an
                area of serious research, study and evaluation minimizes
                the problems, discourages the robustness of the debate,
                and makes it more difficult to fully evaluate and
                resolve the issues.

                3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research area with a
                silly name. It diminishes the work of many years and the
                good faith efforts of numerous task forces, working
                groups and committees.


        The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea either
        was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not appreciate the
        attention and intensity of the debate. We are technologists,
        lawyers, registration industry members and other Community
        members who have become policy makers. We look at facts,
        situations, data and evidence. It destroy and diminishes our
        efforts, time and discussions to label them with silly names.


        Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have asked
        us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for the
        materials that are the basis of your question. The 5 disease
        names that have been created impose prejudicial interpretations
        on debates within the scope of ICANN, and ask us to go far
        beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The answer is ?no.?


        Best,

        NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170122/bd1b96f7/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Sun Jan 22 19:43:41 2017
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 17:43:41 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
	tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <4203F936-E37A-475E-980B-A13338DF6173@toast.net>

Hi Kathy,

I'm happy to endorse these as NCSG comments. 

Best,

Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Jan 2017, at 17:39, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi All, 
> On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment: Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. Staff's idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of Silly Walks! 
> I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really bad idea.
> 
> The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?    
> 
> Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these comments once we have approval? 
> 
> Best, Kathy
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
> 
> Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
> 
> The comments below strongly support the cries of John Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the start. How this slide presentation made it to the level of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious issues and PDPs before us.
> 
> In all seriousness, let us share that:
> 
> SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly supportable;
> BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to issues that need careful and balanced review, consideration and evaluation is, as you have been told in other comments, DANGEROUS:
> 1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name to a certain situation implies it is a problem. For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data) delves into difficulties we have been exploring for over 15 years: of privacy and data protection protections and laws not                 currently allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of legitimate exercises of Free Expression by individuals and organizations operating in opposition to oppressive regimes and governments who would jail them for their views (or worse); of students who have no phones, but do have computers, Internet connections and ideas that to share via domain names. This data is not a disease, but a complex policy discussion and concern.
> 2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name atop an area of serious research, study and evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages the robustness of the debate, and makes it more difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the issues.
> 3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research area with a silly name. It diminishes the work of many years and the good faith efforts of numerous task forces, working groups and committees.
> 
> The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not appreciate the attention and intensity of the debate. We are technologists, lawyers, registration industry members and other Community members who have become policy           makers. We look at facts, situations, data and evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time and discussions to label them with silly names.
> 
> Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for the materials that are the basis of your question. The 5 disease names that have been created impose prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
> 
> Best,
> NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170122/e6f9bdd1/attachment-0001.html>


From icann  Sun Jan 22 20:43:31 2017
From: icann (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:43:31 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
	tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <4203F936-E37A-475E-980B-A13338DF6173@toast.net>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<4203F936-E37A-475E-980B-A13338DF6173@toast.net>
Message-ID: <xcfObs3wf_ly7ILWHLc_C4qyVrDlcr0Ol-nhsTHyr06nZvD1B2NXcRW01pQhiEh76Xr9N_kqPKRTIxxJWulhgOUE1dksr3u58bELNuxj0RQ=@ferdeline.com>

I fully support these comments as well. Publicly recording my personal thanks to you, Kathy, for taking the time and making the effort to write this response to that infantile document that ICANN staff for some reason had the resources to produce. Thanks again.



Ayden F?rdeline
[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Local Time: 22 January 2017 5:43 PM
UTC Time: 22 January 2017 17:43
From: egmorris1 at toast.net
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>

Hi Kathy,

I'm happy to endorse these as NCSG comments.

Best,

Ed Morris


Sent from my iPhone


On 22 Jan 2017, at 17:39, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:


Hi All,


On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment: Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. Staff's idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of Silly Walks!


I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really bad idea.

The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing

Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?

Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these comments once we have approval?
Best, Kathy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en





Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.





The comments below strongly support the cries of John Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the start. How this slide presentation made it to the level of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious issues and PDPs before us.





In all seriousness, let us share that:





-
SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly supportable;


-
BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to issues that need careful and balanced review, consideration and evaluation is, as you have been told in other comments, DANGEROUS:



1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name to a certain situation implies it is a problem. For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data) delves into difficulties we have been exploring for over 15 years: of privacy and data protection protections and laws not currently allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of legitimate exercises of Free Expression by individuals and organizations operating in opposition to oppressive regimes and governments who would jail them for their views (or worse); of students who have no phones, but do have computers, Internet connections and ideas that to share via domain names. This data is not a disease, but a complex policy discussion and concern.





2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name atop an area of serious research, study and evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages the robustness of the debate, and makes it more difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the issues.


3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research area with a silly name. It diminishes the work of many years and the good faith efforts of numerous task forces, working groups and committees.






The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not appreciate the attention and intensity of the debate. We are technologists, lawyers, registration industry members and other Community members who have become policy makers. We look at facts, situations, data and evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time and discussions to label them with silly names.





Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for the materials that are the basis of your question. The 5 disease names that have been created impose prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The answer is ?no.?





Best,





NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned






_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170122/2e12d54e/attachment.html>


From mshears  Sun Jan 22 21:40:02 2017
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:40:02 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
 tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>

Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights. Thanks.  
Matthew


On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would draft a 
> short set of comments on the Open Public Comment: /Identifier 
> Technology Health Indicators: Definition. /Staff's idea here is to 
> assign made up "disease names" to policy issues and concerns. On the 
> PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the view that this is an utterly 
> ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this proposal is straight out of Monty 
> Python and the Ministry of Silly Walks!
>
> I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view that 
> the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of issues we 
> work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior comments of 
> James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill and IAB Chair Andrew 
> Sullivan in sharing that this is a really bad idea.
>
> The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>
> /Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can submit 
> these comments by the deadline tomorrow?
>
> Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these 
> comments once we have approval? //
> /
> Best, Kathy
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>         Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition
>
>         https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
>
>
>         Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse of the
>         time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who have to stop
>         their lives to respond to them. I think we should create a
>         name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
>
>
>         The comments below strongly support the cries of John
>         Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in
>         setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not deserve
>         consideration and should be eliminated at the start. How this
>         slide presentation made it to the level of a poorly-presented
>         public comment is beyond the understanding of those reviewing
>         it ? we have serious issues and PDPs before us.
>
>
>         In all seriousness, let us share that:
>
>
>          *
>
>             SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly
>             supportable;
>
>          *
>
>             BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to issues
>             that need /careful and balanced /review, consideration and
>             evaluation is, as you have been told in other comments,
>             DANGEROUS:
>
>                 1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name to a
>                 certain situation implies it is a problem. For
>                 example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data) delves into
>                 difficulties we have been exploring for over 15 years:
>                 of privacy and data protection protections and laws
>                 not currently allowed to be implemented by Registrars,
>                 of legitimate exercises of Free Expression by
>                 individuals and organizations operating in opposition
>                 to oppressive regimes and governments who would jail
>                 them for their views (or worse); of students who have
>                 no phones, but do have computers, Internet connections
>                 and ideas that to share via domain names. This data is
>                 not a disease, but a complex policy discussion and
>                 concern.
>
>                 2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name atop an
>                 area of serious research, study and evaluation
>                 minimizes the problems, discourages the robustness of
>                 the debate, and makes it more difficult to fully
>                 evaluate and resolve the issues.
>
>                 3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research area with
>                 a silly name. It diminishes the work of many years and
>                 the good faith efforts of numerous task forces,
>                 working groups and committees.
>
>
>         The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea either
>         was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not appreciate the
>         attention and intensity of the debate. We are technologists,
>         lawyers, registration industry members and other Community
>         members who have become policy makers. We look at facts,
>         situations, data and evidence. It destroy and diminishes our
>         efforts, time and discussions to label them with silly names.
>
>
>         Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have asked
>         us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for the
>         materials that are the basis of your question. The 5 disease
>         names that have been created impose prejudicial
>         interpretations on debates within the scope of ICANN, and ask
>         us to go far beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
>
>
>         Best,
>
>         NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170122/5f850c59/attachment-0001.html>


From kathy  Sun Jan 22 22:03:09 2017
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:03:09 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
 tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>

Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing -- 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing


On 1/22/2017 2:40 PM, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights. Thanks.  
> Matthew
>
>
> On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would draft a 
>> short set of comments on the Open Public Comment: /Identifier 
>> Technology Health Indicators: Definition. /Staff's idea here is to 
>> assign made up "disease names" to policy issues and concerns. On the 
>> PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the view that this is an utterly 
>> ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this proposal is straight out of Monty 
>> Python and the Ministry of Silly Walks!
>>
>> I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view that 
>> the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of issues we 
>> work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior comments of 
>> James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill and IAB Chair 
>> Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really bad idea.
>>
>> The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> /Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can submit 
>> these comments by the deadline tomorrow?
>>
>> Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these 
>> comments once we have approval? //
>> /
>> Best, Kathy
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>         Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition
>>
>>         https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
>>
>>
>>         Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse of the
>>         time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who have to stop
>>         their lives to respond to them. I think we should create a
>>         name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
>>
>>
>>         The comments below strongly support the cries of John
>>         Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in
>>         setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not deserve
>>         consideration and should be eliminated at the start. How this
>>         slide presentation made it to the level of a poorly-presented
>>         public comment is beyond the understanding of those reviewing
>>         it ? we have serious issues and PDPs before us.
>>
>>
>>         In all seriousness, let us share that:
>>
>>
>>          *
>>
>>             SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly
>>             supportable;
>>
>>          *
>>
>>             BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to
>>             issues that need /careful and balanced /review,
>>             consideration and evaluation is, as you have been told in
>>             other comments, DANGEROUS:
>>
>>                 1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name to a
>>                 certain situation implies it is a problem. For
>>                 example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data) delves into
>>                 difficulties we have been exploring for over 15
>>                 years: of privacy and data protection protections and
>>                 laws not currently allowed to be implemented by
>>                 Registrars, of legitimate exercises of Free
>>                 Expression by individuals and organizations operating
>>                 in opposition to oppressive regimes and governments
>>                 who would jail them for their views (or worse); of
>>                 students who have no phones, but do have computers,
>>                 Internet connections and ideas that to share via
>>                 domain names. This data is not a disease, but a
>>                 complex policy discussion and concern.
>>
>>                 2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name atop an
>>                 area of serious research, study and evaluation
>>                 minimizes the problems, discourages the robustness of
>>                 the debate, and makes it more difficult to fully
>>                 evaluate and resolve the issues.
>>
>>                 3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research area
>>                 with a silly name. It diminishes the work of many
>>                 years and the good faith efforts of numerous task
>>                 forces, working groups and committees.
>>
>>
>>         The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea
>>         either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not appreciate
>>         the attention and intensity of the debate. We are
>>         technologists, lawyers, registration industry members and
>>         other Community members who have become policy makers. We
>>         look at facts, situations, data and evidence. It destroy and
>>         diminishes our efforts, time and discussions to label them
>>         with silly names.
>>
>>
>>         Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have
>>         asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for
>>         the materials that are the basis of your question. The 5
>>         disease names that have been created impose prejudicial
>>         interpretations on debates within the scope of ICANN, and ask
>>         us to go far beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
>>
>>
>>         Best,
>>
>>         NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170122/e04027c4/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Jan 23 02:54:43 2017
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:54:43 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
	tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
	<0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I read other submitted comments and there is a clear opposition to the
proposal.
I am fine with supporting the statement submission, but I made a small
comment there. I think we are clear in expressing our objection but maybe
avoiding any unnecessary perceived aggressivity.

Best,

Rafik

2017-01-23 5:03 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>:

> Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing -- https://docs.google.com/
> document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>
> On 1/22/2017 2:40 PM, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights.  Thanks.
> Matthew
>
> On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would draft a
> short set of comments on the Open Public Comment: *Identifier Technology
> Health Indicators: Definition. *Staff's idea here is to assign made up
> "disease names" to policy issues and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew
> Shears and I shared the view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal.
> Frankly, this proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of
> Silly Walks!
>
> I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view that the
> proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of issues we work on.
> In this comment, we are supporting the prior comments of James Gannon
> (individual comment), John Berryhill and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in
> sharing that this is a really bad idea.
> The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg
> 7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> *Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can submit these
> comments by the deadline tomorrow?    Tapani, could you kindly add the
> appropriate sign off to these comments once we have approval? *
>
> Best, Kathy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
>
>
> Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse of the time of
> volunteers in the ICANN Community who have to stop their lives to respond
> to them. I think we should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
>
>
> The comments below strongly support the cries of John Berryhill, IAB Chair
> Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in setting forth that sometimes a comment
> topic does not deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the start.
> How this slide presentation made it to the level of a poorly-presented
> public comment is beyond the understanding of those reviewing it ? we have
> serious issues and PDPs before us.
>
>
> In all seriousness, let us share that:
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly supportable;
>    -
>
>    BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to issues that need *careful
>    and balanced *review, consideration and evaluation is, as you have
>    been told in other comments, DANGEROUS:
>
>       1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name to a certain
>       situation implies it is a problem. For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad
>       Data) delves into difficulties we have been exploring for over 15 years: of
>       privacy and data protection protections and laws not currently allowed to
>       be implemented by Registrars, of legitimate exercises of Free Expression by
>       individuals and organizations operating in opposition to oppressive regimes
>       and governments who would jail them for their views (or worse); of students
>       who have no phones, but do have computers, Internet connections and ideas
>       that to share via domain names. This data is not a disease, but a complex
>       policy discussion and concern.
>
>       2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name atop an area of
>       serious research, study and evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages
>       the robustness of the debate, and makes it more difficult to fully evaluate
>       and resolve the issues.
>
>       3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research area with a silly
>       name. It diminishes the work of many years and the good faith efforts of
>       numerous task forces, working groups and committees.
>
>
> The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea either was either
> a) new to ICANN or b) does not appreciate the attention and intensity of
> the debate. We are technologists, lawyers, registration industry members
> and other Community members who have become policy makers. We look at
> facts, situations, data and evidence. It destroy and diminishes our
> efforts, time and discussions to label them with silly names.
>
>
> Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have asked us
> (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for the materials that are
> the basis of your question. The 5 disease names that have been created
> impose prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope of ICANN,
> and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
>
>
> Best,
>
> NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170123/6262b62f/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Mon Jan 23 09:38:21 2017
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:38:21 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
 tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
	<0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
	<CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b4be7e2d-e883-ce57-9c77-5704788a6f4d@cdt.org>

Agree with Rafik's comment.


On 23/01/2017 00:54, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I read other submitted comments and there is a clear opposition to the 
> proposal.
> I am fine with supporting the statement submission, but I made a small 
> comment there. I think we are clear in expressing our objection but 
> maybe avoiding any unnecessary perceived aggressivity.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-01-23 5:03 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
>
>     Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing --
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>
>
>     On 1/22/2017 2:40 PM, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights. 
>>     Thanks.  Matthew
>>
>>
>>     On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi All,
>>>
>>>     On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would
>>>     draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment:
>>>     /Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. /Staff's
>>>     idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues
>>>     and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the
>>>     view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this
>>>     proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of
>>>     Silly Walks!
>>>
>>>     I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view
>>>     that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of
>>>     issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior
>>>     comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill
>>>     and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really
>>>     bad idea.
>>>
>>>     The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at
>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>
>>>     /Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can
>>>     submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?
>>>
>>>     Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these
>>>     comments once we have approval? //
>>>     /
>>>     Best, Kathy
>>>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>             Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators:
>>>             Definition
>>>
>>>             https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
>>>             <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en>
>>>
>>>
>>>             Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse
>>>             of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who
>>>             have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we
>>>             should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
>>>
>>>
>>>             The comments below strongly support the cries of John
>>>             Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in
>>>             setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not
>>>             deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the
>>>             start. How this slide presentation made it to the level
>>>             of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the
>>>             understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious
>>>             issues and PDPs before us.
>>>
>>>
>>>             In all seriousness, let us share that:
>>>
>>>
>>>              *
>>>
>>>                 SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly
>>>                 supportable;
>>>
>>>              *
>>>
>>>                 BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to
>>>                 issues that need /careful and balanced /review,
>>>                 consideration and evaluation is, as you have been
>>>                 told in other comments, DANGEROUS:
>>>
>>>                     1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name
>>>                     to a certain situation implies it is a problem.
>>>                     For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data)
>>>                     delves into difficulties we have been exploring
>>>                     for over 15 years: of privacy and data
>>>                     protection protections and laws not currently
>>>                     allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of
>>>                     legitimate exercises of Free Expression by
>>>                     individuals and organizations operating in
>>>                     opposition to oppressive regimes and governments
>>>                     who would jail them for their views (or worse);
>>>                     of students who have no phones, but do have
>>>                     computers, Internet connections and ideas that
>>>                     to share via domain names. This data is not a
>>>                     disease, but a complex policy discussion and
>>>                     concern.
>>>
>>>                     2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name
>>>                     atop an area of serious research, study and
>>>                     evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages
>>>                     the robustness of the debate, and makes it more
>>>                     difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the issues.
>>>
>>>                     3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research
>>>                     area with a silly name. It diminishes the work
>>>                     of many years and the good faith efforts of
>>>                     numerous task forces, working groups and committees.
>>>
>>>
>>>             The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea
>>>             either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not
>>>             appreciate the attention and intensity of the debate. We
>>>             are technologists, lawyers, registration industry
>>>             members and other Community members who have become
>>>             policy makers. We look at facts, situations, data and
>>>             evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time
>>>             and discussions to label them with silly names.
>>>
>>>
>>>             Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have
>>>             asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation
>>>             for the materials that are the basis of your question.
>>>             The 5 disease names that have been created impose
>>>             prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope
>>>             of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of
>>>             ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
>>>
>>>
>>>             Best,
>>>
>>>             NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>     -- 
>>     ------------
>>     Matthew Shears
>>     Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>     Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>     + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>     _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>     list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg> 
>
-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170123/24c9a4b0/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Jan 23 10:15:10 2017
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:15:10 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
 tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <b4be7e2d-e883-ce57-9c77-5704788a6f4d@cdt.org>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
	<0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
	<CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<b4be7e2d-e883-ce57-9c77-5704788a6f4d@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <20170123081510.3owtldsg43ki3doo@tarvainen.info>

Yes. I would be OK with the statement with or without the statement
Rafik marked as aggressive, but it's probably better without it.

Tapani

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:38:21AM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:

> Agree with Rafik's comment.
> 
> 
> On 23/01/2017 00:54, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I read other submitted comments and there is a clear opposition to the
> > proposal.
> > I am fine with supporting the statement submission, but I made a small
> > comment there. I think we are clear in expressing our objection but
> > maybe avoiding any unnecessary perceived aggressivity.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Rafik
> > 
> > 2017-01-23 5:03 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
> > <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
> > 
> >     Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing --
> >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
> > 
> > 
> >     On 1/22/2017 2:40 PM, matthew shears wrote:
> > > 
> > >     Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights.
> > > Thanks.  Matthew
> > > 
> > > 
> > >     On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >     Hi All,
> > > > 
> > > >     On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would
> > > >     draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment:
> > > >     /Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. /Staff's
> > > >     idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues
> > > >     and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the
> > > >     view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this
> > > >     proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of
> > > >     Silly Walks!
> > > > 
> > > >     I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view
> > > >     that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of
> > > >     issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior
> > > >     comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill
> > > >     and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really
> > > >     bad idea.
> > > > 
> > > >     The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at
> > > >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
> > > >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
> > > > 
> > > >     /Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can
> > > >     submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?
> > > > 
> > > >     Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these
> > > >     comments once we have approval? //
> > > >     /
> > > >     Best, Kathy
> > > >     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >             Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators:
> > > >             Definition
> > > > 
> > > >             https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
> > > >             <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >             Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse
> > > >             of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who
> > > >             have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we
> > > >             should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >             The comments below strongly support the cries of John
> > > >             Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in
> > > >             setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not
> > > >             deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the
> > > >             start. How this slide presentation made it to the level
> > > >             of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the
> > > >             understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious
> > > >             issues and PDPs before us.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >             In all seriousness, let us share that:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >              *
> > > > 
> > > >                 SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly
> > > >                 supportable;
> > > > 
> > > >              *
> > > > 
> > > >                 BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to
> > > >                 issues that need /careful and balanced /review,
> > > >                 consideration and evaluation is, as you have been
> > > >                 told in other comments, DANGEROUS:
> > > > 
> > > >                     1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name
> > > >                     to a certain situation implies it is a problem.
> > > >                     For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data)
> > > >                     delves into difficulties we have been exploring
> > > >                     for over 15 years: of privacy and data
> > > >                     protection protections and laws not currently
> > > >                     allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of
> > > >                     legitimate exercises of Free Expression by
> > > >                     individuals and organizations operating in
> > > >                     opposition to oppressive regimes and governments
> > > >                     who would jail them for their views (or worse);
> > > >                     of students who have no phones, but do have
> > > >                     computers, Internet connections and ideas that
> > > >                     to share via domain names. This data is not a
> > > >                     disease, but a complex policy discussion and
> > > >                     concern.
> > > > 
> > > >                     2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name
> > > >                     atop an area of serious research, study and
> > > >                     evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages
> > > >                     the robustness of the debate, and makes it more
> > > >                     difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the issues.
> > > > 
> > > >                     3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research
> > > >                     area with a silly name. It diminishes the work
> > > >                     of many years and the good faith efforts of
> > > >                     numerous task forces, working groups and committees.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >             The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea
> > > >             either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not
> > > >             appreciate the attention and intensity of the debate. We
> > > >             are technologists, lawyers, registration industry
> > > >             members and other Community members who have become
> > > >             policy makers. We look at facts, situations, data and
> > > >             evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time
> > > >             and discussions to label them with silly names.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >             Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have
> > > >             asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation
> > > >             for the materials that are the basis of your question.
> > > >             The 5 disease names that have been created impose
> > > >             prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope
> > > >             of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of
> > > >             ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >             Best,
> > > > 
> > > >             NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >     _______________________________________________
> > > >     PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > >     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > > >     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > > >     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> > >     --     ------------
> > >     Matthew Shears
> > >     Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> > >     Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> > >     + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
> >     _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
> >     list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> > 
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987



From kathy  Mon Jan 23 16:54:02 2017
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:54:02 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
 tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <20170123081510.3owtldsg43ki3doo@tarvainen.info>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
	<0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
	<CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<b4be7e2d-e883-ce57-9c77-5704788a6f4d@cdt.org>
	<20170123081510.3owtldsg43ki3doo@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <5610dd62-5e43-ae0b-4870-60e956447dec@kathykleiman.com>

Tx for all the reviews. Sentence of concern now removed.  Ready for launch?

Best, Kathy

On 1/23/2017 3:15 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Yes. I would be OK with the statement with or without the statement
> Rafik marked as aggressive, but it's probably better without it.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:38:21AM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>
>> Agree with Rafik's comment.
>>
>>
>> On 23/01/2017 00:54, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I read other submitted comments and there is a clear opposition to the
>>> proposal.
>>> I am fine with supporting the statement submission, but I made a small
>>> comment there. I think we are clear in expressing our objection but
>>> maybe avoiding any unnecessary perceived aggressivity.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-01-23 5:03 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
>>>
>>>      Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing --
>>>      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>
>>>
>>>      On 1/22/2017 2:40 PM, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>      Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights.
>>>> Thanks.  Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>      Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>>      On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would
>>>>>      draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment:
>>>>>      /Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. /Staff's
>>>>>      idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues
>>>>>      and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the
>>>>>      view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this
>>>>>      proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of
>>>>>      Silly Walks!
>>>>>
>>>>>      I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view
>>>>>      that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of
>>>>>      issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior
>>>>>      comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill
>>>>>      and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really
>>>>>      bad idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>      The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at
>>>>>      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>
>>>>>      /Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can
>>>>>      submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?
>>>>>
>>>>>      Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these
>>>>>      comments once we have approval? //
>>>>>      /
>>>>>      Best, Kathy
>>>>>      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>              Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators:
>>>>>              Definition
>>>>>
>>>>>              https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
>>>>>              <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>              Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse
>>>>>              of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who
>>>>>              have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we
>>>>>              should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>              The comments below strongly support the cries of John
>>>>>              Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in
>>>>>              setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not
>>>>>              deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the
>>>>>              start. How this slide presentation made it to the level
>>>>>              of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the
>>>>>              understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious
>>>>>              issues and PDPs before us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>              In all seriousness, let us share that:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>               *
>>>>>
>>>>>                  SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly
>>>>>                  supportable;
>>>>>
>>>>>               *
>>>>>
>>>>>                  BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to
>>>>>                  issues that need /careful and balanced /review,
>>>>>                  consideration and evaluation is, as you have been
>>>>>                  told in other comments, DANGEROUS:
>>>>>
>>>>>                      1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name
>>>>>                      to a certain situation implies it is a problem.
>>>>>                      For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data)
>>>>>                      delves into difficulties we have been exploring
>>>>>                      for over 15 years: of privacy and data
>>>>>                      protection protections and laws not currently
>>>>>                      allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of
>>>>>                      legitimate exercises of Free Expression by
>>>>>                      individuals and organizations operating in
>>>>>                      opposition to oppressive regimes and governments
>>>>>                      who would jail them for their views (or worse);
>>>>>                      of students who have no phones, but do have
>>>>>                      computers, Internet connections and ideas that
>>>>>                      to share via domain names. This data is not a
>>>>>                      disease, but a complex policy discussion and
>>>>>                      concern.
>>>>>
>>>>>                      2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name
>>>>>                      atop an area of serious research, study and
>>>>>                      evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages
>>>>>                      the robustness of the debate, and makes it more
>>>>>                      difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>                      3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research
>>>>>                      area with a silly name. It diminishes the work
>>>>>                      of many years and the good faith efforts of
>>>>>                      numerous task forces, working groups and committees.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>              The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea
>>>>>              either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not
>>>>>              appreciate the attention and intensity of the debate. We
>>>>>              are technologists, lawyers, registration industry
>>>>>              members and other Community members who have become
>>>>>              policy makers. We look at facts, situations, data and
>>>>>              evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time
>>>>>              and discussions to label them with silly names.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>              Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have
>>>>>              asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation
>>>>>              for the materials that are the basis of your question.
>>>>>              The 5 disease names that have been created impose
>>>>>              prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope
>>>>>              of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of
>>>>>              ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>              Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>              NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>>>      PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>      PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>      http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>      <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>      --     ------------
>>>>      Matthew Shears
>>>>      Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>      Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>      + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>      _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>      list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>      http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>      <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>
>> -- 
>> ------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mshears  Mon Jan 23 16:59:59 2017
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:59:59 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
 tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <5610dd62-5e43-ae0b-4870-60e956447dec@kathykleiman.com>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
	<0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
	<CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<b4be7e2d-e883-ce57-9c77-5704788a6f4d@cdt.org>
	<20170123081510.3owtldsg43ki3doo@tarvainen.info>
	<5610dd62-5e43-ae0b-4870-60e956447dec@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <7e50e940-81fb-bc95-4d6d-d398dd22613a@cdt.org>

Works for me.


On 23/01/2017 14:54, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Tx for all the reviews. Sentence of concern now removed.  Ready for 
> launch?
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 1/23/2017 3:15 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Yes. I would be OK with the statement with or without the statement
>> Rafik marked as aggressive, but it's probably better without it.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:38:21AM +0000, matthew shears 
>> (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>>
>>> Agree with Rafik's comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/01/2017 00:54, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I read other submitted comments and there is a clear opposition to the
>>>> proposal.
>>>> I am fine with supporting the statement submission, but I made a small
>>>> comment there. I think we are clear in expressing our objection but
>>>> maybe avoiding any unnecessary perceived aggressivity.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-01-23 5:03 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>      Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing --
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      On 1/22/2017 2:40 PM, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>>      Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights.
>>>>> Thanks.  Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>>      Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would
>>>>>>      draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment:
>>>>>>      /Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. /Staff's
>>>>>>      idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues
>>>>>>      and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the
>>>>>>      view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this
>>>>>>      proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of
>>>>>>      Silly Walks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view
>>>>>>      that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the 
>>>>>> types of
>>>>>>      issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior
>>>>>>      comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill
>>>>>>      and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really
>>>>>>      bad idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      /Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can
>>>>>>      submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these
>>>>>>      comments once we have approval? //
>>>>>>      /
>>>>>>      Best, Kathy
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators:
>>>>>>              Definition
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
>>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse
>>>>>>              of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who
>>>>>>              have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we
>>>>>>              should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              The comments below strongly support the cries of John
>>>>>>              Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James 
>>>>>> Gannon in
>>>>>>              setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not
>>>>>>              deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the
>>>>>>              start. How this slide presentation made it to the level
>>>>>>              of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the
>>>>>>              understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious
>>>>>>              issues and PDPs before us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              In all seriousness, let us share that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>               *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                  SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly
>>>>>>                  supportable;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>               *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                  BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to
>>>>>>                  issues that need /careful and balanced /review,
>>>>>>                  consideration and evaluation is, as you have been
>>>>>>                  told in other comments, DANGEROUS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                      1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name
>>>>>>                      to a certain situation implies it is a problem.
>>>>>>                      For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data)
>>>>>>                      delves into difficulties we have been exploring
>>>>>>                      for over 15 years: of privacy and data
>>>>>>                      protection protections and laws not currently
>>>>>>                      allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of
>>>>>>                      legitimate exercises of Free Expression by
>>>>>>                      individuals and organizations operating in
>>>>>>                      opposition to oppressive regimes and 
>>>>>> governments
>>>>>>                      who would jail them for their views (or worse);
>>>>>>                      of students who have no phones, but do have
>>>>>>                      computers, Internet connections and ideas that
>>>>>>                      to share via domain names. This data is not a
>>>>>>                      disease, but a complex policy discussion and
>>>>>>                      concern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                      2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name
>>>>>>                      atop an area of serious research, study and
>>>>>>                      evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages
>>>>>>                      the robustness of the debate, and makes it more
>>>>>>                      difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the 
>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                      3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research
>>>>>>                      area with a silly name. It diminishes the work
>>>>>>                      of many years and the good faith efforts of
>>>>>>                      numerous task forces, working groups and 
>>>>>> committees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea
>>>>>>              either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not
>>>>>>              appreciate the attention and intensity of the 
>>>>>> debate. We
>>>>>>              are technologists, lawyers, registration industry
>>>>>>              members and other Community members who have become
>>>>>>              policy makers. We look at facts, situations, data and
>>>>>>              evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time
>>>>>>              and discussions to label them with silly names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>              asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide 
>>>>>> presentation
>>>>>>              for the materials that are the basis of your question.
>>>>>>              The 5 disease names that have been created impose
>>>>>>              prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope
>>>>>>              of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of
>>>>>>              ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>>>>      PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>      PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>      http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>>      --     ------------
>>>>>      Matthew Shears
>>>>>      Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>      Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>      + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>>      _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>>      list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>      http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>      <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ------------
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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




From icann  Mon Jan 23 17:40:07 2017
From: icann (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:40:07 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
	tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <7e50e940-81fb-bc95-4d6d-d398dd22613a@cdt.org>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
	<0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
	<CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<b4be7e2d-e883-ce57-9c77-5704788a6f4d@cdt.org>
	<20170123081510.3owtldsg43ki3doo@tarvainen.info>
	<5610dd62-5e43-ae0b-4870-60e956447dec@kathykleiman.com>
	<7e50e940-81fb-bc95-4d6d-d398dd22613a@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <xooHpZzLXArcIG_EhAv4i1w-ERWs0TeUWfrvudTWpMa5RCqAy7AgesNHciUerucjBnfNoFxf3GW3scgHFzvQsSRbXin2yJthCAbA0FkTJ78=@ferdeline.com>

This is by no means a strong objection ? but in the pursuit of more diplomatic language, the current version of this document has, in my view, lost the forcefulness of the original version in rejecting the ridiculous Identifier Technology Health Indicators. And I think the original, wittier response read better.



Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Local Time: 23 January 2017 2:59 PM
UTC Time: 23 January 2017 14:59
From: mshears at cdt.org
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org

Works for me.


On 23/01/2017 14:54, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Tx for all the reviews. Sentence of concern now removed. Ready for
> launch?
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 1/23/2017 3:15 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Yes. I would be OK with the statement with or without the statement
>> Rafik marked as aggressive, but it's probably better without it.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:38:21AM +0000, matthew shears
>> (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>>
>>> Agree with Rafik's comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/01/2017 00:54, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I read other submitted comments and there is a clear opposition to the
>>>> proposal.
>>>> I am fine with supporting the statement submission, but I made a small
>>>> comment there. I think we are clear in expressing our objection but
>>>> maybe avoiding any unnecessary perceived aggressivity.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-01-23 5:03 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing --
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/22/2017 2:40 PM, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights.
>>>>> Thanks. Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would
>>>>>> draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment:
>>>>>> /Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. /Staff's
>>>>>> idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues
>>>>>> and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the
>>>>>> view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this
>>>>>> proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of
>>>>>> Silly Walks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view
>>>>>> that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the
>>>>>> types of
>>>>>> issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior
>>>>>> comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill
>>>>>> and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really
>>>>>> bad idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can
>>>>>> submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these
>>>>>> comments once we have approval? //
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators:
>>>>>> Definition
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
>>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse
>>>>>> of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who
>>>>>> have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we
>>>>>> should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The comments below strongly support the cries of John
>>>>>> Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James
>>>>>> Gannon in
>>>>>> setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not
>>>>>> deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the
>>>>>> start. How this slide presentation made it to the level
>>>>>> of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the
>>>>>> understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious
>>>>>> issues and PDPs before us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In all seriousness, let us share that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly
>>>>>> supportable;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to
>>>>>> issues that need /careful and balanced /review,
>>>>>> consideration and evaluation is, as you have been
>>>>>> told in other comments, DANGEROUS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name
>>>>>> to a certain situation implies it is a problem.
>>>>>> For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data)
>>>>>> delves into difficulties we have been exploring
>>>>>> for over 15 years: of privacy and data
>>>>>> protection protections and laws not currently
>>>>>> allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of
>>>>>> legitimate exercises of Free Expression by
>>>>>> individuals and organizations operating in
>>>>>> opposition to oppressive regimes and
>>>>>> governments
>>>>>> who would jail them for their views (or worse);
>>>>>> of students who have no phones, but do have
>>>>>> computers, Internet connections and ideas that
>>>>>> to share via domain names. This data is not a
>>>>>> disease, but a complex policy discussion and
>>>>>> concern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name
>>>>>> atop an area of serious research, study and
>>>>>> evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages
>>>>>> the robustness of the debate, and makes it more
>>>>>> difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the
>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research
>>>>>> area with a silly name. It diminishes the work
>>>>>> of many years and the good faith efforts of
>>>>>> numerous task forces, working groups and
>>>>>> committees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea
>>>>>> either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not
>>>>>> appreciate the attention and intensity of the
>>>>>> debate. We
>>>>>> are technologists, lawyers, registration industry
>>>>>> members and other Community members who have become
>>>>>> policy makers. We look at facts, situations, data and
>>>>>> evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time
>>>>>> and discussions to label them with silly names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide
>>>>>> presentation
>>>>>> for the materials that are the basis of your question.
>>>>>> The 5 disease names that have been created impose
>>>>>> prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope
>>>>>> of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of
>>>>>> ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>> -- ------------
>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170123/1e0570f1/attachment-0001.html>


From icann  Mon Jan 23 19:30:43 2017
From: icann (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:30:43 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN58
In-Reply-To: <ba658b22-ab56-818a-cbfb-59513589a6b2@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <3EAFD474-AD52-4A34-B54D-503A4D07E0D7@icann.org>
	<ba658b22-ab56-818a-cbfb-59513589a6b2@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <m3jDGFErUiYrgeK8rN25_Ek0i_XeGS6-u5R_M60bf7lviurCK-uRTmz5itgWggreWcC4bR-1GktN3848i1I3uQ9kSz8C_RRfnUmzTpGaTSY=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks for forwarding this, Stephanie. c/c'ing the new list for archive purposes.

And I hope no one wants a coffee break on day one... looks like a rather busy day.



Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN58
Local Time: 19 January 2017 6:30 PM
UTC Time: 19 January 2017 18:30
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>






Here is the revised GNSO schedule. Not sure of new address, hope this arrives. Let me know if we have comments on this....
cheers SP

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:
[council] Updated GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN58

Date:
Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:21:38 +0000

From:
Mary Wong [<mary.wong at icann.org>](mailto:mary.wong at icann.org)

To:
council at gnso.icann.org [<council at gnso.icann.org>](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org)




Dear Councilors,





Following further discussion with the Council leadership, a few slight updates have been made to the previously-circulated Draft GNSO Block Schedule. Please use this version for your reference and consultation with your respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and for the Council call later today, thank you!





James and Donna ? please note that this version has a couple of minor tweaks from the one I circulated to you earlier (per some suggestions from Donna).





Cheers


Mary








Mary Wong


Senior Policy Director



Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)



Email: mary.wong at icann.org



Telephone: +1-603-5744889
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170123/4f652dc0/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Jan 23 22:01:50 2017
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 22:01:50 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
 tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <7e50e940-81fb-bc95-4d6d-d398dd22613a@cdt.org>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
	<0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
	<CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<b4be7e2d-e883-ce57-9c77-5704788a6f4d@cdt.org>
	<20170123081510.3owtldsg43ki3doo@tarvainen.info>
	<5610dd62-5e43-ae0b-4870-60e956447dec@kathykleiman.com>
	<7e50e940-81fb-bc95-4d6d-d398dd22613a@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <20170123200150.t4meu4ktq3mdghew@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

It seems to me there's enough of a consensus to submit this.

Counting PC members, I see Ayden, Ed, Rafik, Stephanie, Matthew
and myself in favour and nobody against.

As the Google Docs text has lived a little, I'll copy the current
version below. If nobody objects in an hour, I'll submit it on behalf
of NCSG.


Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition

Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group

Unfortunately this initiative is fundamentally flawed and distracting
from actual and substantive work at ICANN. This comment period ranks
as a complete abuse of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community
who have to stop their lives, and take time away from more substantive
issues and PDPs to respond to them. The comments below strongly
support the cries of John Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and
James Gannon in setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not
deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the start. This
said, let us share that:

* SSAC wants metrics of the DNS and that is certainly supportable;

* BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to issues that need
  careful and balanced review, consideration and evaluation is, as you
  have been told in other comments, DANGEROUS:

1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name to a certain situation
implies it is a problem. For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data)
delves into difficulties we have been exploring for over 15 years: of
privacy and data protection protections and laws not currently allowed
to be implemented by Registrars, of legitimate exercises of Free
Expression by individuals and organizations operating in opposition to
oppressive regimes and governments who would jail them for their views
(or worse); of students who have no phones, but do have computers,
Internet connections and ideas that to share via domain names. This
data is not a disease, but a complex policy discussion and concern.

2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name atop an area of serious
research, study and evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages the
robustness of the debate, and makes it more difficult to fully
evaluate and resolve the issues.

3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research area with a silly name.
It diminishes the work of many years and the good faith efforts of
numerous task forces, working groups and committees. The answer here
is simple. We are technologists, lawyers, registration industry
members and other Community members who have become policy makers. We
look at facts, situations, data and evidence. It destroy and
diminishes our efforts, time and discussions to label them with silly
names. Overall, this is a poorly presented comment ? you have asked us
(Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for the materials that
are the basis of your question. The 5 disease names that have been
created impose prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope
of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The
answer is "no."

Respectfully submitted,

NonCommercial Stakeholders Group

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From ncsg  Mon Jan 23 23:23:53 2017
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:23:53 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline
 tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <20170123200150.t4meu4ktq3mdghew@tarvainen.info>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
	<5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
	<0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
	<CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<b4be7e2d-e883-ce57-9c77-5704788a6f4d@cdt.org>
	<20170123081510.3owtldsg43ki3doo@tarvainen.info>
	<5610dd62-5e43-ae0b-4870-60e956447dec@kathykleiman.com>
	<7e50e940-81fb-bc95-4d6d-d398dd22613a@cdt.org>
	<20170123200150.t4meu4ktq3mdghew@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20170123212353.h5abyvbbbhp3wa5t@tarvainen.info>

Submitted. It should appear here in a few minutes:

https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ithi-definition-29nov16/

Tapani

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:01:50PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> It seems to me there's enough of a consensus to submit this.
> 
> Counting PC members, I see Ayden, Ed, Rafik, Stephanie, Matthew
> and myself in favour and nobody against.
> 
> As the Google Docs text has lived a little, I'll copy the current
> version below. If nobody objects in an hour, I'll submit it on behalf
> of NCSG.
> 
> 
> Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition
> 
> Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> Unfortunately this initiative is fundamentally flawed and distracting
> from actual and substantive work at ICANN. This comment period ranks
> as a complete abuse of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community
> who have to stop their lives, and take time away from more substantive
> issues and PDPs to respond to them. The comments below strongly
> support the cries of John Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and
> James Gannon in setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not
> deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the start. This
> said, let us share that:
> 
> * SSAC wants metrics of the DNS and that is certainly supportable;
> 
> * BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to issues that need
>   careful and balanced review, consideration and evaluation is, as you
>   have been told in other comments, DANGEROUS:
> 
> 1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name to a certain situation
> implies it is a problem. For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data)
> delves into difficulties we have been exploring for over 15 years: of
> privacy and data protection protections and laws not currently allowed
> to be implemented by Registrars, of legitimate exercises of Free
> Expression by individuals and organizations operating in opposition to
> oppressive regimes and governments who would jail them for their views
> (or worse); of students who have no phones, but do have computers,
> Internet connections and ideas that to share via domain names. This
> data is not a disease, but a complex policy discussion and concern.
> 
> 2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name atop an area of serious
> research, study and evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages the
> robustness of the debate, and makes it more difficult to fully
> evaluate and resolve the issues.
> 
> 3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research area with a silly name.
> It diminishes the work of many years and the good faith efforts of
> numerous task forces, working groups and committees. The answer here
> is simple. We are technologists, lawyers, registration industry
> members and other Community members who have become policy makers. We
> look at facts, situations, data and evidence. It destroy and
> diminishes our efforts, time and discussions to label them with silly
> names. Overall, this is a poorly presented comment ? you have asked us
> (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for the materials that
> are the basis of your question. The 5 disease names that have been
> created impose prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope
> of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The
> answer is "no."
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> 
> NonCommercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen



From egmorris1  Mon Jan 30 23:46:11 2017
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:46:11 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Selection Standard Committee meeting
Message-ID: <586a1c69cf8c4f90a32a374b1ee2d8d6@toast.net>

Hi everybody,
  
 ?I wanted to keep everyone in the loop about progress with the small group of Councillors trying to put together a standard selection process for future GNSO appointments.
  
 The group, consisting of James Bladel, Donna Austin, Heather Forrest, Susan Kawaguchi and myself, met tonight for the first time since the SSR selection. We went through the appointments policy Susan and I had proposed and, in general terms, came up with some proposed  tweaks and changes based upon our experiences with the SSR selection process. Staff will be incorporating aspects of our conversation into our document and the group will meet again early next week to move things along.
  
 I should note that one of the areas of the proposal that I expect will be brought before the full Council for consideration will be the composition of the selection teams. We'll continue to discuss optimum size and diversity within the small group, but it is my sense that the Stakeholder Group versus Constituency basis of representation discussion will once again be brought before the full Council for consideration. 
  
 Nothing needs to be done at the moment - I just wanted to let the PC and my fellow Councillors know we continue to work on finalising a proposal. As we hope this procedural structure will outlast all of us we're committed to doing it right the first time for all time so are taking a more considered approach. I'm not sure we'll be ready with a final proposal before the next set of appointments so we may have to engage with an ad hoc appointment process one last time.  We'll have an update for the full Council at the February meeting and if anything of consequence happens before then I'll be sure to let everybody know. 
  
 Congratulations, once again, to James Gannon and Rao Naveed Bin Rais for obtaining GNSO endorsements for the SSR Review Team. We won't always get 100% of our applicants chosen for external GNSO appointments, but with a fair, equitable and transparent process I'm confident that the talent of our member volunteers will be recognised and tapped by the GNSO for future appointments for years to come.
  
 Kind Regards,
  
 Ed Morris 
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170130/8828604f/attachment.html>


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Jan 11 08:04:04 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:04:04 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Welcome, Ayden!
Message-ID: <20170111060404.6rzd4wx7tyr2ikqz@tarvainen.info>

As the first post to new PC list, I'd like to welcome Ayden Ferdeline
as the new NCUC representative. Welcome, Ayden!

Ayden replaces Tatiana Tropina in the role, but Tatiana remains on
the list as an observer, as we've used to do with old members,
and I hope she remains as active as ever.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Jan 11 10:54:48 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:54:48 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next policy calls: 17.1., 10.2.?
Message-ID: <20170111085448.GA18062@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Dear all,

Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the
17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable
alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in
particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't
make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day).

February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Jan 11 11:39:30 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:39:30 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next policy calls: 17.1., 10.2.?
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnLfRfnuvHsEc3k7bv=tfAu9BdnNGE9AtExoA-uVxg9CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170111085448.GA18062@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <CAH5sThnLfRfnuvHsEc3k7bv=tfAu9BdnNGE9AtExoA-uVxg9CA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnyuqOPBD0v+R9j0RxLE=aDDL7Z0NL+DxdLXfbfQ73M3Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani.

Thanks, is it possible to have the call at 13:00 or 14:00UTC?
Btw for GNSO WGs calls, they are listed in this calendar https://gnso.icann.
org/en/group-activities/calendar . CCWG subgroups can only use 3 slots
(5:00,13:00, 19:00UTC)  per day and can be avoided.
For the February, a call in Friday will be ok.
Best,

Rafik
On Jan 11, 2017 5:54 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

Dear all,

Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the
17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable
alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in
particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't
make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day).

February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.

--
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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170111/397573ba/attachment.htm>

From aelsadr at egyptig.org  Wed Jan 11 15:46:41 2017
From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:46:41 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next policy calls: 17.1., 10.2.?
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnyuqOPBD0v+R9j0RxLE=aDDL7Z0NL+DxdLXfbfQ73M3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170111085448.GA18062@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <CAH5sThnLfRfnuvHsEc3k7bv=tfAu9BdnNGE9AtExoA-uVxg9CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnyuqOPBD0v+R9j0RxLE=aDDL7Z0NL+DxdLXfbfQ73M3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9B20BFB4-D951-480A-80D9-ED72AE596E5E@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I would also prefer the call to be at UTC 13:00 or 14:00, if possible.

On this from Tapani:

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 

[SNIP[

> 
> February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.

That should be OK. It?d still be past the deadline to submit motions, and the Council meeting agenda should be available by that date as well. Still?, leaves quite a bit of time for the agenda to change, or motions be amended.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tapani.
> 
> Thanks, is it possible to have the call at 13:00 or 14:00UTC? 
> Btw for GNSO WGs calls, they are listed in this calendar https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . CCWG subgroups can only use 3 slots (5:00,13:00, 19:00UTC)  per day and can be avoided. 
> For the February, a call in Friday will be ok. 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> On Jan 11, 2017 5:54 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the
> 17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable
> alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in
> particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't
> make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day).
> 
> February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> 
> --
> 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



From aelsadr at egyptig.org  Wed Jan 11 15:58:37 2017
From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:58:37 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?windows-1252?q?=5BPC-NCSG=5D_final_version_for_review?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=3A_NCUC_comment_to_ICANN=92s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_P?=
 =?windows-1252?q?olicy?=
In-Reply-To: <18873e50-8a84-c024-e413-947458778bb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAN1qJvBx+qvH8VMuSZA7TT1__px4Lf_BE5QRsnedFpqr_Maohw@mail.gmail.com>
 <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
 <18873e50-8a84-c024-e413-947458778bb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <DF511CD8-7885-4F39-8CEE-ECF8E858BB38@egyptig.org>

Hi (using the new list address),

Good statement. Very much appreciate the inclusion of the dissenting views too. Happy for the NCSG to endorse it.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 3:48 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, I caught a few grammaticals.  
> 
> Stephanie Perrin
> 
> 
> On 2017-01-10 20:13, matthew shears wrote:
>> Dear colleagues
>> 
>> Attached please find the draft final of NCUC's comment on ICANN?s proposed Anti-Harassment Policy.  This has gone through a number of iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version tomorrow so that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline.
>> 
>> Please review the document.  I believe that we have discussed and resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or two dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and indented.   These will be removed before submission.
>> 
>> If there are any major issues please raise to the PC as a whole and the persons above cc:ed asap.  
>> 
>> Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time.
>> 
>> Thanks so much.
>> 
>> Matthew 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> <NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017sp.docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Jan 11 23:44:19 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:44:19 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_final_version_for_review=3A_NCUC_comme?=
 =?utf-8?q?nt_to_ICANN=E2=80=99s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_Policy?=
In-Reply-To: <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
References: <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <30d62eb6-fd85-d214-4ac4-950d102e8bd9@cdt.org>

Sending this to the new PC list just in case.

Will be filing this tomorrow.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	final version for review: NCUC comment to ICANN?s proposed 
Anti-Harassment Policy
Date: 	Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:13:25 +0000
From: 	matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
To: 	PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
CC: 	corinnecath at gmail.com, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, 
farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>



Dear colleagues

Attached please find the draft final of*__*NCUC's comment on ICANN?s 
proposed Anti-Harassment Policy.  This has gone through a number of 
iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version tomorrow 
so that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline.

Please review the document. I believe that we have discussed and 
resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or 
two dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and indented. 
These will be removed before submission.

If there are any_major _issues please raise to the PC as a whole and the 
persons above cc:ed asap.

Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time.

Thanks so much.

Matthew*__*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170111/c111d8b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170111/c111d8b8/attachment.docx>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Jan 11 23:51:35 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:51:35 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: [NCUC-EC] Urgent - Anti
 harassment policy public comment
In-Reply-To: <BN1PR07MB1669D4E7272BBA2E7BA7925A1660@BN1PR07MB166.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN1PR07MB1669D4E7272BBA2E7BA7925A1660@BN1PR07MB166.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <3373d33a-8bb1-6807-497e-bb77547c91e1@cdt.org>

Please see attached comment from Milton.  Would welcome thoughts on how 
this is integrated.

Matthew



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: [NCUC-EC] Urgent - Anti harassment policy 
public comment
Date: 	Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:27:07 +0000
From: 	Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
To: 	ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>



Sorry for being late with these comments but I?ve been busy and haven?t 
had time to read these until today.

I think Corinne?s draft is ok but it does not prominently deal with a 
major objection that was raised during the constituency?s discussion, 
namely the issue of whether the behavior is consensual.

What is in the draft now is at the end of the paragraph

?Similarly, consensual activities should not be covered by this policy.?

That statement  needs to be expanded and put at the beginning of the 
paragraph it is in. My suggestion:

?The policy as drafted contains a major oversight, in that it implies 
that certain kinds of behavior are not allowed per se. It completely 
overlooks the issue of whether the parties involved in hugging, 
touching, etc. are willing or consenting to the activity. The policy 
must make it clear that consensual activities are not covered by this 
policy.?

It makes more sense to put the business about ?affirmative consent? 
_/after/_ that statement, as it clarifies what we mean by consent.

--MM

*From:*NCUC-EC [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] *On Behalf Of 
*farzaneh badii
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:54 PM
*To:* Exec. Comm <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>>
*Subject:* [NCUC-EC] Urgent - Anti harassment policy public comment

Please read this public comment on  anti-harassment policy. Corinne was 
the penholder, NCUC members have had the chance to comment until today 
and Corinne has resolved their comments.

Please read, and decide on endorsing it. The deadline for submitting it 
is 12 January I think, we should decide before 12th Jan. As soon as we 
endorse I will submit it acknowledging Corinne as the penholder.

Here is the link to the google 
doc.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YeZ_zCbv2RbLA5ypUnWmwNpTte8lyUOuSzlvToXHLrQ/edit

Thanks

Farzaneh

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170111/55ee9874/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
NCUC-EC mailing list
NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Thu Jan 12 11:09:58 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:09:58 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: [NCUC-EC] Urgent - Anti
 harassment policy public comment
In-Reply-To: <3373d33a-8bb1-6807-497e-bb77547c91e1@cdt.org>
References: <BN1PR07MB1669D4E7272BBA2E7BA7925A1660@BN1PR07MB166.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>,
 <3373d33a-8bb1-6807-497e-bb77547c91e1@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521AB642BF2C2B3D05F3542F7790@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear all, dear PC
I have read the last version of the public comment on the anti-harassment policy drafted by Corinne, and support the submission on behalf of the PC, too.
However, I support Milton's reformulation of the sentence.
Thanks and sorry for getting back to you just on the day of the deadline... returning to the office after the holidays is always a tad shocking and my mailbox is still overflowing.
One last point: I want to acknowledge Corinne's dedication to and patience with this process--which sets a high bar for how public comments should be dealt with in the future! Well done!
Best, Stefania

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

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

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Inviato: mercoled? 11 gennaio 2017 22.51.35
A: corinnecath at gmail.com; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: [NCUC-EC] Urgent - Anti harassment policy public comment

Please see attached comment from Milton.  Would welcome thoughts on how this is integrated.

Matthew


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        [NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: [NCUC-EC] Urgent - Anti harassment policy public comment
Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:27:07 +0000
From:   Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu><mailto:milton at gatech.edu>
To:     ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>


Sorry for being late with these comments but I?ve been busy and haven?t had time to read these until today.
I think Corinne?s draft is ok but it does not prominently deal with a major objection that was raised during the constituency?s discussion, namely the issue of whether the behavior is consensual.

What is in the draft now is at the end of the paragraph

?Similarly, consensual activities should not be covered by this policy.?

That statement  needs to be expanded and put at the beginning of the paragraph it is in. My suggestion:

?The policy as drafted contains a major oversight, in that it implies that certain kinds of behavior are not allowed per se. It completely overlooks the issue of whether the parties involved in hugging, touching, etc. are willing or consenting to the activity. The policy must make it clear that consensual activities are not covered by this policy.?

It makes more sense to put the business about ?affirmative consent? _after_ that statement, as it clarifies what we mean by consent.

--MM

From: NCUC-EC [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of farzaneh badii
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:54 PM
To: Exec. Comm <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>>
Subject: [NCUC-EC] Urgent - Anti harassment policy public comment

Please read this public comment on  anti-harassment policy. Corinne was the penholder, NCUC members have had the chance to comment until today and Corinne has resolved their comments.

Please read, and decide on endorsing it. The deadline for submitting it is 12 January I think, we should decide before 12th Jan. As soon as we endorse I will submit it acknowledging Corinne as the penholder.

Here is the link to the google doc.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YeZ_zCbv2RbLA5ypUnWmwNpTte8lyUOuSzlvToXHLrQ/edit





Thanks
Farzaneh

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Jan 12 14:03:26 2017
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:03:26 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_final_version_for_review=3A_NCUC_comme?=
	=?utf-8?q?nt_to_ICANN=E2=80=99s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_Policy?=
In-Reply-To: <30d62eb6-fd85-d214-4ac4-950d102e8bd9@cdt.org>
References: <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
 <30d62eb6-fd85-d214-4ac4-950d102e8bd9@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0F=9RzRzoajW=WFPzJFpbcumdHgM6qTX7AkLLhMDp+og@mail.gmail.com>

Also happy for the endorsement. Thank you for filling it today, Matthew.
Best wishes,
Marilia

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:44 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Sending this to the new PC list just in case.
> Will be filing this tomorrow.
>
> Matthew
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: final version for review: NCUC comment to ICANN?s proposed
> Anti-Harassment Policy
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:13:25 +0000
> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> <mshears at cdt.org>
> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> CC: corinnecath at gmail.com, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> <icann at ferdeline.com>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
> <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
>
>
> Dear colleagues
>
> Attached please find the draft final of NCUC's comment on ICANN?s
> proposed Anti-Harassment Policy.  This has gone through a number of
> iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version tomorrow so
> that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline.
>
> Please review the document.  I believe that we have discussed and
> resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or two
> dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and indented.   These
> will be removed before submission.
>
> If there are any* major *issues please raise to the PC as a whole and the
> persons above cc:ed asap.
>
> Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time.
>
> Thanks so much.
>
> Matthew
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>


-- 

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

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170112/5aec0f77/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Thu Jan 12 19:46:34 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 19:46:34 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
Message-ID: <20170112174634.kqhgb3ky6yo7u4jm@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

I'm planning meetings with RySG and RrSG (who actually asked for it)
in Copenhagen.

It would be useful to have at least some topics for discussion in
advance. Suggestions would be appreciated.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Jan 12 19:53:35 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:53:35 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?utf-8?q?=5BPC-NCSG=5D_final_version_for_review=3A_NCU?=
 =?utf-8?q?C_comment_to_ICANN=E2=80=99s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_Policy?=
In-Reply-To: <DF511CD8-7885-4F39-8CEE-ECF8E858BB38@egyptig.org>
References: <CAN1qJvBx+qvH8VMuSZA7TT1__px4Lf_BE5QRsnedFpqr_Maohw@mail.gmail.com>
 <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
 <18873e50-8a84-c024-e413-947458778bb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DF511CD8-7885-4F39-8CEE-ECF8E858BB38@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <bYgqPgaYqWG-c8fdOdoDQxnfBv1I_FGgJfvkK8ToEp59Geu09Kw6AxNdpfuO2Il7DF99nS6ofjc3sFpTenLcvHmUy9msqhMHbtfk8wsdZBY=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

With the inclusion of Milton's amendment as posted to the NCUC list, I too support the NCSG endorsing this statement.

Best wishes,

Ayden


On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:53 pm, Amr Elsadr <'aelsadr at egyptig.org'> wrote:
Hi (using the new list address),

Good statement. Very much appreciate the inclusion of the dissenting views too. Happy for the NCSG to endorse it.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 3:48 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:
>
> Thanks, I caught a few grammaticals.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> On 2017-01-10 20:13, matthew shears wrote:
>> Dear colleagues
>>
>> Attached please find the draft final of NCUC's comment on ICANN?s proposed Anti-Harassment Policy. This has gone through a number of iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version tomorrow so that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline.
>>
>> Please review the document. I believe that we have discussed and resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or two dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and indented. These will be removed before submission.
>>
>> If there are any major issues please raise to the PC as a whole and the persons above cc:ed asap.
>>
>> Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time.
>>
>> Thanks so much.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> <NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017sp.docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170112/75aeb643/attachment.htm>

From aelsadr at egyptig.org  Thu Jan 12 20:01:46 2017
From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 20:01:46 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <20170112174634.kqhgb3ky6yo7u4jm@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170112174634.kqhgb3ky6yo7u4jm@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <473B3851-068E-4BC3-A6F1-4240FF368F55@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Well?, that?s not a bad thing at all. Have they indicated at all why they?d like to meet with us? There are probably a number of topics in which we are to some degree aligned with them on. Trying to strategize a way forward with them on some of these may prove useful. The ones that come to mind are RDS (especially on privacy and IRD) and anything related to GNSO reviews. Depending on how things go in Reykjavik, we may have something to discuss with them on these in Copenhagen.

Not sure how our members participating in new gTLDs SP and RPMs feel about how aligned we are with them on those topics, or if we need to hold discussions with them.

In general, I believe regular coordination between the NCSG and contracted parties (particularly registrars) could be worthwhile.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I'm planning meetings with RySG and RrSG (who actually asked for it)
> in Copenhagen.
> 
> It would be useful to have at least some topics for discussion in
> advance. Suggestions would be appreciated.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From aelsadr at egyptig.org  Thu Jan 12 20:05:00 2017
From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 20:05:00 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?utf-8?q?=5BPC-NCSG=5D_final_version_for_review=3A_NCU?=
 =?utf-8?q?C_comment_to_ICANN=E2=80=99s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_Policy?=
In-Reply-To: <bYgqPgaYqWG-c8fdOdoDQxnfBv1I_FGgJfvkK8ToEp59Geu09Kw6AxNdpfuO2Il7DF99nS6ofjc3sFpTenLcvHmUy9msqhMHbtfk8wsdZBY=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAN1qJvBx+qvH8VMuSZA7TT1__px4Lf_BE5QRsnedFpqr_Maohw@mail.gmail.com>
 <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
 <18873e50-8a84-c024-e413-947458778bb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DF511CD8-7885-4F39-8CEE-ECF8E858BB38@egyptig.org>
 <bYgqPgaYqWG-c8fdOdoDQxnfBv1I_FGgJfvkK8ToEp59Geu09Kw6AxNdpfuO2Il7DF99nS6ofjc3sFpTenLcvHmUy9msqhMHbtfk8wsdZBY=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <2659784F-C99C-44DF-8FB5-99DA2D6F92D7@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Same here. I?m happy to have Milton?s amendment be included, but would appreciate a draft we can refer to that includes it.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> With the inclusion of Milton's amendment as posted to the NCUC list, I too support the NCSG endorsing this statement. 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:53 pm, Amr Elsadr <'aelsadr at egyptig.org'> wrote:
>> Hi (using the new list address), 
>> 
>> Good statement. Very much appreciate the inclusion of the dissenting views too. Happy for the NCSG to endorse it. 
>> 
>> Thanks. 
>> 
>> Amr 
>> 
>> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 3:48 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > Thanks, I caught a few grammaticals. 
>> > 
>> > Stephanie Perrin 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 2017-01-10 20:13, matthew shears wrote: 
>> >> Dear colleagues 
>> >> 
>> >> Attached please find the draft final of NCUC's comment on ICANN?s proposed Anti-Harassment Policy. This has gone through a number of iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version tomorrow so that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline. 
>> >> 
>> >> Please review the document. I believe that we have discussed and resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or two dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and indented. These will be removed before submission. 
>> >> 
>> >> If there are any major issues please raise to the PC as a whole and the persons above cc:ed asap. 
>> >> 
>> >> Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time. 
>> >> 
>> >> Thanks so much. 
>> >> 
>> >> Matthew 
>> >> 
>> >> _______________________________________________ 
>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list 
>> >> 
>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg 
>> > 
>> > <NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017sp.docx>_______________________________________________ 
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list 
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> NCSG-PC mailing list 
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is 
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc 



From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Jan 12 20:43:08 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:43:08 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?utf-8?q?=5BPC-NCSG=5D_final_version_for_review=3A_NCU?=
 =?utf-8?q?C_comment_to_ICANN=E2=80=99s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_Policy?=
In-Reply-To: <2659784F-C99C-44DF-8FB5-99DA2D6F92D7@egyptig.org>
References: <CAN1qJvBx+qvH8VMuSZA7TT1__px4Lf_BE5QRsnedFpqr_Maohw@mail.gmail.com>
 <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
 <18873e50-8a84-c024-e413-947458778bb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DF511CD8-7885-4F39-8CEE-ECF8E858BB38@egyptig.org>
 <bYgqPgaYqWG-c8fdOdoDQxnfBv1I_FGgJfvkK8ToEp59Geu09Kw6AxNdpfuO2Il7DF99nS6ofjc3sFpTenLcvHmUy9msqhMHbtfk8wsdZBY=@ferdeline.com>
 <2659784F-C99C-44DF-8FB5-99DA2D6F92D7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <acc50d5b-c904-96e3-45e7-81122f4b98fb@cdt.org>

I was not going to include the dissenting views - do we normally do this?

Matthew


On 12/01/2017 18:05, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Same here. I?m happy to have Milton?s amendment be included, but would appreciate a draft we can refer to that includes it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the inclusion of Milton's amendment as posted to the NCUC list, I too support the NCSG endorsing this statement.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:53 pm, Amr Elsadr <'aelsadr at egyptig.org'> wrote:
>>> Hi (using the new list address),
>>>
>>> Good statement. Very much appreciate the inclusion of the dissenting views too. Happy for the NCSG to endorse it.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 3:48 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I caught a few grammaticals.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-01-10 20:13, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>> Dear colleagues
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached please find the draft final of NCUC's comment on ICANN?s proposed Anti-Harassment Policy. This has gone through a number of iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version tomorrow so that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review the document. I believe that we have discussed and resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or two dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and indented. These will be removed before submission.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are any major issues please raise to the PC as a whole and the persons above cc:ed asap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks so much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> <NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017sp.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

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



From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Jan 12 21:26:00 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 19:26:00 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?utf-8?q?=5BPC-NCSG=5D_final_version_for_review=3A_NCU?=
 =?utf-8?q?C_comment_to_ICANN=E2=80=99s_proposed_Anti-Harassment_Policy?=
In-Reply-To: <2659784F-C99C-44DF-8FB5-99DA2D6F92D7@egyptig.org>
References: <CAN1qJvBx+qvH8VMuSZA7TT1__px4Lf_BE5QRsnedFpqr_Maohw@mail.gmail.com>
 <245560bd-5eda-5124-87ca-1cad1d92fd10@cdt.org>
 <18873e50-8a84-c024-e413-947458778bb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DF511CD8-7885-4F39-8CEE-ECF8E858BB38@egyptig.org>
 <bYgqPgaYqWG-c8fdOdoDQxnfBv1I_FGgJfvkK8ToEp59Geu09Kw6AxNdpfuO2Il7DF99nS6ofjc3sFpTenLcvHmUy9msqhMHbtfk8wsdZBY=@ferdeline.com>
 <2659784F-C99C-44DF-8FB5-99DA2D6F92D7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <18046901-ff27-1e3b-6186-c458d885c5ea@cdt.org>

This is the latest version provided by Corinne with Milton's comment 
inserted.  This will be filed in a few hours.

Matthew


On 12/01/2017 18:05, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Same here. I?m happy to have Milton?s amendment be included, but would appreciate a draft we can refer to that includes it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the inclusion of Milton's amendment as posted to the NCUC list, I too support the NCSG endorsing this statement.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:53 pm, Amr Elsadr <'aelsadr at egyptig.org'> wrote:
>>> Hi (using the new list address),
>>>
>>> Good statement. Very much appreciate the inclusion of the dissenting views too. Happy for the NCSG to endorse it.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 3:48 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I caught a few grammaticals.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-01-10 20:13, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>> Dear colleagues
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached please find the draft final of NCUC's comment on ICANN?s proposed Anti-Harassment Policy. This has gone through a number of iterations and I understand that we need to agree this version tomorrow so that we can meet the Jan 12 deadline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review the document. I believe that we have discussed and resolved a number of outstanding issues that were been raised - one or two dissenting views are reflected in the text in italics and indented. These will be removed before submission.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are any major issues please raise to the PC as a whole and the persons above cc:ed asap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hoping that we can move this forward and submit in time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks so much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> <NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017sp.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 21660 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170112/6731a6fd/attachment.docx>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Thu Jan 12 22:00:28 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:00:28 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <473B3851-068E-4BC3-A6F1-4240FF368F55@egyptig.org>
References: <20170112174634.kqhgb3ky6yo7u4jm@tarvainen.info>
 <473B3851-068E-4BC3-A6F1-4240FF368F55@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20170112200028.do2fmmwqcqnptkep@tarvainen.info>

Hi Amr,

To clarify, RrSG asked if we'd like to meet with them, without
more about the substance than this:

"If the answer is yes, then we can figure out the content details and
suitable scheduling."

I thought we would want one. And that we'd want one with RySG as well.

How long the meetings would be is an open question, it would depend
on the topics as well as what we can squeeze into the schedule.

Tapani

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:01:46PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Well?, that?s not a bad thing at all. Have they indicated at all why they?d like to meet with us? There are probably a number of topics in which we are to some degree aligned with them on. Trying to strategize a way forward with them on some of these may prove useful. The ones that come to mind are RDS (especially on privacy and IRD) and anything related to GNSO reviews. Depending on how things go in Reykjavik, we may have something to discuss with them on these in Copenhagen.
> 
> Not sure how our members participating in new gTLDs SP and RPMs feel about how aligned we are with them on those topics, or if we need to hold discussions with them.
> 
> In general, I believe regular coordination between the NCSG and contracted parties (particularly registrars) could be worthwhile.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > I'm planning meetings with RySG and RrSG (who actually asked for it)
> > in Copenhagen.
> > 
> > It would be useful to have at least some topics for discussion in
> > advance. Suggestions would be appreciated.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Thu Jan 12 22:03:39 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:03:39 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next policy calls: 17.1., 10.2.?
In-Reply-To: <9B20BFB4-D951-480A-80D9-ED72AE596E5E@egyptig.org>
References: <20170111085448.GA18062@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <CAH5sThnLfRfnuvHsEc3k7bv=tfAu9BdnNGE9AtExoA-uVxg9CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnyuqOPBD0v+R9j0RxLE=aDDL7Z0NL+DxdLXfbfQ73M3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9B20BFB4-D951-480A-80D9-ED72AE596E5E@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20170112200339.iwf5d4l3qlhoyywy@tarvainen.info>

Hi Amr and Rafik,

We've got at least two people who can't make it before 1700.
I can do any time from 1700 until 2100.

Would 1700 be ok for you? Better than later?

Tapani


On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:46:41PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I would also prefer the call to be at UTC 13:00 or 14:00, if possible.
> 
> On this from Tapani:
> 
> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> > 
> 
> [SNIP[
> 
> > 
> > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> 
> That should be OK. It?d still be past the deadline to submit motions, and the Council meeting agenda should be available by that date as well. Still?, leaves quite a bit of time for the agenda to change, or motions be amended.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Tapani.
> > 
> > Thanks, is it possible to have the call at 13:00 or 14:00UTC? 
> > Btw for GNSO WGs calls, they are listed in this calendar https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . CCWG subgroups can only use 3 slots (5:00,13:00, 19:00UTC)  per day and can be avoided. 
> > For the February, a call in Friday will be ok. 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Rafik 
> > On Jan 11, 2017 5:54 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the
> > 17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable
> > alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in
> > particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't
> > make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day).
> > 
> > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> > 
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Thu Jan 12 22:33:09 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:33:09 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <20170112174634.kqhgb3ky6yo7u4jm@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170112174634.kqhgb3ky6yo7u4jm@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <1623b315-2a36-702a-2349-080a32ae8ff6@mail.utoronto.ca>

WE need to discuss the following, from my perspective:

  * their views on the way forward on PPSAI implementation and possible
    further discussion about how to accommodate GAC objections
  * the transfer problem for PP customers
  * the way forward on RDS.
  * what they want to do about the conflicts with law issues
  * privacy implications of thick WHOIS

Stephanie


On 2017-01-12 12:46, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I'm planning meetings with RySG and RrSG (who actually asked for it)
> in Copenhagen.
>
> It would be useful to have at least some topics for discussion in
> advance. Suggestions would be appreciated.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170112/35972b48/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Jan 13 01:28:30 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:28:30 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next policy calls: 17.1., 10.2.?
In-Reply-To: <20170112200339.iwf5d4l3qlhoyywy@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170111085448.GA18062@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <CAH5sThnLfRfnuvHsEc3k7bv=tfAu9BdnNGE9AtExoA-uVxg9CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnyuqOPBD0v+R9j0RxLE=aDDL7Z0NL+DxdLXfbfQ73M3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9B20BFB4-D951-480A-80D9-ED72AE596E5E@egyptig.org>
 <20170112200339.iwf5d4l3qlhoyywy@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmfcp3tbSJNaLocQ6pHuKuiPDMeFtudo==PGQnpA6E-fA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani.

17:00UTC to 21:00 means 2:00JST to 6:00JST. it is unlikely that I will
attend at such timing.

Best,

Rafik

2017-01-13 5:03 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:

> Hi Amr and Rafik,
>
> We've got at least two people who can't make it before 1700.
> I can do any time from 1700 until 2100.
>
> Would 1700 be ok for you? Better than later?
>
> Tapani
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:46:41PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org)
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would also prefer the call to be at UTC 13:00 or 14:00, if possible.
> >
> > On this from Tapani:
> >
> > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [SNIP[
> >
> > >
> > > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> >
> > That should be OK. It?d still be past the deadline to submit motions,
> and the Council meeting agenda should be available by that date as well.
> Still?, leaves quite a bit of time for the agenda to change, or motions be
> amended.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Tapani.
> > >
> > > Thanks, is it possible to have the call at 13:00 or 14:00UTC?
> > > Btw for GNSO WGs calls, they are listed in this calendar
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . CCWG subgroups can
> only use 3 slots (5:00,13:00, 19:00UTC)  per day and can be avoided.
> > > For the February, a call in Friday will be ok.
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > > On Jan 11, 2017 5:54 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the
> > > 17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable
> > > alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in
> > > particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't
> > > make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day).
> > >
> > > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170113/c09809c1/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Jan 13 01:36:49 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:36:49 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <20170112200028.do2fmmwqcqnptkep@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170112174634.kqhgb3ky6yo7u4jm@tarvainen.info>
 <473B3851-068E-4BC3-A6F1-4240FF368F55@egyptig.org>
 <20170112200028.do2fmmwqcqnptkep@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm0B1J6ZZzTE0D9G6fC6UMaXj0Kb68tD9UwuseWD5oVHA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani,

it is definitely a good thing. we had meetings with registrars before but
not with registries. so I support meeting both of them.
any idea if they want the meeting as informal or formal? and so we need to
make a decision about the meeting request soon.
since the GNSO shared its initial block schedule for Copenhagen, we can
start planning the internal meetings we want and also those with other
SG/C, maybe ACs, then moving to discuss about the important topics we want.

Best,

Rafik

2017-01-13 5:00 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:

> Hi Amr,
>
> To clarify, RrSG asked if we'd like to meet with them, without
> more about the substance than this:
>
> "If the answer is yes, then we can figure out the content details and
> suitable scheduling."
>
> I thought we would want one. And that we'd want one with RySG as well.
>
> How long the meetings would be is an open question, it would depend
> on the topics as well as what we can squeeze into the schedule.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:01:46PM +0200, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org)
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Well?, that?s not a bad thing at all. Have they indicated at all why
> they?d like to meet with us? There are probably a number of topics in which
> we are to some degree aligned with them on. Trying to strategize a way
> forward with them on some of these may prove useful. The ones that come to
> mind are RDS (especially on privacy and IRD) and anything related to GNSO
> reviews. Depending on how things go in Reykjavik, we may have something to
> discuss with them on these in Copenhagen.
> >
> > Not sure how our members participating in new gTLDs SP and RPMs feel
> about how aligned we are with them on those topics, or if we need to hold
> discussions with them.
> >
> > In general, I believe regular coordination between the NCSG and
> contracted parties (particularly registrars) could be worthwhile.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I'm planning meetings with RySG and RrSG (who actually asked for it)
> > > in Copenhagen.
> > >
> > > It would be useful to have at least some topics for discussion in
> > > advance. Suggestions would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170113/5ce188c4/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Fri Jan 13 01:40:14 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:40:14 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm0B1J6ZZzTE0D9G6fC6UMaXj0Kb68tD9UwuseWD5oVHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170112174634.kqhgb3ky6yo7u4jm@tarvainen.info>
 <473B3851-068E-4BC3-A6F1-4240FF368F55@egyptig.org>
 <20170112200028.do2fmmwqcqnptkep@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThm0B1J6ZZzTE0D9G6fC6UMaXj0Kb68tD9UwuseWD5oVHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bfba73c8-45e8-e443-28ee-da50197fd214@cdt.org>

I agree - we should have the meeting (with an agenda).


On 12/01/2017 23:36, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Tapani,
>
> it is definitely a good thing. we had meetings with registrars before 
> but not with registries. so I support meeting both of them.
> any idea if they want the meeting as informal or formal? and so we 
> need to make a decision about the meeting request soon.
> since the GNSO shared its initial block schedule for Copenhagen, we 
> can start planning the internal meetings we want and also those with 
> other SG/C, maybe ACs, then moving to discuss about the important 
> topics we want.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-01-13 5:00 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info 
> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>
>     Hi Amr,
>
>     To clarify, RrSG asked if we'd like to meet with them, without
>     more about the substance than this:
>
>     "If the answer is yes, then we can figure out the content details and
>     suitable scheduling."
>
>     I thought we would want one. And that we'd want one with RySG as well.
>
>     How long the meetings would be is an open question, it would depend
>     on the topics as well as what we can squeeze into the schedule.
>
>     Tapani
>
>     On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:01:46PM +0200, Amr Elsadr
>     (aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>) wrote:
>
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > Well?, that?s not a bad thing at all. Have they indicated at all
>     why they?d like to meet with us? There are probably a number of
>     topics in which we are to some degree aligned with them on. Trying
>     to strategize a way forward with them on some of these may prove
>     useful. The ones that come to mind are RDS (especially on privacy
>     and IRD) and anything related to GNSO reviews. Depending on how
>     things go in Reykjavik, we may have something to discuss with them
>     on these in Copenhagen.
>     >
>     > Not sure how our members participating in new gTLDs SP and RPMs
>     feel about how aligned we are with them on those topics, or if we
>     need to hold discussions with them.
>     >
>     > In general, I believe regular coordination between the NCSG and
>     contracted parties (particularly registrars) could be worthwhile.
>     >
>     > Thanks.
>     >
>     > Amr
>     >
>     > > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Tapani Tarvainen
>     <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO <mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>>
>     wrote:
>     > >
>     > > Dear all,
>     > >
>     > > I'm planning meetings with RySG and RrSG (who actually asked
>     for it)
>     > > in Copenhagen.
>     > >
>     > > It would be useful to have at least some topics for discussion in
>     > > advance. Suggestions would be appreciated.
>     > >
>     > > --
>     > > Tapani Tarvainen
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170112/2956f7f1/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Jan 13 16:28:25 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:28:25 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Policy Call time doodle
In-Reply-To: <9B20BFB4-D951-480A-80D9-ED72AE596E5E@egyptig.org>
References: <20170111085448.GA18062@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <CAH5sThnLfRfnuvHsEc3k7bv=tfAu9BdnNGE9AtExoA-uVxg9CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnyuqOPBD0v+R9j0RxLE=aDDL7Z0NL+DxdLXfbfQ73M3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9B20BFB4-D951-480A-80D9-ED72AE596E5E@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20170113142825.GC11046@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Hi all,

It seems there's no really good time for the call next Tuesday.
Monday might be easier.

Let's do a quick poll - *very* quick, please reply *today*
by 2000 UTC:

http://doodle.com/poll/vn6vwx4fd67c96r3

Thank you,

Tapani

On Jan 11 15:46, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I would also prefer the call to be at UTC 13:00 or 14:00, if possible.
> 
> On this from Tapani:
> 
> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> > 
> 
> [SNIP[
> 
> > 
> > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> 
> That should be OK. It?d still be past the deadline to submit motions, and the Council meeting agenda should be available by that date as well. Still?, leaves quite a bit of time for the agenda to change, or motions be amended.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Tapani.
> > 
> > Thanks, is it possible to have the call at 13:00 or 14:00UTC? 
> > Btw for GNSO WGs calls, they are listed in this calendar https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . CCWG subgroups can only use 3 slots (5:00,13:00, 19:00UTC)  per day and can be avoided. 
> > For the February, a call in Friday will be ok. 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Rafik 
> > On Jan 11, 2017 5:54 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the
> > 17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable
> > alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in
> > particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't
> > make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day).
> > 
> > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> > 
> > --
> > 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

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Fri Jan 13 18:42:05 2017
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:42:05 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Policy Call time doodle
In-Reply-To: <20170113142825.GC11046@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20170111085448.GA18062@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <CAH5sThnLfRfnuvHsEc3k7bv=tfAu9BdnNGE9AtExoA-uVxg9CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnyuqOPBD0v+R9j0RxLE=aDDL7Z0NL+DxdLXfbfQ73M3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9B20BFB4-D951-480A-80D9-ED72AE596E5E@egyptig.org>
 <20170113142825.GC11046@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <d89f44c0-2eb9-e6d4-8d01-0e92c2588e17@kathykleiman.com>

Sorry All, Monday is a holiday here and I have plans with kids. 
Apologies for missing!

Have a good weekend,

Kathy


On 1/13/2017 9:28 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It seems there's no really good time for the call next Tuesday.
> Monday might be easier.
>
> Let's do a quick poll - *very* quick, please reply *today*
> by 2000 UTC:
>
> http://doodle.com/poll/vn6vwx4fd67c96r3
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tapani
>
> On Jan 11 15:46, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would also prefer the call to be at UTC 13:00 or 14:00, if possible.
>>
>> On this from Tapani:
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
>>>
>> [SNIP[
>>
>>> February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
>>> in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
>>> to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
>>> opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
>> That should be OK. It?d still be past the deadline to submit motions, and the Council meeting agenda should be available by that date as well. Still?, leaves quite a bit of time for the agenda to change, or motions be amended.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tapani.
>>>
>>> Thanks, is it possible to have the call at 13:00 or 14:00UTC?
>>> Btw for GNSO WGs calls, they are listed in this calendar https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . CCWG subgroups can only use 3 slots (5:00,13:00, 19:00UTC)  per day and can be avoided.
>>> For the February, a call in Friday will be ok.
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> On Jan 11, 2017 5:54 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the
>>> 17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable
>>> alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in
>>> particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't
>>> make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day).
>>>
>>> February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
>>> in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
>>> to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
>>> opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Jan 13 22:12:53 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:12:53 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Policy Call time doodle
In-Reply-To: <20170113142825.GC11046@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20170111085448.GA18062@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <CAH5sThnLfRfnuvHsEc3k7bv=tfAu9BdnNGE9AtExoA-uVxg9CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnyuqOPBD0v+R9j0RxLE=aDDL7Z0NL+DxdLXfbfQ73M3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9B20BFB4-D951-480A-80D9-ED72AE596E5E@egyptig.org>
 <20170113142825.GC11046@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <20170113201253.gkh6afb3gn2nqkxh@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

It seems Monday did not help any, Tuesday 2100 remains best option.
So that's it this time.

It will be late (11pm) for me and Amr, but more or less daytime for
all others. Next time let's try to do an earlier time and ruin
Rafik's sleep instead.

Tapani

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:28:25PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> It seems there's no really good time for the call next Tuesday.
> Monday might be easier.
> 
> Let's do a quick poll - *very* quick, please reply *today*
> by 2000 UTC:
> 
> http://doodle.com/poll/vn6vwx4fd67c96r3
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Jan 11 15:46, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I would also prefer the call to be at UTC 13:00 or 14:00, if possible.
> > 
> > On this from Tapani:
> > 
> > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> > [SNIP[
> > 
> > > 
> > > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> > 
> > That should be OK. It?d still be past the deadline to submit motions, and the Council meeting agenda should be available by that date as well. Still?, leaves quite a bit of time for the agenda to change, or motions be amended.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Amr
> > 
> > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Tapani.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, is it possible to have the call at 13:00 or 14:00UTC? 
> > > Btw for GNSO WGs calls, they are listed in this calendar https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . CCWG subgroups can only use 3 slots (5:00,13:00, 19:00UTC)  per day and can be avoided. 
> > > For the February, a call in Friday will be ok. 
> > > Best,
> > > 
> > > Rafik 
> > > On Jan 11, 2017 5:54 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > > 
> > > Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the
> > > 17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable
> > > alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in
> > > particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't
> > > make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day).
> > > 
> > > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Jan 13 22:16:36 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 05:16:36 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Policy Call time doodle
In-Reply-To: <20170113201253.gkh6afb3gn2nqkxh@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170111085448.GA18062@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <CAH5sThnLfRfnuvHsEc3k7bv=tfAu9BdnNGE9AtExoA-uVxg9CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnyuqOPBD0v+R9j0RxLE=aDDL7Z0NL+DxdLXfbfQ73M3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9B20BFB4-D951-480A-80D9-ED72AE596E5E@egyptig.org>
 <20170113142825.GC11046@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170113201253.gkh6afb3gn2nqkxh@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnrC4xo9zc42ekVUQOE+CMM6D9UCE3EpQCK+E0TBovpBA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani,

>Next time let's try to do an earlier time and ruin Rafik's sleep instead
I think most of latest NCSG calls are in unfriendly times for me so.

Rafik

2017-01-14 5:12 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:

> Dear all,
>
> It seems Monday did not help any, Tuesday 2100 remains best option.
> So that's it this time.
>
> It will be late (11pm) for me and Amr, but more or less daytime for
> all others. Next time let's try to do an earlier time and ruin
> Rafik's sleep instead.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:28:25PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It seems there's no really good time for the call next Tuesday.
> > Monday might be easier.
> >
> > Let's do a quick poll - *very* quick, please reply *today*
> > by 2000 UTC:
> >
> > http://doodle.com/poll/vn6vwx4fd67c96r3
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Jan 11 15:46, Amr Elsadr (aelsadr at egyptig.org) wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would also prefer the call to be at UTC 13:00 or 14:00, if possible.
> > >
> > > On this from Tapani:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [SNIP[
> > >
> > > >
> > > > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > > > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > > > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > > > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> > >
> > > That should be OK. It?d still be past the deadline to submit motions,
> and the Council meeting agenda should be available by that date as well.
> Still?, leaves quite a bit of time for the agenda to change, or motions be
> amended.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Amr
> > >
> > > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tapani.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, is it possible to have the call at 13:00 or 14:00UTC?
> > > > Btw for GNSO WGs calls, they are listed in this calendar
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . CCWG subgroups can
> only use 3 slots (5:00,13:00, 19:00UTC)  per day and can be avoided.
> > > > For the February, a call in Friday will be ok.
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Rafik
> > > > On Jan 11, 2017 5:54 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the
> > > > 17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable
> > > > alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in
> > > > particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't
> > > > make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day).
> > > >
> > > > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is
> > > > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have
> > > > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no
> > > > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170114/0cb73aa1/attachment.htm>

From director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh  Mon Jan 16 09:08:40 2017
From: director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:08:40 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Policy Call time doodle
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnrC4xo9zc42ekVUQOE+CMM6D9UCE3EpQCK+E0TBovpBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1245928776.220.1484551499342.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost>

Please kindly note my new email address.

This email will be discontinued in a few days as I end my term with AITI-KACE.  Please write to support at aiti-kace.com.gh or info at aiti-kace.com.gh for all aiti-kace related issues.  For personal contacts please use dkgxdgx at gmail.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
To: "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>, "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Sent: Friday, 13 January, 2017 8:16:36 PM
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Policy Call time doodle




Hi Tapani, 


>Next time let's try to do an earlier time and ruin Rafik's sleep instead 
I think most of latest NCSG calls are in unfriendly times for me so. 


Rafik 


2017-01-14 5:12 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen < ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info > : 


Dear all, 

It seems Monday did not help any, Tuesday 2100 remains best option. 
So that's it this time. 

It will be late (11pm) for me and Amr, but more or less daytime for 
all others. Next time let's try to do an earlier time and ruin 
Rafik's sleep instead. 

Tapani 



On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:28:25PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen ( ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info ) wrote: 

> Hi all, 
> 
> It seems there's no really good time for the call next Tuesday. 
> Monday might be easier. 
> 
> Let's do a quick poll - *very* quick, please reply *today* 
> by 2000 UTC: 
> 
> http://doodle.com/poll/vn6vwx4fd67c96r3 
> 
> Thank you, 
> 
> Tapani 
> 
> On Jan 11 15:46, Amr Elsadr ( aelsadr at egyptig.org ) wrote: 
> 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > I would also prefer the call to be at UTC 13:00 or 14:00, if possible. 
> > 
> > On this from Tapani: 
> > 
> > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO > wrote: 
> > > 
> > 
> > [SNIP[ 
> > 
> > > 
> > > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is 
> > > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have 
> > > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no 
> > > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome. 
> > 
> > That should be OK. It?d still be past the deadline to submit motions, and the Council meeting agenda should be available by that date as well. Still?, leaves quite a bit of time for the agenda to change, or motions be amended. 
> > 
> > Thanks. 
> > 
> > Amr 
> > 
> > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM > wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Hi Tapani. 
> > > 
> > > Thanks, is it possible to have the call at 13:00 or 14:00UTC? 
> > > Btw for GNSO WGs calls, they are listed in this calendar https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . CCWG subgroups can only use 3 slots (5:00,13:00, 19:00UTC) per day and can be avoided. 
> > > For the February, a call in Friday will be ok. 
> > > Best, 
> > > 
> > > Rafik 
> > > On Jan 11, 2017 5:54 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" < ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info > wrote: 
> > > Dear all, 
> > > 
> > > Next Council meeting is on 19th, so our policy call should be on the 
> > > 17th. For time I propose 2100 UTC; there are not many viable 
> > > alternatives, but please let me know if you can't make that, in 
> > > particular if there's some overlapping ICANN call; if too many can't 
> > > make it I'll look for other options (probably means another day). 
> > > 
> > > February Council meeting is on the 16th, preceding Tuesday (14th) is 
> > > in the middle of the Intersessional. That means we'd pretty much have 
> > > to have our call on the previous week, maybe Friday the 10th (no 
> > > opinion on time as yet). Opinions welcome. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 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 
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 


_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Jan 16 12:57:13 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:57:13 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
Message-ID: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Dear all,

Our charter says

"A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."

"One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
yearly basis."

While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
year is a good default, and in any case the election should
happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.

There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
a closed election if desired.

All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
(me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
also eligible.

So, nominations please!

Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From aelsadr at egyptig.org  Mon Jan 16 14:06:07 2017
From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:06:07 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <A18D0B9B-5283-4089-B5FC-E1CCDB532FAE@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for getting this started, Tapani. I?d like to nominate Rafik Dammak for the PC Chair job. When I was bungling up the PC Chair gig, Rafik was a great source of support (at the time in his capacity as NCSG Chair). He follows open projects that the NCSG needs to stay on top of methodically. If anyone can do this job, I believe he can.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Our charter says
> 
> "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
> 
> "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
> yearly basis."
> 
> While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
> year is a good default, and in any case the election should
> happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
> 
> There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
> election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
> a closed election if desired.
> 
> All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
> as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
> (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
> also eligible.
> 
> So, nominations please!
> 
> Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From mshears at cdt.org  Mon Jan 16 14:44:47 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:44:47 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <A18D0B9B-5283-4089-B5FC-E1CCDB532FAE@egyptig.org>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <A18D0B9B-5283-4089-B5FC-E1CCDB532FAE@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <d8291058-4379-f10c-d576-54adc3e7c5e7@cdt.org>

+1


On 16/01/2017 12:06, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for getting this started, Tapani. I?d like to nominate Rafik Dammak for the PC Chair job. When I was bungling up the PC Chair gig, Rafik was a great source of support (at the time in his capacity as NCSG Chair). He follows open projects that the NCSG needs to stay on top of methodically. If anyone can do this job, I believe he can.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Jan 16, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Our charter says
>>
>> "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
>> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
>>
>> "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
>> yearly basis."
>>
>> While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
>> year is a good default, and in any case the election should
>> happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
>>
>> There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
>> election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
>> a closed election if desired.
>>
>> All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
>> as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
>> (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
>> also eligible.
>>
>> So, nominations please!
>>
>> Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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

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



From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Mon Jan 16 15:15:56 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:15:56 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <A18D0B9B-5283-4089-B5FC-E1CCDB532FAE@egyptig.org>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>,
 <A18D0B9B-5283-4089-B5FC-E1CCDB532FAE@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521C34FA2EA0F8929F92222F77D0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

+1. Great idea!

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

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

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Inviato: luned? 16 gennaio 2017 13.06.07
A: Tapani Tarvainen
Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election

Hi,

Thanks for getting this started, Tapani. I?d like to nominate Rafik Dammak for the PC Chair job. When I was bungling up the PC Chair gig, Rafik was a great source of support (at the time in his capacity as NCSG Chair). He follows open projects that the NCSG needs to stay on top of methodically. If anyone can do this job, I believe he can.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Our charter says
>
> "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
>
> "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
> yearly basis."
>
> While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
> year is a good default, and in any case the election should
> happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
>
> There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
> election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
> a closed election if desired.
>
> All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
> as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
> (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
> also eligible.
>
> So, nominations please!
>
> Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
>
> --
> 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

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 aelsadr at egyptig.org  Tue Jan 17 15:21:58 2017
From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:21:58 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <ABA18B1C-0D1D-47DA-8498-5FA06E96182F@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

Don?t we need a timeline for the nomination period, candidate statements, voting, etc??

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Our charter says
> 
> "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
> 
> "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
> yearly basis."
> 
> While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
> year is a good default, and in any case the election should
> happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
> 
> There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
> election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
> a closed election if desired.
> 
> All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
> as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
> (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
> also eligible.
> 
> So, nominations please!
> 
> Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Jan 18 00:30:17 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:30:17 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

I failed to specify timeline for the process, we discussed it in
our call that just ended that agreed to have one week for nominations
and their acceptance, and then another week for voting. So:

* Candidates should be nominated and  have indicated their acceptance
  within one week from now, by 24 January 23:59 UTC.

* Vice Chairs may also be nominated and if any are, they will be
  voted on at the same time as the Chair.

* Voting will take place openly on this list after that and end one
  week later, 31 Janyary 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted.

* New PC Chair will take begin her or his term on 1 February.

Tapani

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:57:13PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Our charter says
> 
> "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
> 
> "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
> yearly basis."
> 
> While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
> year is a good default, and in any case the election should
> happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
> 
> There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
> election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
> a closed election if desired.
> 
> All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
> as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
> (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
> also eligible.
> 
> So, nominations please!
> 
> Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen


From aelsadr at egyptig.org  Wed Jan 18 00:44:47 2017
From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:44:47 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <D83F1A06-99C2-4EA3-99F6-A2756C42E0E3@egyptig.org>

Great. Thanks Tapani.

Amr

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I failed to specify timeline for the process, we discussed it in
> our call that just ended that agreed to have one week for nominations
> and their acceptance, and then another week for voting. So:
> 
> * Candidates should be nominated and  have indicated their acceptance
>  within one week from now, by 24 January 23:59 UTC.
> 
> * Vice Chairs may also be nominated and if any are, they will be
>  voted on at the same time as the Chair.
> 
> * Voting will take place openly on this list after that and end one
>  week later, 31 Janyary 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted.
> 
> * New PC Chair will take begin her or his term on 1 February.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:57:13PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Our charter says
>> 
>> "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
>> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
>> 
>> "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
>> yearly basis."
>> 
>> While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
>> year is a good default, and in any case the election should
>> happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
>> 
>> There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
>> election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
>> a closed election if desired.
>> 
>> All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
>> as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
>> (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
>> also eligible.
>> 
>> So, nominations please!
>> 
>> Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From egmorris1 at toast.net  Thu Jan 19 19:22:07 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:22:07 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSR Selection, Amendment to Motion on  Council call
In-Reply-To: <D83F1A06-99C2-4EA3-99F6-A2756C42E0E3@egyptig.org>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info>
 <D83F1A06-99C2-4EA3-99F6-A2756C42E0E3@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <30363b8c1e5c4d53ad3cf36b3830235c@toast.net>

 
 Hi everybody,
 
I wanted to give folks advanced notice of an amendment that will be offered tonight concerning the candidates that will be proposed for the SSR Review Team.
 
As I noted on the PC call earlier this week, one of the Selection Team?s choices for one of the GNSO?s three guaranteed positions on the SSR RT, Eric Osterwell, was also endorsed and selected by RSSAC. Eric accepted their endorsement thus allowing us to nominate another GNSO candidate for the RT.
 
The GNSO can nominate seven candidates for the SSR Team, three whom are guaranteed selection and four who will be considered for open slots by the SO/AC chairs. As Eric had been selected for one of the guaranteed slots, we had the opportunity to revisit the applicant pool and elevate one of those we had chosen for a nonguaranteed position to a guaranteed slot, and elevate one of the applicants who were not initially selected into a GNSO recommended position. After a few days of consideration, those of us on the Selection Team have considered our options and the Motion will be amended tonight (as seconder I will be accepting the amendment as friendly) to reflect the following:
 
Emily Taylor (RrSG) to be elevated into one of the three guaranteed GNSO positions on the SSR RT, and,
 
Rao Naveed Bin Rais (NCSG) to receive a GNSO endorsement for the SSR RT, with his name forwarded to the SO/AC Chairs for further consideration.
 
Resolved ?1 of the amended Motion will now read:
  
 -
 
1.     The GNSO Council nominates (in alphabetical order): Denise Michel, Emily Taylor, James Gannon as its primary three candidates for the SSR2-RT, noting that these candidates under the new ICANN Bylaws are entitled to be selected. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates (in alphabetical order): Howard Eland, Norm Ritchie, Rao Naveed Bin Rais, Scott McCormick to be considered for inclusion in the SSR2-RT by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available.
 
 -

This was an incredibly talented field of applicants. We should be very proud that both NCSG member applicants have been recommended for selection by the GNSO Council for this important  Review Team. Congratulations to both James and Naveed for your selection and thank you very much for your willingness to serve our community.
 
I certainly will be voting in favour of this Motion tonight and hope my fellow GNSO Councilors will join me in doing so. I believe this is a good outcome for the NCSG, the GNSO and for ICANN itself.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Ed Morris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170119/75a338d3/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Jan 20 01:27:28 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:27:28 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Thick WHOIS Legal Review Memorandum
In-Reply-To: <6586666C-7C5A-4052-9DE6-C9A95DAFABB2@icann.org>
References: <6586666C-7C5A-4052-9DE6-C9A95DAFABB2@icann.org>
Message-ID: <fb9c0fba-2f96-df1e-8fd0-2f872e753481@mail.utoronto.ca>


Here is the legal memo for the Thick whois transition.  We requested a 
new one today, given that lots has happened in the intervening years.
Cheers Steph

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Thick WHOIS Legal Review Memorandum
Date: 	Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:22:58 +0000
From: 	Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear All,

As requested during the call today, please find attached the legal 
review memorandum which was submitted to the Thick WHOIS IRT on 8 June 2015.

Best regards,

Marika

*/Marika Konings/*

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

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

//

/Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170119/50a70313/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN Memorandum to the IRT - Thin to Thick WHOIS Transition_Final_2015-06-08.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 125911 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170119/50a70313/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council


From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Jan 22 20:43:31 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:43:31 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments -
	deadline tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <4203F936-E37A-475E-980B-A13338DF6173@toast.net>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
 <4203F936-E37A-475E-980B-A13338DF6173@toast.net>
Message-ID: <xcfObs3wf_ly7ILWHLc_C4qyVrDlcr0Ol-nhsTHyr06nZvD1B2NXcRW01pQhiEh76Xr9N_kqPKRTIxxJWulhgOUE1dksr3u58bELNuxj0RQ=@ferdeline.com>

I fully support these comments as well. Publicly recording my personal thanks to you, Kathy, for taking the time and making the effort to write this response to that infantile document that ICANN staff for some reason had the resources to produce. Thanks again.



Ayden F?rdeline
[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Local Time: 22 January 2017 5:43 PM
UTC Time: 22 January 2017 17:43
From: egmorris1 at toast.net
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>

Hi Kathy,

I'm happy to endorse these as NCSG comments.

Best,

Ed Morris


Sent from my iPhone


On 22 Jan 2017, at 17:39, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:


Hi All,


On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment: Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. Staff's idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of Silly Walks!


I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really bad idea.

The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing

Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?

Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these comments once we have approval?
Best, Kathy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en





Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.





The comments below strongly support the cries of John Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the start. How this slide presentation made it to the level of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious issues and PDPs before us.





In all seriousness, let us share that:





-
SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly supportable;


-
BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to issues that need careful and balanced review, consideration and evaluation is, as you have been told in other comments, DANGEROUS:



1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name to a certain situation implies it is a problem. For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data) delves into difficulties we have been exploring for over 15 years: of privacy and data protection protections and laws not currently allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of legitimate exercises of Free Expression by individuals and organizations operating in opposition to oppressive regimes and governments who would jail them for their views (or worse); of students who have no phones, but do have computers, Internet connections and ideas that to share via domain names. This data is not a disease, but a complex policy discussion and concern.





2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name atop an area of serious research, study and evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages the robustness of the debate, and makes it more difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the issues.


3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research area with a silly name. It diminishes the work of many years and the good faith efforts of numerous task forces, working groups and committees.






The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not appreciate the attention and intensity of the debate. We are technologists, lawyers, registration industry members and other Community members who have become policy makers. We look at facts, situations, data and evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time and discussions to label them with silly names.





Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you have asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for the materials that are the basis of your question. The 5 disease names that have been created impose prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The answer is ?no.?





Best,





NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned






_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170122/2e12d54e/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Jan 22 21:20:48 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:20:48 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on IRP - If supported,
	to be submitted by 01/25
Message-ID: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>

Greetings all,

Please find attached a proposed public comment on the Updated Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP). This response has already been shared on the general NCSG discussion list. Kindly consider reviewing this document and, if necessary, propose any amendments to the PC as a whole and the authors who are cc'd into this message. The deadline for submission is in three days time; 25 January at 23:59 UTC. Thank you!

Best wishes,



Ayden F?rdeline
[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170122/03dab122/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IndependentReviewProcess-NCSGPublicComment.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 12697 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170122/03dab122/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IndependentReviewProcess-NCSGPublicComment (1).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 127347 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170122/03dab122/attachment.pdf>

From egmorris1 at toast.net  Sun Jan 22 22:31:14 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:31:14 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on IRP - If supported,
	to be submitted by 01/25
In-Reply-To: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>
References: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <E859107D-383D-4929-A808-55C3B6DDF715@toast.net>

Hi Ayden,

Thanks for helping to put this together. I appreciate the synthesis of comments and perspectives that have also been posted elsewhere by members of the NCSG. In particular, I'd like to thank Milton and Kathy for their hard work on this important matter.

As rapporteur for the CEP I will ensure that suggestions contained herein that  may apply to the CEP will be known by members of my group. However, as the CEP is mentioned in the document I don't believe it is appropriate for me to weigh in on consideration of these issues as a member of the PC. I hate being pedantic but I'm in the process of criticising possible conflicts elsewhere in the CCWG and don't want to be put in the position of being accused of the same. Rapporteurs should be as neutral as possible on contentious issues that may be considered in their group's discussions.

So although I need to abstain in terms of personal PC support for this comment, I do want to commend those responsible for such professional and well considered output. It reflects well upon all of us in the NCSG.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Jan 2017, at 19:21, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Greetings all,
> 
> Please find attached a proposed public comment on the Updated Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP). This response has already been shared on the general NCSG discussion list. Kindly consider reviewing this document and, if necessary, propose any amendments to the PC as a whole and the authors who are cc'd into this message. The deadline for submission is in three days time; 25 January at 23:59 UTC. Thank you!
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
> 
> 
> <IndependentReviewProcess-NCSGPublicComment.docx>
> <IndependentReviewProcess-NCSGPublicComment (1).pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170122/25a254ad/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Jan 23 02:47:00 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:47:00 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on IRP - If supported,
 to be submitted by 01/25
In-Reply-To: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>
References: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=XMGa+jvDaJWWhqycFRVt_Rko29mFLt_WU4NiwtK6_YQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

thanks to Farzaneh and Milton for working on this statement and get the
public comment covered. Since there was discussion in NCSG list and there
was support (in addition to individual statements), I endorse the statement
for submission.

Best,

Rafik

2017-01-23 4:20 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Greetings all,
>
> Please find attached a proposed public comment on the Updated
> Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP). This
> response has already been shared on the general NCSG discussion
> list. Kindly consider reviewing this document and, if necessary, propose
> any amendments to the PC as a whole and the authors who are cc'd into this
> message. The deadline for submission is in three days time; 25 January at
> 23:59 UTC. Thank you!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170123/939f4b25/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Jan 23 04:24:25 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:24:25 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on IRP - If supported,
 to be submitted by 01/25
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=XMGa+jvDaJWWhqycFRVt_Rko29mFLt_WU4NiwtK6_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=XMGa+jvDaJWWhqycFRVt_Rko29mFLt_WU4NiwtK6_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <39518249-846c-81af-a7e3-ae3da354be7c@mail.utoronto.ca>

Me too!  great work.

thanks

On 2017-01-22 19:47, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks to Farzaneh and Milton for working on this statement and get 
> the public comment covered. Since there was discussion in NCSG list 
> and there was support (in addition to individual statements), I 
> endorse the statement for submission.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-01-23 4:20 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
>     Greetings all,
>
>     Please find attached a proposed public comment on the Updated
>     Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP).
>     This response has already been shared on the general NCSG
>     discussion list. Kindly consider reviewing this document and, if
>     necessary, propose any amendments to the PC as a whole and the
>     authors who are cc'd into this message. The deadline for
>     submission is in three days time; 25 January at 23:59 UTC. Thank you!
>
>     Best wishes,
>
>     Ayden F?rdeline
>     linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170122/aa3bb994/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Mon Jan 23 09:49:28 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:49:28 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on IRP - If supported,
 to be submitted by 01/25
In-Reply-To: <39518249-846c-81af-a7e3-ae3da354be7c@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=XMGa+jvDaJWWhqycFRVt_Rko29mFLt_WU4NiwtK6_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <39518249-846c-81af-a7e3-ae3da354be7c@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <fe0f11b6-ce58-1221-f278-f9718adf83af@cdt.org>

Agree and support


On 23/01/2017 02:24, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Me too!  great work.
>
> thanks
>
> On 2017-01-22 19:47, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks to Farzaneh and Milton for working on this statement and get 
>> the public comment covered. Since there was discussion in NCSG list 
>> and there was support (in addition to individual statements), I 
>> endorse the statement for submission.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-01-23 4:20 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>
>>     Greetings all,
>>
>>     Please find attached a proposed public comment on the Updated
>>     Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP).
>>     This response has already been shared on the general NCSG
>>     discussion list. Kindly consider reviewing this document and, if
>>     necessary, propose any amendments to the PC as a whole and the
>>     authors who are cc'd into this message. The deadline for
>>     submission is in three days time; 25 January at 23:59 UTC. Thank you!
>>
>>     Best wishes,
>>
>>     Ayden F?rdeline
>>     linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>     <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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170123/779a2fa5/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Jan 23 10:11:36 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:11:36 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on IRP - If supported,
 to be submitted by 01/25
In-Reply-To: <fe0f11b6-ce58-1221-f278-f9718adf83af@cdt.org>
References: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=XMGa+jvDaJWWhqycFRVt_Rko29mFLt_WU4NiwtK6_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <39518249-846c-81af-a7e3-ae3da354be7c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <fe0f11b6-ce58-1221-f278-f9718adf83af@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <20170123081136.efuo7wf5yr73dcms@tarvainen.info>

Likewise.

Tapani

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:49:28AM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:

> Agree and support
> 
> 
> On 23/01/2017 02:24, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> > 
> > Me too!  great work.
> > 
> > thanks
> > 
> > On 2017-01-22 19:47, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > thanks to Farzaneh and Milton for working on this statement and get
> > > the public comment covered. Since there was discussion in NCSG list
> > > and there was support (in addition to individual statements), I
> > > endorse the statement for submission.
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > 
> > > Rafik
> > > 
> > > 2017-01-23 4:20 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> > > <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
> > > 
> > >     Greetings all,
> > > 
> > >     Please find attached a proposed public comment on the Updated
> > >     Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP).
> > >     This response has already been shared on the general NCSG
> > >     discussion list. Kindly consider reviewing this document and, if
> > >     necessary, propose any amendments to the PC as a whole and the
> > >     authors who are cc'd into this message. The deadline for
> > >     submission is in three days time; 25 January at 23:59 UTC. Thank you!
> > > 
> > >     Best wishes,
> > > 
> > >     Ayden F?rdeline
> > >     linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >     _______________________________________________
> > >     NCSG-PC mailing list
> > >     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> > >     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> > >     <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
> 
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987


From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Jan 23 17:40:07 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:40:07 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments -
	deadline tomorrow!
In-Reply-To: <7e50e940-81fb-bc95-4d6d-d398dd22613a@cdt.org>
References: <6fa3d94c-a53c-eb71-6081-34bbd36f1da1@kathykleiman.com>
 <5be8b0ba-6ff3-0883-ac89-2da3636f0332@cdt.org>
 <0dc228aa-4022-b5bd-ed43-967d140d900b@kathykleiman.com>
 <CAH5sThm=+8xVXd7oRVN19_r5-X=tFoCRL+2vU0Fo5Husj+ityQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4be7e2d-e883-ce57-9c77-5704788a6f4d@cdt.org>
 <20170123081510.3owtldsg43ki3doo@tarvainen.info>
 <5610dd62-5e43-ae0b-4870-60e956447dec@kathykleiman.com>
 <7e50e940-81fb-bc95-4d6d-d398dd22613a@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <xooHpZzLXArcIG_EhAv4i1w-ERWs0TeUWfrvudTWpMa5RCqAy7AgesNHciUerucjBnfNoFxf3GW3scgHFzvQsSRbXin2yJthCAbA0FkTJ78=@ferdeline.com>

This is by no means a strong objection ? but in the pursuit of more diplomatic language, the current version of this document has, in my view, lost the forcefulness of the original version in rejecting the ridiculous Identifier Technology Health Indicators. And I think the original, wittier response read better.



Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Local Time: 23 January 2017 2:59 PM
UTC Time: 23 January 2017 14:59
From: mshears at cdt.org
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org

Works for me.


On 23/01/2017 14:54, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Tx for all the reviews. Sentence of concern now removed. Ready for
> launch?
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 1/23/2017 3:15 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Yes. I would be OK with the statement with or without the statement
>> Rafik marked as aggressive, but it's probably better without it.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:38:21AM +0000, matthew shears
>> (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>>
>>> Agree with Rafik's comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/01/2017 00:54, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I read other submitted comments and there is a clear opposition to the
>>>> proposal.
>>>> I am fine with supporting the statement submission, but I made a small
>>>> comment there. I think we are clear in expressing our objection but
>>>> maybe avoiding any unnecessary perceived aggressivity.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-01-23 5:03 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing --
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/22/2017 2:40 PM, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights.
>>>>> Thanks. Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would
>>>>>> draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment:
>>>>>> /Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. /Staff's
>>>>>> idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues
>>>>>> and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the
>>>>>> view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this
>>>>>> proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of
>>>>>> Silly Walks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view
>>>>>> that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the
>>>>>> types of
>>>>>> issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior
>>>>>> comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill
>>>>>> and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really
>>>>>> bad idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc at
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can
>>>>>> submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these
>>>>>> comments once we have approval? //
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators:
>>>>>> Definition
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
>>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse
>>>>>> of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who
>>>>>> have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we
>>>>>> should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The comments below strongly support the cries of John
>>>>>> Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James
>>>>>> Gannon in
>>>>>> setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not
>>>>>> deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the
>>>>>> start. How this slide presentation made it to the level
>>>>>> of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the
>>>>>> understanding of those reviewing it ? we have serious
>>>>>> issues and PDPs before us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In all seriousness, let us share that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly
>>>>>> supportable;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to
>>>>>> issues that need /careful and balanced /review,
>>>>>> consideration and evaluation is, as you have been
>>>>>> told in other comments, DANGEROUS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. It's prejudicial ? assigning a disease name
>>>>>> to a certain situation implies it is a problem.
>>>>>> For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data)
>>>>>> delves into difficulties we have been exploring
>>>>>> for over 15 years: of privacy and data
>>>>>> protection protections and laws not currently
>>>>>> allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of
>>>>>> legitimate exercises of Free Expression by
>>>>>> individuals and organizations operating in
>>>>>> opposition to oppressive regimes and
>>>>>> governments
>>>>>> who would jail them for their views (or worse);
>>>>>> of students who have no phones, but do have
>>>>>> computers, Internet connections and ideas that
>>>>>> to share via domain names. This data is not a
>>>>>> disease, but a complex policy discussion and
>>>>>> concern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. It's unfair ? superimposing a disease name
>>>>>> atop an area of serious research, study and
>>>>>> evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages
>>>>>> the robustness of the debate, and makes it more
>>>>>> difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the
>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. It's unwise ? labeling a serious research
>>>>>> area with a silly name. It diminishes the work
>>>>>> of many years and the good faith efforts of
>>>>>> numerous task forces, working groups and
>>>>>> committees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea
>>>>>> either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not
>>>>>> appreciate the attention and intensity of the
>>>>>> debate. We
>>>>>> are technologists, lawyers, registration industry
>>>>>> members and other Community members who have become
>>>>>> policy makers. We look at facts, situations, data and
>>>>>> evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time
>>>>>> and discussions to label them with silly names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment ? you
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide
>>>>>> presentation
>>>>>> for the materials that are the basis of your question.
>>>>>> The 5 disease names that have been created impose
>>>>>> prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope
>>>>>> of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of
>>>>>> ICANN. The answer is ?no.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>> -- ------------
>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170123/1e0570f1/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Jan 23 19:30:43 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:30:43 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated GNSO Block Schedule
	for ICANN58
In-Reply-To: <ba658b22-ab56-818a-cbfb-59513589a6b2@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <3EAFD474-AD52-4A34-B54D-503A4D07E0D7@icann.org>
 <ba658b22-ab56-818a-cbfb-59513589a6b2@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <m3jDGFErUiYrgeK8rN25_Ek0i_XeGS6-u5R_M60bf7lviurCK-uRTmz5itgWggreWcC4bR-1GktN3848i1I3uQ9kSz8C_RRfnUmzTpGaTSY=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks for forwarding this, Stephanie. c/c'ing the new list for archive purposes.

And I hope no one wants a coffee break on day one... looks like a rather busy day.



Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Updated GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN58
Local Time: 19 January 2017 6:30 PM
UTC Time: 19 January 2017 18:30
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>






Here is the revised GNSO schedule. Not sure of new address, hope this arrives. Let me know if we have comments on this....
cheers SP

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:
[council] Updated GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN58

Date:
Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:21:38 +0000

From:
Mary Wong [<mary.wong at icann.org>](mailto:mary.wong at icann.org)

To:
council at gnso.icann.org [<council at gnso.icann.org>](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org)




Dear Councilors,





Following further discussion with the Council leadership, a few slight updates have been made to the previously-circulated Draft GNSO Block Schedule. Please use this version for your reference and consultation with your respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and for the Council call later today, thank you!





James and Donna ? please note that this version has a couple of minor tweaks from the one I circulated to you earlier (per some suggestions from Donna).





Cheers


Mary








Mary Wong


Senior Policy Director



Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)



Email: mary.wong at icann.org



Telephone: +1-603-5744889
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170123/4f652dc0/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Jan 24 20:33:51 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:33:51 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on IRP - If supported,
 to be submitted by 01/25
In-Reply-To: <20170123081136.efuo7wf5yr73dcms@tarvainen.info>
References: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=XMGa+jvDaJWWhqycFRVt_Rko29mFLt_WU4NiwtK6_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <39518249-846c-81af-a7e3-ae3da354be7c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <fe0f11b6-ce58-1221-f278-f9718adf83af@cdt.org>
 <20170123081136.efuo7wf5yr73dcms@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <8195d260-426f-62d5-f0df-3dd3a761f203@cdt.org>

Hi all

Thanks for the expression of support - others who have not done so might 
chime in now as we are up against a deadline (tomorrow).

I will assume silence is assent.  If there are major issues please raise 
them here and now *but* if you do propose a solution or text, etc.

I will be filing tomorrow.

Matthew


On 23/01/2017 08:11, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Likewise.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:49:28AM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>
>> Agree and support
>>
>>
>> On 23/01/2017 02:24, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> Me too!  great work.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> On 2017-01-22 19:47, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> thanks to Farzaneh and Milton for working on this statement and get
>>>> the public comment covered. Since there was discussion in NCSG list
>>>> and there was support (in addition to individual statements), I
>>>> endorse the statement for submission.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-01-23 4:20 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>      Greetings all,
>>>>
>>>>      Please find attached a proposed public comment on the Updated
>>>>      Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP).
>>>>      This response has already been shared on the general NCSG
>>>>      discussion list. Kindly consider reviewing this document and, if
>>>>      necessary, propose any amendments to the PC as a whole and the
>>>>      authors who are cc'd into this message. The deadline for
>>>>      submission is in three days time; 25 January at 23:59 UTC. Thank you!
>>>>
>>>>      Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>>      Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>      linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>>      NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>      NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>      https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>      <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
>> -- 
>> ------------
>> 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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170124/54c9133e/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Jan 25 06:49:58 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:49:58 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=YfsJ_9wujboY2sYJf8aJjvruPRvf0+_JO11+qND3sOQ@mail.gmail.com>

hi,

I am happy to run for PC chair election if it is not late.

Best,

Rafik

2017-01-18 7:30 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:

> Dear all,
>
> I failed to specify timeline for the process, we discussed it in
> our call that just ended that agreed to have one week for nominations
> and their acceptance, and then another week for voting. So:
>
> * Candidates should be nominated and  have indicated their acceptance
>   within one week from now, by 24 January 23:59 UTC.
>
> * Vice Chairs may also be nominated and if any are, they will be
>   voted on at the same time as the Chair.
>
> * Voting will take place openly on this list after that and end one
>   week later, 31 Janyary 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted.
>
> * New PC Chair will take begin her or his term on 1 February.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:57:13PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Our charter says
> >
> > "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
> > NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
> >
> > "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
> > yearly basis."
> >
> > While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
> > year is a good default, and in any case the election should
> > happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
> >
> > There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
> > election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
> > a closed election if desired.
> >
> > All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
> > as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
> > (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
> > also eligible.
> >
> > So, nominations please!
> >
> > Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
> >
> > --
> > 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170125/d7ed11a8/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Jan 25 10:21:25 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:21:25 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT - Data
 Protection Commissioners
In-Reply-To: <206E8A2B-8B7C-48C2-82BE-4CA6AE35B4C6@godaddy.com>
References: <206E8A2B-8B7C-48C2-82BE-4CA6AE35B4C6@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <aa238a2b-80a1-d56a-c381-8eac6461bbe7@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks to everyone who helped with this.  We are back to the HIT idea, 
many thanks to the GNSO and Chuck Gomes for support.  I am here at CPDP 
with Peter Kimpian, we will be working on the outline for the HIT and 
hope to confirm potential speakers on site.  Please do not drop the NCSG 
slot we have obtained, we need to brainstorm a bit aobut exactly what we 
use it for, probably to elaborate on details but it will depend on who 
comes.  I am going to propose we try hard to get the winner of the 
Champion of Freedom award to come, (to be announced at 6 pm tonight).

cheers Steph



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	FW: [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT - Data Protection 
Commissioners
Date: 	Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:37:18 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, KIMPIAN Peter 
<Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>, kathy at kathykleiman.com <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
CC: 	Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Austin, Donna 
<Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, 
Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>



Stephanie  / Peter ?

Please see thread below.  We have tentatively agreed to move the Data 
Commissioner ?Summit? (need a better name) to a High Interest Topic 
(HIT) session at ICANN58 in Copenhagen.

Next Steps ? We will get your team of volunteers (and anyone else you 
determine is necessary) in touch with the meeting planning staff.  In 
the interim, please put together a format & rough agenda for the 
session, along with a tentative list of Data Commissioners who plan to 
attend.

There?s still much to be done, but I think we?re headed in the right 
direction with this.


Thanks?

J.

*From: *<soac-leaders-icann58-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "James M. 
Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
*Date: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 17:33
*To: *"Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch" 
<Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>, "soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org" 
<soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT - Data Protection 
Commissioners

Thank you, Thomas, and others who contributed their thoughts.

As indicated in the original message, I will ask the volunteers to 
develop and present an agenda for this session, and include a list of 
committed attendees (if available).  We will then work with Nick and 
Tanzi to get this added as an HIT.

Many thanks?

J.

*From: *"Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>
*Date: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 00:41
*To: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 
"soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org" <soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org>
*Subject: *AW: [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT - Data Protection 
Commissioners

Dear all

First of all, i would like to thank James for his message below.

Then I would like to tell you that ? given that this initiative to have 
a dialogue between the domain industry and data protection commissioners 
from Europe and other regions has been taken by the Council of Europe 
who is a GAC observer and that there seems to be widespread interest in 
having such a dialogue in Copenhagen ? the GAC leadership has proposed 
the GAC to act as a ?sponsor? or ?facilitator? of such a dialogue.

While there is support to have such a dialogue, some GAC members raised 
some questions and concerns regard the formalities about the 
?sponsoring? or ?facilitating? role of the GAC on this. I have now 
replied to them that in the end, I think these formal issues are less 
important. What is important is that, given the interest signalled from 
various parts of the ICANN community, we DO actually have such a dialogue.

Whether we deal with it as a HIT or we call it differently, is not 
really important to me. So if the GNSO is ready to act as a formal 
?driver? of this, I would not have any problem with this. Again, the 
important thing is that we move forward and find a time in the 
Copenhagen schedule to have this dialogue as I am convinced that this 
would help solve problems and avoid future problems with regard to 
incompatibilities between frameworks developed in ICANN and national or 
international data protection legislation?

Best regards

Thomas

*Von:*soac-leaders-icann58-bounces at icann.org 
[mailto:soac-leaders-icann58-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *James 
M. Bladel
*Gesendet:* Montag, 23. Januar 2017 21:54
*An:* SOAC Leaders ICANN58 <soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org>
*Betreff:* [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT - Data Protection 
Commissioners

Dear SOAC Leaders / ICANN58 Planning Team ?

During the GNSO Council last week, there was discussion of a session at 
ICANN58 that would address data protection concerns in our industry, and 
would be attended by data protection commissioners from throughout the 
EU.  These folks are especially interested in the ongoing work around 
WHOIS/RDS, and the Copenhagen location is easily accessible to 
prospective attendees.

Organizers of this session have asked the GNSO and other groups (GAC, I 
believe?) to support their inclusion on the meeting agenda. 
Additionally, as it appears that one of the HIT sessions may become 
available (Monday 1515-1645), I would like to propose that we consider 
repurposing this HIT slot to accommodate the growing interest in the 
?Data Protection Summit?.

If there is support among this group for proceeding, then I would ask 
the volunteer organizers of this session to produce an overview/agenda 
of their session, to ensure that the subject matter and format meets the 
expectations of all SO/ACs, and contributes to the furtherance of the 
RDS policy work already underway.  I recognize that this is coming 
fairly late in to the process, but am hopeful that our group can be 
flexible in its consideration of this request.  If we are unable to 
accommodate the proposal, please note that some version of this session 
will likely occur in Copenhagen anyway, albeit it would not enjoy an 
unconflicted HIT slot on the main schedule.

If possible, we should decide this week, so I can task the volunteers to 
either (a) develop the aforementioned session agenda, or (b) make 
alternative (non-HIT) scheduling arrangements.

Thank you,

J.

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

James Bladel

GNSO Chair

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170125/c1095a9a/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Jan 25 10:45:09 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:45:09 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=YfsJ_9wujboY2sYJf8aJjvruPRvf0+_JO11+qND3sOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=YfsJ_9wujboY2sYJf8aJjvruPRvf0+_JO11+qND3sOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20170125084509.7mahc52gixvbpzr2@tarvainen.info>

Hi Rafik,

As far as I'm concerned you made it close enough to the deadline. :-)

Of course it's up to the PC to decide, but if someone wants to object,
I would hope they'll also come up with a counterproposal, like
nominating themselves or someone else for the job. :-)

Tapani

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:49:58PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:

> hi,
> 
> I am happy to run for PC chair election if it is not late.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2017-01-18 7:30 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
> 
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I failed to specify timeline for the process, we discussed it in
> > our call that just ended that agreed to have one week for nominations
> > and their acceptance, and then another week for voting. So:
> >
> > * Candidates should be nominated and  have indicated their acceptance
> >   within one week from now, by 24 January 23:59 UTC.
> >
> > * Vice Chairs may also be nominated and if any are, they will be
> >   voted on at the same time as the Chair.
> >
> > * Voting will take place openly on this list after that and end one
> >   week later, 31 Janyary 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted.
> >
> > * New PC Chair will take begin her or his term on 1 February.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:57:13PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (
> > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Our charter says
> > >
> > > "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
> > > NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
> > >
> > > "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
> > > yearly basis."
> > >
> > > While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
> > > year is a good default, and in any case the election should
> > > happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
> > >
> > > There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
> > > election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
> > > a closed election if desired.
> > >
> > > All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
> > > as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
> > > (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
> > > also eligible.
> > >
> > > So, nominations please!
> > >
> > > Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Jan 25 10:55:03 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:55:03 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
Message-ID: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>

Dear PC members,

Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
on this list:

Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
"-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
the vote indication in the beginning.)

Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.

Thank you.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Jan 25 11:06:11 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:06:11 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170125084509.7mahc52gixvbpzr2@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=YfsJ_9wujboY2sYJf8aJjvruPRvf0+_JO11+qND3sOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170125084509.7mahc52gixvbpzr2@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <56378b62-cfca-dab3-3193-48d3f10e3f61@cdt.org>

As far as I am concerned I welcome Rafik's candidacy.


On 25/01/2017 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> As far as I'm concerned you made it close enough to the deadline. :-)
>
> Of course it's up to the PC to decide, but if someone wants to object,
> I would hope they'll also come up with a counterproposal, like
> nominating themselves or someone else for the job. :-)
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:49:58PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> I am happy to run for PC chair election if it is not late.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-01-18 7:30 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I failed to specify timeline for the process, we discussed it in
>>> our call that just ended that agreed to have one week for nominations
>>> and their acceptance, and then another week for voting. So:
>>>
>>> * Candidates should be nominated and  have indicated their acceptance
>>>    within one week from now, by 24 January 23:59 UTC.
>>>
>>> * Vice Chairs may also be nominated and if any are, they will be
>>>    voted on at the same time as the Chair.
>>>
>>> * Voting will take place openly on this list after that and end one
>>>    week later, 31 Janyary 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted.
>>>
>>> * New PC Chair will take begin her or his term on 1 February.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:57:13PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (
>>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Our charter says
>>>>
>>>> "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
>>>> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
>>>>
>>>> "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
>>>> yearly basis."
>>>>
>>>> While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
>>>> year is a good default, and in any case the election should
>>>> happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
>>>>
>>>> There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
>>>> election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
>>>> a closed election if desired.
>>>>
>>>> All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
>>>> as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair
>>>> (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
>>>> also eligible.
>>>>
>>>> So, nominations please!
>>>>
>>>> Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> 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



From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Jan 25 11:08:07 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:08:07 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <5df2fe23-ffcf-c8c9-a367-7fa80bd4ac90@cdt.org>

+ 1


On 25/01/2017 08:55, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear PC members,
>
> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
> on this list:
>
> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
> the vote indication in the beginning.)
>
> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
>
> Thank you.
>

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



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Jan 25 11:10:57 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:10:57 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>

+1

(showing good example...)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear PC members,
> 
> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
> on this list:
> 
> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
> the vote indication in the beginning.)
> 
> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen


From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Jan 25 11:38:18 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:38:18 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT -
 Data Protection Commissioners
In-Reply-To: <aa238a2b-80a1-d56a-c381-8eac6461bbe7@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <206E8A2B-8B7C-48C2-82BE-4CA6AE35B4C6@godaddy.com>
 <aa238a2b-80a1-d56a-c381-8eac6461bbe7@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <2b0358ed-2e09-df22-84b3-40b98da0b77c@cdt.org>

Sounds excellent Stephanie - well done


On 25/01/2017 08:21, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Thanks to everyone who helped with this.  We are back to the HIT idea, 
> many thanks to the GNSO and Chuck Gomes for support.  I am here at 
> CPDP with Peter Kimpian, we will be working on the outline for the HIT 
> and hope to confirm potential speakers on site.  Please do not drop 
> the NCSG slot we have obtained, we need to brainstorm a bit aobut 
> exactly what we use it for, probably to elaborate on details but it 
> will depend on who comes.  I am going to propose we try hard to get 
> the winner of the Champion of Freedom award to come, (to be announced 
> at 6 pm tonight).
>
> cheers Steph
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	FW: [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT - Data Protection 
> Commissioners
> Date: 	Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:37:18 +0000
> From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> To: 	Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, KIMPIAN 
> Peter <Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>, kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> CC: 	Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Austin, Donna 
> <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, 
> Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Stephanie / Peter ?
>
> Please see thread below.  We have tentatively agreed to move the Data 
> Commissioner ?Summit? (need a better name) to a High Interest Topic 
> (HIT) session at ICANN58 in Copenhagen.
>
> Next Steps ? We will get your team of volunteers (and anyone else you 
> determine is necessary) in touch with the meeting planning staff.  In 
> the interim, please put together a format & rough agenda for the 
> session, along with a tentative list of Data Commissioners who plan to 
> attend.
>
> There?s still much to be done, but I think we?re headed in the right 
> direction with this.
>
>
> Thanks?
>
> J.
>
> *From: *<soac-leaders-icann58-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "James 
> M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 17:33
> *To: *"Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch" 
> <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>, "soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org" 
> <soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT - Data 
> Protection Commissioners
>
> Thank you, Thomas, and others who contributed their thoughts.
>
> As indicated in the original message, I will ask the volunteers to 
> develop and present an agenda for this session, and include a list of 
> committed attendees (if available).  We will then work with Nick and 
> Tanzi to get this added as an HIT.
>
> Many thanks?
>
> J.
>
> *From: *"Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch" 
> <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 00:41
> *To: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 
> "soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org" <soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org>
> *Subject: *AW: [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT - Data 
> Protection Commissioners
>
> Dear all
>
> First of all, i would like to thank James for his message below.
>
> Then I would like to tell you that ? given that this initiative to 
> have a dialogue between the domain industry and data protection 
> commissioners from Europe and other regions has been taken by the 
> Council of Europe who is a GAC observer and that there seems to be 
> widespread interest in having such a dialogue in Copenhagen ? the GAC 
> leadership has proposed the GAC to act as a ?sponsor? or ?facilitator? 
> of such a dialogue.
>
> While there is support to have such a dialogue, some GAC members 
> raised some questions and concerns regard the formalities about the 
> ?sponsoring? or ?facilitating? role of the GAC on this. I have now 
> replied to them that in the end, I think these formal issues are less 
> important. What is important is that, given the interest signalled 
> from various parts of the ICANN community, we DO actually have such a 
> dialogue.
>
> Whether we deal with it as a HIT or we call it differently, is not 
> really important to me. So if the GNSO is ready to act as a formal 
> ?driver? of this, I would not have any problem with this. Again, the 
> important thing is that we move forward and find a time in the 
> Copenhagen schedule to have this dialogue as I am convinced that this 
> would help solve problems and avoid future problems with regard to 
> incompatibilities between frameworks developed in ICANN and national 
> or international data protection legislation?
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
> *Von:*soac-leaders-icann58-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:soac-leaders-icann58-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *James 
> M. Bladel
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 23. Januar 2017 21:54
> *An:* SOAC Leaders ICANN58 <soac-leaders-icann58 at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* [Soac-leaders-icann58] Alternative HIT - Data Protection 
> Commissioners
>
> Dear SOAC Leaders / ICANN58 Planning Team ?
>
> During the GNSO Council last week, there was discussion of a session 
> at ICANN58 that would address data protection concerns in our 
> industry, and would be attended by data protection commissioners from 
> throughout the EU.  These folks are especially interested in the 
> ongoing work around WHOIS/RDS, and the Copenhagen location is easily 
> accessible to prospective attendees.
>
> Organizers of this session have asked the GNSO and other groups (GAC, 
> I believe?) to support their inclusion on the meeting agenda.  
> Additionally, as it appears that one of the HIT sessions may become 
> available (Monday 1515-1645), I would like to propose that we consider 
> repurposing this HIT slot to accommodate the growing interest in the 
> ?Data Protection Summit?.
>
> If there is support among this group for proceeding, then I would ask 
> the volunteer organizers of this session to produce an overview/agenda 
> of their session, to ensure that the subject matter and format meets 
> the expectations of all SO/ACs, and contributes to the furtherance of 
> the RDS policy work already underway.  I recognize that this is coming 
> fairly late in to the process, but am hopeful that our group can be 
> flexible in its consideration of this request.  If we are unable to 
> accommodate the proposal, please note that some version of this 
> session will likely occur in Copenhagen anyway, albeit it would not 
> enjoy an unconflicted HIT slot on the main schedule.
>
> If possible, we should decide this week, so I can task the volunteers 
> to either (a) develop the aforementioned session agenda, or (b) make 
> alternative (non-HIT) scheduling arrangements.
>
> Thank you,
>
> J.
>
> ----------------
>
> James Bladel
>
> GNSO Chair
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170125/4927c5d3/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Jan 25 12:00:52 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 05:00:52 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <56378b62-cfca-dab3-3193-48d3f10e3f61@cdt.org>
References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=YfsJ_9wujboY2sYJf8aJjvruPRvf0+_JO11+qND3sOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170125084509.7mahc52gixvbpzr2@tarvainen.info>
 <56378b62-cfca-dab3-3193-48d3f10e3f61@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <27ed2acc-cd00-d21c-30e4-d98757da5840@mail.utoronto.ca>

me too!


On 2017-01-25 04:06, matthew shears wrote:
> As far as I am concerned I welcome Rafik's candidacy.
>
>
> On 25/01/2017 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned you made it close enough to the deadline. :-)
>>
>> Of course it's up to the PC to decide, but if someone wants to object,
>> I would hope they'll also come up with a counterproposal, like
>> nominating themselves or someone else for the job. :-)
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:49:58PM +0900, Rafik Dammak 
>> (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> I am happy to run for PC chair election if it is not late.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-01-18 7:30 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen 
>>> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I failed to specify timeline for the process, we discussed it in
>>>> our call that just ended that agreed to have one week for nominations
>>>> and their acceptance, and then another week for voting. So:
>>>>
>>>> * Candidates should be nominated and  have indicated their acceptance
>>>>    within one week from now, by 24 January 23:59 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> * Vice Chairs may also be nominated and if any are, they will be
>>>>    voted on at the same time as the Chair.
>>>>
>>>> * Voting will take place openly on this list after that and end one
>>>>    week later, 31 Janyary 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have 
>>>> voted.
>>>>
>>>> * New PC Chair will take begin her or his term on 1 February.
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:57:13PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (
>>>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Our charter says
>>>>>
>>>>> "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the
>>>>> NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis."
>>>>>
>>>>> "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a
>>>>> yearly basis."
>>>>>
>>>>> While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar
>>>>> year is a good default, and in any case the election should
>>>>> happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open
>>>>> election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange
>>>>> a closed election if desired.
>>>>>
>>>>> All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well
>>>>> as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG 
>>>>> Chair
>>>>> (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are
>>>>> also eligible.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, nominations please!
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170125/daed4812/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Jan 25 13:01:34 2017
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:01:34 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
 <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0yu+0ROS8CE_ZkuNHXoVjzcqco6V-vczjWBig8ci_hvg@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to having Rafik as chair. Rafik's name does not need any further comment
and praising, he has showed his competence and leadership throughout the
years. He will be an excellent chair.

On my side, I apologise for the low involvement on the past two months.
Since the IGF I have been involved on a massive research project, with
interviews and field work, which forced me to shut down to other issues for
a while.

A year ago, when we were conducting the PC elections, the situation was
that we were confronted with no one else willing to do it. Matt, David and
I formed a team of chair and co-chairs to fill the gap and keep the ball
rolling. Now we are in a different situation, and I am very happy that we
are not looking at filling the void with this PC chair election, but
actually developing the conditions to leverage NCSG to the next level. With
the support of NCSG members, Rafik is the right person to achieve this goal.

All the best,
Marilia


On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> +1
>
> (showing good example...)
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
> > Dear PC members,
> >
> > Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik
> Dammak,
> > who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place
> openly
> > on this list:
> >
> > Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
> > "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
> > the vote indication in the beginning.)
> >
> > Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have
> voted,
> > and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>



-- 

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

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170125/44296a45/attachment.htm>

From aelsadr at egyptig.org  Wed Jan 25 13:15:46 2017
From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:15:46 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
 <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <86F1C18F-385C-48F4-AB44-AC6F16B21FD2@egyptig.org>

+1

Sent from mobile

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> (showing good example...)
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>> 
>> Dear PC members,
>> 
>> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
>> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
>> on this list:
>> 
>> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
>> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
>> the vote indication in the beginning.)
>> 
>> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
>> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Jan 25 15:14:57 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:14:57 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20170125131457.kfqqczuckugraamb@tarvainen.info>

Guess I should add that of course you may also abstain or vote for NotA
by saying so in whatever unambiguous way you want, and simply ignoring
this message until the end of the month will also work as count as an
abstention.

Tapani

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear PC members,
> 
> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
> on this list:
> 
> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
> the vote indication in the beginning.)
> 
> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen


From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Jan 26 01:05:01 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 23:05:01 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on IRP - If supported,
 to be submitted by 01/25
In-Reply-To: <20170123081136.efuo7wf5yr73dcms@tarvainen.info>
References: <BKYK0-BLzdwTaf-jh-9yIDpYvaeISnYEEI1O9GOtKphUhtCyPshUJu4xJ_SlppC0Kdpx9oQjYAQm9jfgxQks_H5hsoCJ2be9lWHIt40vBgI=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=XMGa+jvDaJWWhqycFRVt_Rko29mFLt_WU4NiwtK6_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <39518249-846c-81af-a7e3-ae3da354be7c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <fe0f11b6-ce58-1221-f278-f9718adf83af@cdt.org>
 <20170123081136.efuo7wf5yr73dcms@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <9cca853e-72a9-3f0e-dcc8-b19b6f37a659@cdt.org>

Comments were submitted this evening.  Thanks.


On 23/01/2017 08:11, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Likewise.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:49:28AM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>
>> Agree and support
>>
>>
>> On 23/01/2017 02:24, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> Me too!  great work.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> On 2017-01-22 19:47, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> thanks to Farzaneh and Milton for working on this statement and get
>>>> the public comment covered. Since there was discussion in NCSG list
>>>> and there was support (in addition to individual statements), I
>>>> endorse the statement for submission.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-01-23 4:20 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>      Greetings all,
>>>>
>>>>      Please find attached a proposed public comment on the Updated
>>>>      Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP).
>>>>      This response has already been shared on the general NCSG
>>>>      discussion list. Kindly consider reviewing this document and, if
>>>>      necessary, propose any amendments to the PC as a whole and the
>>>>      authors who are cc'd into this message. The deadline for
>>>>      submission is in three days time; 25 January at 23:59 UTC. Thank you!
>>>>
>>>>      Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>>      Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>      linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>>      NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>      NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>      https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>      <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
>> -- 
>> ------------
>> 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

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



From avri at apc.org  Mon Jan 30 02:01:53 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:01:53 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20170125131457.kfqqczuckugraamb@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
 <20170125131457.kfqqczuckugraamb@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <b0e9725d-ef9f-9884-4ee3-420cf21cc79d@apc.org>

Hi

Don't have a vote, but support for Rafik for a turn in the PC Chair.

He does get work done and has a good grasp of, and experience with,
bottom up practice..

avri


On 25-Jan-17 08:14, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Guess I should add that of course you may also abstain or vote for NotA
> by saying so in whatever unambiguous way you want, and simply ignoring
> this message until the end of the month will also work as count as an
> abstention.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
>> Dear PC members,
>>
>> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
>> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
>> on this list:
>>
>> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
>> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
>> the vote indication in the beginning.)
>>
>> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
>> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Mon Jan 30 10:39:07 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:39:07 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0yu+0ROS8CE_ZkuNHXoVjzcqco6V-vczjWBig8ci_hvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
 <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>,
 <CACpVkK0yu+0ROS8CE_ZkuNHXoVjzcqco6V-vczjWBig8ci_hvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521D66216BF5B2DA309A320F74B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

+1.
Given life is busy for everyone, and sometimes deadlines come faster than we like, I kind of like the idea of a small team supporting the chair (Rafik would be great for the task). Althogh.. the PC itself is already a small team... :-)
My two cents, Stefania

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Inviato: mercoled? 25 gennaio 2017 12.01.34
A: Tapani Tarvainen; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election

+1 to having Rafik as chair. Rafik's name does not need any further comment and praising, he has showed his competence and leadership throughout the years. He will be an excellent chair.

On my side, I apologise for the low involvement on the past two months. Since the IGF I have been involved on a massive research project, with interviews and field work, which forced me to shut down to other issues for a while.

A year ago, when we were conducting the PC elections, the situation was that we were confronted with no one else willing to do it. Matt, David and I formed a team of chair and co-chairs to fill the gap and keep the ball rolling. Now we are in a different situation, and I am very happy that we are not looking at filling the void with this PC chair election, but actually developing the conditions to leverage NCSG to the next level. With the support of NCSG members, Rafik is the right person to achieve this goal.

All the best,
Marilia


On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
+1

(showing good example...)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>) wrote:

> Dear PC members,
>
> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
> on this list:
>
> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
> the vote indication in the beginning.)
>
> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



--

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



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 wjdrake at gmail.com  Mon Jan 30 11:43:11 2017
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:43:11 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <b0e9725d-ef9f-9884-4ee3-420cf21cc79d@apc.org>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
 <20170125131457.kfqqczuckugraamb@tarvainen.info>
 <b0e9725d-ef9f-9884-4ee3-420cf21cc79d@apc.org>
Message-ID: <75E442AB-E137-418F-B9AE-C522B8660AFD@gmail.com>


> On Jan 30, 2017, at 01:01, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Don't have a vote, but support for Rafik for a turn in the PC Chair.

Same for me on both counts

Bill



From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Jan 30 15:42:50 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:42:50 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521D66216BF5B2DA309A320F74B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
 <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>
 <CACpVkK0yu+0ROS8CE_ZkuNHXoVjzcqco6V-vczjWBig8ci_hvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521D66216BF5B2DA309A320F74B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <11ae420c-c6f2-77c1-8cd7-3b52a9c86a99@mail.utoronto.ca>

I agree, lets be aware that we are a team here as PC.  Fully endorse 
Rafik to chair, but that does not let the rest of us go to sleep...we 
want him as leader not slave....

cheers steph


On 2017-01-30 03:39, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> +1.
> Given life is busy for everyone, and sometimes deadlines come faster than we like, I kind of like the idea of a small team supporting the chair (Rafik would be great for the task). Althogh.. the PC itself is already a small team... :-)
> My two cents, Stefania
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Inviato: mercoled? 25 gennaio 2017 12.01.34
> A: Tapani Tarvainen; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
>
> +1 to having Rafik as chair. Rafik's name does not need any further comment and praising, he has showed his competence and leadership throughout the years. He will be an excellent chair.
>
> On my side, I apologise for the low involvement on the past two months. Since the IGF I have been involved on a massive research project, with interviews and field work, which forced me to shut down to other issues for a while.
>
> A year ago, when we were conducting the PC elections, the situation was that we were confronted with no one else willing to do it. Matt, David and I formed a team of chair and co-chairs to fill the gap and keep the ball rolling. Now we are in a different situation, and I am very happy that we are not looking at filling the void with this PC chair election, but actually developing the conditions to leverage NCSG to the next level. With the support of NCSG members, Rafik is the right person to achieve this goal.
>
> All the best,
> Marilia
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> +1
>
> (showing good example...)
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>) wrote:
>
>> Dear PC members,
>>
>> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
>> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
>> on this list:
>>
>> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
>> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
>> the vote indication in the beginning.)
>>
>> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
>> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170130/6ba5aad0/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Mon Jan 30 15:47:37 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:47:37 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <11ae420c-c6f2-77c1-8cd7-3b52a9c86a99@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
 <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>
 <CACpVkK0yu+0ROS8CE_ZkuNHXoVjzcqco6V-vczjWBig8ci_hvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521D66216BF5B2DA309A320F74B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <11ae420c-c6f2-77c1-8cd7-3b52a9c86a99@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tAxAH4fB4x+xs9f5q1GEdOmBK+XSG=4Lvv3xRw=o-8jw@mail.gmail.com>

Concurred fully again +1 to Rafik, and am willing to help out as need be if
called.

Regards

Poncelet

On 30 January 2017 at 14:42, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I agree, lets be aware that we are a team here as PC.  Fully endorse Rafik
> to chair, but that does not let the rest of us go to sleep...we want him as
> leader not slave....
>
> cheers steph
>
> On 2017-01-30 03:39, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>
> +1.
> Given life is busy for everyone, and sometimes deadlines come faster than we like, I kind of like the idea of a small team supporting the chair (Rafik would be great for the task). Althogh.. the PC itself is already a small team... :-)
> My two cents, Stefania
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Inviato: mercoled? 25 gennaio 2017 12.01.34
> A: Tapani Tarvainen; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
>
> +1 to having Rafik as chair. Rafik's name does not need any further comment and praising, he has showed his competence and leadership throughout the years. He will be an excellent chair.
>
> On my side, I apologise for the low involvement on the past two months. Since the IGF I have been involved on a massive research project, with interviews and field work, which forced me to shut down to other issues for a while.
>
> A year ago, when we were conducting the PC elections, the situation was that we were confronted with no one else willing to do it. Matt, David and I formed a team of chair and co-chairs to fill the gap and keep the ball rolling. Now we are in a different situation, and I am very happy that we are not looking at filling the void with this PC chair election, but actually developing the conditions to leverage NCSG to the next level. With the support of NCSG members, Rafik is the right person to achieve this goal.
>
> All the best,
> Marilia
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> +1
>
> (showing good example...)
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>) wrote:
>
>
> Dear PC members,
>
> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
> on this list:
>
> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
> the vote indication in the beginning.)
>
> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is> <NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mar?lia Maciel
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
>
> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> Tel +41 (0) 22 9073632 <+41%2022%20907%2036%2032><tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> <%2B41%20%280%29%2022%209073632> |
> Email: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu<mailto:mariliam at diplomacy.edu> <mariliam at diplomacy.edu> | Twitter: @MariliaM
>
>
>
> 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 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://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170130/80b833fa/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Mon Jan 30 17:04:41 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:04:41 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <11ae420c-c6f2-77c1-8cd7-3b52a9c86a99@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
 <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>
 <CACpVkK0yu+0ROS8CE_ZkuNHXoVjzcqco6V-vczjWBig8ci_hvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521D66216BF5B2DA309A320F74B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <11ae420c-c6f2-77c1-8cd7-3b52a9c86a99@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <9f9be6cb-41ce-be40-febe-d0123ad26771@cdt.org>

I would prefer more transparency than less, so I am not enamored of a 
"small group" or similar.   We have a PC - lets use it more efficiently 
and ensure that we are all contributing.

Matthew


On 30/01/2017 14:42, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I agree, lets be aware that we are a team here as PC.  Fully endorse 
> Rafik to chair, but that does not let the rest of us go to sleep...we 
> want him as leader not slave....
>
> cheers steph
>
>
> On 2017-01-30 03:39, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>> +1.
>> Given life is busy for everyone, and sometimes deadlines come faster than we like, I kind of like the idea of a small team supporting the chair (Rafik would be great for the task). Althogh.. the PC itself is already a small team... :-)
>> My two cents, Stefania
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Da: NCSG-PC<ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>  per conto di Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> Inviato: mercoled? 25 gennaio 2017 12.01.34
>> A: Tapani Tarvainen;ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
>>
>> +1 to having Rafik as chair. Rafik's name does not need any further comment and praising, he has showed his competence and leadership throughout the years. He will be an excellent chair.
>>
>> On my side, I apologise for the low involvement on the past two months. Since the IGF I have been involved on a massive research project, with interviews and field work, which forced me to shut down to other issues for a while.
>>
>> A year ago, when we were conducting the PC elections, the situation was that we were confronted with no one else willing to do it. Matt, David and I formed a team of chair and co-chairs to fill the gap and keep the ball rolling. Now we are in a different situation, and I am very happy that we are not looking at filling the void with this PC chair election, but actually developing the conditions to leverage NCSG to the next level. With the support of NCSG members, Rafik is the right person to achieve this goal.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Marilia
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> (showing good example...)
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>) wrote:
>>
>>> Dear PC members,
>>>
>>> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
>>> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
>>> on this list:
>>>
>>> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
>>> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
>>> the vote indication in the beginning.)
>>>
>>> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
>>> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170130/3fa8a134/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Jan 30 19:45:07 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:45:07 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
In-Reply-To: <9f9be6cb-41ce-be40-febe-d0123ad26771@cdt.org>
References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info>
 <20170125091057.v3p2i3cjuak2xrar@tarvainen.info>
 <CACpVkK0yu+0ROS8CE_ZkuNHXoVjzcqco6V-vczjWBig8ci_hvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521D66216BF5B2DA309A320F74B0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <11ae420c-c6f2-77c1-8cd7-3b52a9c86a99@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <9f9be6cb-41ce-be40-febe-d0123ad26771@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <9164f61d-0684-2e0b-14ac-c61d78dff5e9@mail.utoronto.ca>

exactly

SP


On 2017-01-30 10:04, matthew shears wrote:
>
> I would prefer more transparency than less, so I am not enamored of a 
> "small group" or similar.   We have a PC - lets use it more 
> efficiently and ensure that we are all contributing.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 30/01/2017 14:42, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> I agree, lets be aware that we are a team here as PC.  Fully endorse 
>> Rafik to chair, but that does not let the rest of us go to sleep...we 
>> want him as leader not slave....
>>
>> cheers steph
>>
>>
>> On 2017-01-30 03:39, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>>> +1.
>>> Given life is busy for everyone, and sometimes deadlines come faster than we like, I kind of like the idea of a small team supporting the chair (Rafik would be great for the task). Althogh.. the PC itself is already a small team... :-)
>>> My two cents, Stefania
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> Da: NCSG-PC<ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>  per conto di Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>> Inviato: mercoled? 25 gennaio 2017 12.01.34
>>> A: Tapani Tarvainen;ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Call for votes: PC Chair election
>>>
>>> +1 to having Rafik as chair. Rafik's name does not need any further comment and praising, he has showed his competence and leadership throughout the years. He will be an excellent chair.
>>>
>>> On my side, I apologise for the low involvement on the past two months. Since the IGF I have been involved on a massive research project, with interviews and field work, which forced me to shut down to other issues for a while.
>>>
>>> A year ago, when we were conducting the PC elections, the situation was that we were confronted with no one else willing to do it. Matt, David and I formed a team of chair and co-chairs to fill the gap and keep the ball rolling. Now we are in a different situation, and I am very happy that we are not looking at filling the void with this PC chair election, but actually developing the conditions to leverage NCSG to the next level. With the support of NCSG members, Rafik is the right person to achieve this goal.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> Marilia
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> (showing good example...)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear PC members,
>>>>
>>>> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak,
>>>> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly
>>>> on this list:
>>>>
>>>> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with
>>>> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep
>>>> the vote indication in the beginning.)
>>>>
>>>> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted,
>>>> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170130/5a4312cc/attachment.htm>